Reviews

I wasn't sure what to think up to about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way through the film, but once everything became clear, my mind was blown. As someone who constantly ruminates over the grand ultimate, I found this poignant tale of one interesting possibility, thoroughly grounded in humanity, gripping and profound.

The leads were very nicely characterized and the musical score was seamless and always apropos. For those who have the ability to pay attention to details in films, the ride is worth it with this one. There are clues throughout that may or may not lead one to the correct determination, but in the end, all is explained.

I would caution those deeply rooted in any form of mainstream organized religion or school of philosophy, you may very well come to dislike this film once the plot culminates.

There are a few things that typically ruin micro budget Indie films: A terrible script.

Terrible acting.

Technically lacking execution.

This film is solid in all those respects and even though the premise is something we've seen before, it has its own unique edge that makes it VERY watchable and in my opinion - riveting.

My only hope at this point is that the filmmakers try to be a little more original when germinating their future film projects, but this is definitely a solid film.

I watched this all the way through one night until about 2am and couldn't look away. Dominique Swain is phenomenal as the lead in this film and I have to say, I've yet to see a better portrayal of Southern white trash than that depicted by Swain and her counterpart. To use a film review cliché (that I hate), Swain "sizzles" in this film. There are SO many layers to her performance, I'm dumbfounded as to why she's not being cast in more mainstream films.

The writing in particular has some really nice poetic aspects to it which were a welcome element.

All aspects of the film are top notch - writing, score, production design, cinematography - it's ALL good.

.

Yes, I said it. Perfect. No, it's not a Hollywood blockbuster and it's not populated with A-list actors, but it's pitch perfect and has the best possible balance of cast and story brought to life with a subtle hand.

Judy Greer is a joy to watch on screen and I looked forward to every moment of her in this film.

If you don't need action and fireworks and gun-play and are a fan of great writing, acting, and great filmmaking, this is for you. I hope it makes it into a theater near me because I'm definitely seeing it and will be dragging some friends with me because I know they'll appreciate it.

When I first saw the Vincent Dooly audition tape a year and a half ago, I had no idea that was an actor, acting. I mean, I suspected it, as one must do these days, but Andrew Bowser's performance in it as a quirky, wannabe inventor talking to the camera as a hopeful subject of The Mother of Invention documentary - is palpable.

The Mother of Invention is similarly palpably entertaining as so many films try to be.

The balance achieved in casting as well as the thoughtful direction and editing renders the performances and the writing in the best possible light, with Bowser bringing the plight of goofball inventor Vincent Dooly to the screen not as a cartoon character, not as a one-note schtick artist, and (thankfully) not as a series of tiresome improv.

There IS a delicate balance achieved with respect to the story of Vincent Dooly (inventor) that never veers too far into silly territory, and never too far into poignant-land, all the while weaving poignancy and silliness into a compelling Indie effort that had me with it until the very end.

The entire cast should also be commended for their effort and I thank them for not throwing the lines out, phoning their performances in, or letting ego get in the way of the story and the film.

This film, obviously a low budget Indie effort is about as good an effort as I've seen in recent years, and I sincerely hope it can invent an audience for itself, because it deserves one.

I've been a huge fan of Mann's since Miami Vice and Spinotti is one of my favorite DPs.

That said, I find myself struggling to understand the aesthetic for the cinematography of this film. It's underlit, with a lot of pure black dominating the frame in almost every scene. Night exteriors are severely underlit and even night interiors lack detail in shadow areas to the degree that it just looks like a mistake.

The hand held camera work is shaky, but not shaky in a good way. Many closeups and medium shots of people delivering dialog have sudden spastic shakes and just are generally awkward. I'm a huge proponent of hand held shooting and thought The Constant Gardner was a very good example of this style of shooting while this film had a lot of ugly camera work in general that I would never expect to see in a big budget studio film.

The overall "look" of the film with its TV news-video feel was off putting and made me feel (constantly) like I was watching a low budget film shot on some old analog video camera. When I take the time and spend 10 bucks to see a movie in the theater, I want it to LOOK like a movie, not a student film.

The skin tones were hideous, looked very harsh, and screamed VIDEO every time I saw a closeup of an actor.

Did Mann and Spinotti spend only 1/10 of their lighting budget and pocket the rest?

Are Mann and Spinotti "breaking new ground" with a brave new gritty approach?

I just don't know.

I just finished watching this and I thought it was very good. I watch at least one movie every day and I have to say, this film was very good but not perfect. I'd attribute the 1/10 votes on IMDb to haters only. Almost no film deserves a 1/10 and unfortunately fans will vote 10/10 to counter the bullsh!t 1/10 hater votes.

As for the story, of all the 6 Billion people living on Earth, I think it's quite possible that there are characters and situations such as those depicted in this film. Sorry to those who think it was unrealistic, but I do believe you've been conditioned to expect only certain hackneyed situations and characters in movies. I'd take THIS kind of film/story over the cliché bullsh!t of "guys with guns" that neophyte filmmakers seem intent on propagating.

It was hard to watch at times but it was worth it.

Great soundtrack. Great leads. Great casting. Great writing. Great direction.

I was a little confused by the casting of Tom Arnold. I'm not sure, since his role was so small, what good it does to cast a known celebrity in a film full of unknowns. He kind of stands out like a sore thumb at a time in the story where you really shouldn't be distracting from the storyline.

I'll be looking for more films from this director.

I honestly do not understand the purpose of this film.

I mean, who among us is not already painfully aware of every event depicted in this film (and more?)

Do the filmmakers really think this stuff isn't common knowledge by now?

It's not as if they brought forth a compelling heretofore ignored issue regarding the illegal war in Iraq. Not at all. Rather, they chose to capitalize on one of the most heinous (and isolated) crimes committed by individual troops in Iraq. So who cares? It happened. We already know this.

Just with my limited knowledge of what's happening in Iraq, I can come up with a half dozen more relevant topics for an Iraq war film:

1) Where are the BILLIONS of U.S. tax dollars "lost" in Iraq.

2) Why were U.S. troops burning people alive with white phosphorous in Fallujah?

3) Why won't the UN allow the Iraqi people to clean up the 300+ tons of depleted uranium on the ground there?

4) How many more innocents have died since the U.S. occupation of Iraq as opposed to those killed under the rule of Saddam Hussein?

5) What is the honest opinion of U.S. troops regarding the illegal war in Iraq?

6) Where is Usama bin Laden?

Of all Iraq war movies made during the Iraq war, this is easily the most pointless and least compelling.

I'm not sure how I feel about this movie. About half way through, I couldn't help but think "This is the movie, "Million Dollar Baby" wishes it could be." Rife with intertwining plots and subplots, all populated with fascinating characters all represented by the brightest and best Hollywood has to offer. Why do I compare it to "Baby"? Only because, when I think of Best Picture awards, this is far and away what I'd expect rather than "Rocky" meets a "Lifetime Original Movie." That being said, I'm still not sure what I think about "Crash." Having seen Magnolia, and Amores Perros, I can't help but be reminded of those particular treatments as I watch "Crash." Sure there are plenty of stories involving synchronicity and chance events all involving a certain group of people who don't know each other, so I suppose it doesn't matter that it seems familiar.

All issues explored in "Crash" are relevant and very much deserve to be exploited in any way. I can't wait to read negative user comments to see why I should not like this film, because I think I really do like it a lot.

All the characterizations were nicely done. The casting involves a balance of talent and obvious beauty. None of the female leads were anything less than super hot in my opinion. The male leads similarly involved very good actors who happen to be very handsome. Oh well. Gotta fill those seats. Nobody wants to see average or ugly people on screen for 2 hours... I can excuse that since this is a product of the Hollywood system.

Even so, this film still had a certain gritty edge to it that absolutely worked with the narrative. All the intimate moments were suitably handled and any extraneous elements were absent. The score is very good. The acting and direction is right on. The editing is off the hook. The production design is seamless and awesome.

I believed and I cared and I was moved.

I'm usually able to judge the quality of a film by seeing the trailer.

Especially a studio film.

It seems fitting that Catwoman (2004) was directed by a visual effects director. Why in the world would an Oscar winning actress choose to do this garbage? Is there a story? Does anyone care (besides Berry?) How's the popcorn? Is that Ray sitting over there? Do you remember where we parked?

This film needs to die a horrible death so Hollywood can get with the program and stop making so much junk that panders to the bottom level of moviegoers.

I could have made 100 great films for what this tripe cost in P&A budget alone.

I found this film to be a bit infuriating. For all its nuance, subtlety, and smartness, the writers sure made some odd decisions regarding a few plot points.

SPOILERS AHEAD>>>>>>>> First off, the whole premise is ridiculous. I find it laughable that a beautiful woman like Maria Bello's character would "fall in love" with a decrepit loser who's obviously like 15 years older than her.

Especially in a place like Las Vegas where any number of good looking rich guys can be found. Only men write stories that involve beautiful women who fall in love with geeks.

Macy's decision to shell out huge cash to his loser son was met with nary a whimper from Macy's squeeze, who must hate the son by that point after the son propositioned her.

They played around with the good luck/bad luck thing far too much.

I could see someone's luck changing once, but I don't think your luck can just flip flop ad nauseam like it did in the film.

The ending had me scratching my head and I think I even threw something at the TV. At the moment the grim reaper (a cop) is about to cap Macy and Maria (I can't even remember their character's names), a car hits him. How this is physically possible is a mystery to me.

Then Macy runs over to the crashed car (sans smoke or fire) nearby, pulls out a beer can and proclaims "They were drunk!" I think maybe the writers were drunk when they wrote The Cooler.

I only bought the dvd of Trash because I have a thing for Jaime

Pressly. But this film turned out to be pretty damn good despite a

few dubious plot issues. The lead actors were very good and I

found myself getting caught up in the struggle of the two white

trash small town buddies. Their angst was right there without

hitting you over the head. In fact, the performances were all right on

even from the minor players. Thankfully, this film wasn't too

"Hollywood", but it seemed to veer into Movie of the Week territory a

few times. The visual treatment was very good and captured the

essence of the place and time.

First off, it's wayyyy too long. I want my three hours back. The first

and most important rule of filmmaking is, "Don't bore the

audience." As such, the attitude should be to get to the point and

move on. Sayles gets to the point, but then he doesn't move on in

this story. Characters spend wayyy too much time reminiscing and

recounting the past. It gets downright boring. I'm all for exposition,

but Jesus H. Christ, there such a thing as too much exposition.

There were a few interesting characters that were involved in

subplots that never got resolved. And I'm not a big fan of fake

southern accents in general. I don't think I'll remember much about

this film after a time.

I waited and waited for something to happen. I waited and waited for some

theme or persuasive theory to emerge. Neither happened. I saw some nice

scenes here and there, but saw no cohesive plot that could be called unified. There was a lot of potential here, but no point at all. It's a shame really.

Performances were great, and the production value was there. But there's

actually no point to the story. I can't imagine what those actors were thinking when they agreed to do this because this film could never have had any

commercial potential whatsoever.

Plot outline ahead... possible spoilers.

I'm sure this film was a huge sensation in Germany, but I think maybe it just wasn't meant for an Amercian audience. The premise was really cool; A woman's life is saved by a stranger who turns out to be a damaged ex soldier. She tracks him down after recovering and lets him hide out in the mental institution she works and lives in after she unwittingly aids him in escaping a botched bank robbery.

The story lost some steam and got a bit draggy and unfocused about half way through. Not to mention some plot holes that had to do with the fact that there were only a few people (and only ONE security guard) working in a large bank in a good sized German city.

I think the story spent way too much time with the mental patients and not nearly enough with the main characters.

Gummo director Harmony Korine treads the same ground that faux documentarian Mary Ellen Mark built her photography career on. Take agreeable white trash, freaks, and assorted fringe characters and pose them to suit your vision. Half documentary and half narrative, Gummo actually kept me interested in what was going on. Or at least interested enough to keep watching. Unlike the unwatchable "Kids", Gummo's mixed formats and interstitial moments of narrated observations on a cavalcade of white trash, was enthralling.

It's like watching a train wreck right in front of you. It's ghastly and terrifying, but you won't stop watching.

I'm sorry, but Eric Stoltz could easily be dispatched with a single

kick to the gonads. I find it hard to believe that he could hold two

fully grown adults at bay, regardless of the brain hammer.

This movie showed some promise but I expected it to have more

back story. There was only a hint of the creepyness that Dale

Massie had in his past. And hello??!, coordinated snake attack

indeed. Not to mention the stoopid showdown scene at the end.

As thrillers go, this one missed the mark. It would have been

served better by having the antagonist talk less about what he was

going to do, and be seen less.