Reviews

The only saving grace is the great soundtrack. It's a lot of fun, even if some of the songs were not released in the 1965 framework of the movie. George Lucas should have sued these guys for ripping off "American Graffiti". The move even has a third-rate DJ sitting in for Wolfman Jack. Fortunately, after spending $10M to film it, the movie grossed less than $200K. Hopefully, the director and producer never got involved in the film industry again. Many of the cast have had long and distinguished careers on TV and in movies. This early attempt has them over-acting and chewing scenery. Lots of yelling and screaming filling in for real emotions. Fortunately, this stinker of a movie did not affect their careers.

I disliked this movie intensely. I love Emma Thompson but, unfortunately, this celluloid suppository had her screen time edited to only a couple minutes. Two guys walk the Appalachian trail, sort of. Frankly, the last time I read about the Trail was when a conservative Congressman told his family he was hiking the train, when he was actually in South America cheating on his wife. That story is a lot better than this story. The Director and DP took a lot of obvious shortcuts. In one scene, our protagonists are on a dam. The electrical grid, below the dam, can be seen clearly. The time line advances a month, and the guys are now at the electrical grid. The audience is expected to accept that it's a new set. Talk about the willing suspension of disbelief. The cinematic shortcut of turning the camera 180 degrees, shooting another scene, and claiming that it's another time and another place is done frequently. I saw the movie only because a friend's mother recommended it. Beware of "cute" movies recommended by a senior citizen.

Similar to other confrontation shows (Jerry Springer, Bill Cunningham), the show is entirely scripted, and is a hoax. While working as the "Director of Security" for Jerry Springer, he was introduced as a Chicago police officer. He oversaw wild brawls, and never made an attempt to stop the altercation. Even back then, people wondered: "If he's a real police officer, and the brawl is real, why doesn't he intercede?" Exactly. Now, he has his own show, of bumbling, clumsy "actors", and outrageous plots and complaints. If any of this was real, state officials would arrest these people for prostitution, murder, assault, illicit drug sales, rape, and child endangerment. Watching this nonsense you're reminded that, no matter how bad your life is, you don't accept minimum wage to make an a$$ of yourself on TV.

Similar to many other shows of this type, the show is entirely scripted, using outrageous complaints, and people who simply cannot act. It's an embarrassment for anyone involved in its production. With excellent legal-based fare on TV, it's incredible that this nonsense has found any audience. In the episode that I'm watching currently, a guy claimed that his ankle was broken by another fraternity member, and he wanted less than $150 in damages. The first case involved a woman who claimed that her husband-to-be faked his death, and had no proof that an money was expended, or that any sort of promise had been made. As I mentioned earlier, absolute nonsense. The show is produced by "Entertainment Studios", an obvious clue that no one involved with this mess has any legal standing whatsoever.

Yet another scripted show, with a discredited former judge. From the LA Times: "L.A. Judge Is Removed From Bench Performance panel says the jurist used TV appearances to market himself for better job." ... Judge Kevin A. Ross -- the eighth California judge removed since 1995 -- was found to have "marketed himself as a judge in hopes that he then could leave the bench for a more lucrative career in television."

The Commission on Judicial Performance also held that Ross had 'trampled' on the rights of three defendants, including a woman he jailed for 2 1/2 days after tacking extra charges on to her case.

Ross improperly commented on a pending case on a public television show and lied in hearings and documents relating to his disciplinary charges, the commission found. ... Ross had been privately sanctioned by the commission...for abusing his authority and demeaning and humiliating defendants. 'As I have previously indicated, I accept complete responsibility for those specific actions that did not exemplify the highest standards of judicial excellence,' Ross said in a written statement. ... The commission also found Ross had misled the commission and fabricated stories during his defense. ... This case, the commission concluded, 'shows a shocking abuse of power and disregard of fundamental rights.'

One reviewer posted: "nicest bit of the film was the conservation angle about too much oil in boom times ruins the land for the future when they dry up." What a hoot! Evidently, this posted has mistaken the "conservative" and the "liberal" perspectives, and that certainly makes the poster a conservative. In reality, it's a liberal view not to waste natural resources - correct during the 20's time-frame of the film; true during the 40s, when the film was produced - and it is true today. The conservative perspective is to "take the money and run", that is: it's a flee market. Throughout the film, greedy conservatives are willing to destroy the environment, in order to maximize their profits. The liberals lobby for restraint and governmental regulation, to prevent the destruction of the environment. From a scientific perspective, the film is inaccurate. Specifically, uncompressed oil does not explode. Regardless, that mistake does not detract from the power of the film.

In American vernacular, "hustle" has several definitions. One of the definitions is "to cheat". Another reference is a type of dance, popular in the 70s disco craze. "American Hustle" is about a con job that is choreographed better than any dance move you can think of. The first screen capture read "some of this actually happened". The true part of the film is easy to recognize. During the waning days of the 70s, the US Feds operated a sting operation meant to capture corrupt US politicians. ABSCAM generated a lot of headlines and, if you're interested in the details, Google is your friend. The good part of the film, though, is a fictional story of how a couple of grifters get recruited by the Feds. Robert DeNiro is on screen less than a minute, in an uncredited role of a possibly corrupt casino owner, and he's substantially more menacing than his role in the execrable celluloid cesspool "Malavita". Jennifer Lawrence portrays a completely out-of-control wife, and her performance reminded me of Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf". This movie is a gem, and I highly recommend it.

H.L. Mencken wrote, "no one every lost money by under estimating the intelligence of the American public". That would explain every Bruce Willis movie since "Die Hard 3", and this movie. If you've seen the trailer, or read any reviews, you know what's up. Too, you've seen most of the action. Two arthritic, wrinkly beasts try their best to drum up some excitement, but Spielberg has already made "Jurassic Park". Pushing 70, what can these two dinosaurs possibly cook up? Stallone stumbles through the entire movie with watery eyes. I'm guessing that his contacts bothered him.

No one tried to make this movie as adequate entertainment. Not the director, producer, screen writers, or the actors. Fan boys have given it solid 9s and 10s, even before the movie was released. Their criticism leaves a lot to be desire, as most of their reviews are similar to "Stallone was a 5, Schwarzenegger was a five - that makes the movie a 10!" No, it does not. As an aside, I worked as an extra in "Shanghai" (directed by Mikael Håfström, the same guy who did this movie). I met him, his father, several producers, the Weinsteins, and the entire crew. In "Shanghai", several pieces of plywood were cobbled together as a makeshift ship. The magic of CGI turned the screen image into a believable craft. I think that Håfström used the same plywood - and CGI outfit - for the same effect here.

Let's be frank, I disliked this move. Robert Altman could make an ensemble movie, and Lee Daniels cannot. I like most of the actors that appeared in this movie, just not this movie. We can overlook most of the casting, though, Alan Rickman as an addled, confused Ronald Reagan was good. We can overlook that the story that Daniels tells had nothing to do with the real life character portrayed by Whitaker. It's difficult to overlook some of the episodic tripe, as it borders on spoof. Without going into detail, two characters walked down a darkened street, two gunshots rang out, and a famous black activist was killed off screen. The only way the audience has any idea of what had occurred was the screen caption.

There's a difference between a "movie inspired by real events", and a "documentary", and many obviously conservative reviewers on this forum have posted offensive nonsense. If every utterance and action does not meet their perspective, they whine as spoiled children. They're trying to redefine lives filled with hatred and bigotry as "meaningful".

The film was cast in several places, including Bangkok, Thailand. Along with dozens of erstwhile actors, I auditioned for a part. Knowing many of the final cast members, and others who were not successful, I got some inside information. The entire production process was incoherent. Casting was done in the worst of weather, during the Bangkok rainy season. Casting was done on rooftops while it was raining. More casting was done with thunder and lightning in the background. A portent of things to come. Accommodations for actors varied wildly. Some had to pay their way in Malaysia, and others had to pay for their own hotel. At least one actor was hired and, for his character, had his entire body shaved, and covered with henna tattoos. When he walked onto the set, he was dismissed, without explanation, and had to pay for his return to Bangkok. Worse, many of the actors and contractors were either not paid at all, or only paid a fraction of what was due. After the filming was completed, and the facts of KRU's lack of professionalism becomes apparent, I was happy that my audition was unsuccessful.

The movie is a wonderfully frenetic, dense, oblique collage of visual and verbal puns. Throughout, I was reminded of Terry Gilliam, Marc Caro, and Jean-Pierre Jeunet. A continuing character is "Jean-Sol Parte", and obvious reference to Jean-Paul Sarte. The movie makes the best of the absurdest existentialism of JPS, and attempts to translate it. It is exceptional. Some of the simplest scenes are the most effective. For example, Chick playing an extraordinary version of "Caravan" on a pianocktail, a contraption that combines a musical instrument and the abilities of a bartender. It's a magical film, highly recommended.

As an actor based in Bangkok, I'm waiting for a great Bangkok-based film to be released. This isn't it. A couple of my friends are actors in the movie, and a couple more were involved in casting, and they had their names on the screen. That's the good news. Here's the bad. This movie is slow, it drags, it's an absolute cheerless production. People don't just look at each other. They stare. Endlessly. Everyone stares. Endlessly. People stumble along, similar to zombie movies in the 70s. This movie is 100 minutes long, and it could have been 80 minutes if people cut their stares to glances, and if they would walk at normal speeds. Before I saw the movie, I read the reviews, and looked forward to a bracing revenge movie. Instead, I saw a troubling remake of "Eraserhead".

Easily, one of the worst movies ever made: the movie was out of focus for most of the picture, the lighting was terrible, the dialog was horrible, and the stunts and special effects were poorly done. Even worse, it appeared as if the entire movie was filmed without the use of camera tripods. In almost every scene, the cameras jiggled, and bounced. I'm guessing that the director and DP thought this effect would make the film seem more real, but the constant movement induced nausea and gave me a splitting headache. Although, the movie has a short running time, there's too much time between the opening and closing credits.

This is a truly abysmal film. I saw it on the "D-Movie Channel" in Phuket, Thailand. Since every movie that is shown on the channel is awful, I'm beginning to think that the channel title reflects the quality of their offerings. My guess is that very few people go to Phuket to watch TV, and the channel rents the most awful stuff cheaply. Everything in the movie has been exploited before, and it's done even worse here. Instead of a teen-aged girl with a spinning head, you have a puffy-haired, middle-aged man whose breath sets people on fire. Avoid this movie at all costs. Rather than betting that a movie you've never heard of might be good, you should watch "The Exorcist" again.

If this movie was a gas, it would be inert. Although "inspired by a true story", it's not all that truthful. However, that does not distract from the picture. What matters is that the "action/thriller/drama" contains very little of anything. This is not even a passable "popcorner". It is, however, OK to use as background noise if you are doing some ironing, or tidying up around the home. DeNiro has done so much better, it is a shame to see this trite, flat, boring waste of film stock. Too, it is difficult to see how bad DeNiro is physically. He had to wear a heavily-padded suit to portray Al Capone. He was in top shape for "Heat". Now, he's a puffy, overweight, pasty blob. He and Steven Seagal ought to get a discount membership at Weight Watchers. While living in Shanghai, China, I picked up a copy of the movie for the equivalent of $1.15 - I want my money back.

With the large ensemble cast, you might think this is similar to a Robert Altman film. Wish it were true. Garry Marshall has never been much for subtlety. In this movie, his only directions to the actors were "louder" and "broader". The only things that were missing was the splat of the cream pie, and an annoying spring-related "boing". Ms. Hathaway reprized her EA role in "The Devil Wears Prada". Unfortunately, with Queen Latifah doing her best Meryl Streep impression, it was more like "The Devil Wears Large, Cheap Sunglasses". There should be a warning to diabetic that this movie could induce a coma. Julia Roberts plays a soldier enduring a 17-hour flight, just to spend a day home. That's not "horror", that's just inconvenient. The fact that the incompetent Tommy Franks was allowed to retire with his four stars intact, is the real horror of war. The only high point of the film was a glimpse of the Frank Gehry designed Walt Disney concert hall.

"A ripoff of 'The Usual Suspects'". Oh , look at me. My eyes are rolling. Rather than use any intellectual energy, the clueless feel that the only way to summarize a movie, is to compare it to another movie. Let's see, the documentary reminds me of "the Holocaust". Instead of Jews, there are migrant Hispanic workers. Instead of Germany, it's California. Instead of Hitler, there's the former-lieutenant governor, Gray Davis. Instead of concentration camps, there are lines at the DMV. See, almost the same. For dolts, any movie with a twist and characters "aren't who they seem to be"...bingo (!), it just like "The Usual Suspects".

"The Usual Suspects" is a better movie, but "Slow Burn" is a lot of fun. It keeps you guessing, and that really upsets many movie goers. It certainly upset a lot of people who posted on this forum. Lots of discussion of why a white woman was used, rather than a black woman. If a black woman was cast, it would have been a different movie. I prefer Chinese women and, if Zhang Ziyi was cast, it would have been a different movie. For a mixed-race actress, Jennifer Beals would have been perfect. Unfortunately, she is too old to play an ingénue but, for the rapidly aging Roy Liotta, more appropriate.

Beware of movies where the same person is credited as the writer, producer, and director. It's an omen that should never be ignored. The general consensus is that this movie is terrible, and I have to agree. Unless this person inherited a boatload of money, hoe could he have convinced anyone to provide financing for it? I bought the DVD in Shanghai for $1US, and it's not worth that. At least there are captions...in both Spanish and in Chinese - nice! Check out an incredible continuity problem around the 50 minute mark. Freddy Jr is in bed, talking with Jez. Freddy has a huge tattoo on his right arm...next scene, it's missing...no, there it is again...wait, it's gone...it's back, again...Hilarious! If you need to vacuum the floors, or iron some shirts, this is the perfect DVD to have playing in the background to keep you company.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life, easily surpassing the extraordinarily atrocious "Revolver". According to the packaging, the movie is as clever and funny as "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels". It isn't. A killer comedy (there are killers in this comedy), the real crime is perpetrated on the audience.

There are many things that indicate a bad movie: bad acting, bad dialog, bad editing, bad music. How about "bad credits"? At the end of the movie, the musical production credits for "Don't Go Leaving Me Now" go to Andy cato. The following song, "Did I Dream", was produced by "Andy Cato". Nothing says "craptacular" as a movie that misspells the credits.

"Fortunately", I bought the DVD in China, spending about $1USD. Generally, I wouldn't consider stealing intellectual property but, referring to this movie as "intellectual" is a misnomer.

...would be more interesting than this. Other posters have detailed the plot, and I won't waste your time with another synopsis. The movie starts out well with some outrageous sight gags: the world's worse hair styling, and US currency printed with "TWELVE". Rather quickly, things unravel - not the plot, as there is none to speak of. There are scenes that were interesting. My favorite could be summarized as "the assassin cleans up". Other people have voted for the "the restaurant shoot-up where nearly everyone dies". However, this scene was better done in both "Scarface", and "Hard Boiled". Is this a "con" film? "House of Cards", and "9 Queens" are substantially better. Is this an "alter ego flick? "Fight Club" is better. Is this a "dream" movie? "The Machinist" and "Open Your Eyes" are much better. A "gangster" flick? "Good Fellas", and even Ritchie's "Lock, Stock..." and "Snatch" are much better. I guess Ritchie got tired of making entertaining movies about English crooks, and decided to make a pretentious, dreadfully boring movie about US crooks. There are scenes which you should never be forced to watch, as they violate both international agreement and constitutional protection against cruel punishment. Seeing Ray Liotta's paunchy, shaved body, clad only in skin-tight bikini underwear, gazing knowingly into another man's eyes...you wonder which team he's playing for - not that there's anything wrong with that. For most of the movie, Jason Statham is staring straight into the camera with the "what the hell is going on" look in his eyes - exactly the same expression you'll have after you see this. I picked this movie up at a Shanghai street market for the equivalent of 65 cents (US) - I overpaid. The subtitles are in English, but have nothing to do with what's happening in the movie (Ray Liotta's finger is shot off, and the subtitles read "I love downhill skiing!"). If you were deaf, and read the subtitles, you wouldn't have any idea of what's going on - exactly the experience if you listen to it in English.

One of the worst movies either Jackie or Shu Qi have done. Despite what another reviewer posted, the fight scenes are nothing special. Shu Qi, is not "gorgeous" - simply an attractive Chinese woman. As with many Chinese martial arts movies, it is filmed in Cantonese (Jackie's native tongue) and dubbed in Mandarin (Shu Qi's native tongue). Lips move out of sync with the dialog - very sloppy.

The only interesting aspects...as usual Jackie uses his stunt team for minor characters and as extras. See how many familiar faces you can spot between this movie and "Rush Hour". One scene pokes fun at the Black-Sholes equation and its namesakes. Another scene has two Chinese pretend to confuse Shu's boyfriend as Chow Yun Fat, and steal his luggage.

There have been many movies based on comics: Superman, and Batman preceded "Sin City" by 20-30 years, and there's the current rash of Marvel offerings. M. Night Shyamalan's "Unbreakable" is a near comic book characterization. Until now, perhaps "Dark City" is the closest to come to an actual comic. Based on Frank Miller's "graphic novels" (OK, "comic books"), this is the first movie that has the power, the look, and the feel of a comic book. Other posters will post a point-by-point plot of this movie, and it's not necessary to do so. This is a graphically violent film, with some very disturbing images - there are also also many laugh out loud scenes. Be forewarned: this is not a "date" movie, and certainly not appropriate fare for children.

Three stories are intertwined, juxtapositioning time and space just enough to keep you out of step. Scenes include 50's autos and plastic garbage bags, compressing time by 20 years. Perhaps it's a method to indicate that sin transcends time and space, race and age. Is it any coincidence that several of the major actors look like actors from other movies? Powers Booth reminded me of Gregory Peck in "Boys from Brazil". Rutger Hauer does a turn of Marlon Brando in "Apocalypse Now". With his cartoonish physique, angular face, and haircut, Mickey Rourke looks all the world as Kirk Douglas in "Spartacus".

The DVD will undoubtedly allow the directors a chance to discuss their individual and collective visions, and that will be a treat. The plot twists are sufficient to provide material for at least one sequel, and I can't wait.

The previous poster provided an adequate plot summary. Both the first and last 10 minutes are excellent: great fight choreography and wire work. Unfortunately, the intervening 80 minutes are as dull as the edge of town. One telling fact: in a scene there is a wall calender indicating "March, 2003". Generally, when a movie is produced, a calender reflects the expected movie release date. Apparently, this movie was filmed almost 3 years ago, and it has taken that long to edit - and this is the best they can do. This movie has been written, produced, and directly in England, France, and Scotland. There have been way too many people involved with this project. You should not be.