treeline1
Eli Michaelson (Alan Rickman) is arrogant, narcissistic, and an all-round pig of a man. When he wins the Nobel prize in chemistry, his wife (Mary Steenburgen) and son are expected to join him when he is presented with the two million dollars. Instead, his son is kidnapped and held for ransom for that exact amount.This is a perfect indie film with a bizarre script with endless twists and turns, excellent actors in quirky, often off-putting roles, a loud, funky soundtrack, and a pace that's so quick you'll need to see the movie twice to absorb it all. The ensemble cast is headed by Alan Rickman at his sarcastic best, wallowing happily in his role as a heartless husband and father. He's wonderful. Steenburgen's role is never fully explained; why would she stay married to such a beast? Bill Pullman is great as the cop who investigates the kidnapping. He's sympathetic, professional, and ultra-creepy all at the same time. Bryan Greenberg is good as the kidnap victim. Danny de Vito and Ted Danson round out the cast in small parts.The exciting script will keep you guessing and the acting is top-notch. Recommended.
rwtmoore
This movie demonstrates everything that's wrong with Hollywood.The overall story isn't that bad; it's the execution. This movie is filled to the brim with myriad plot holes, implausible situations and dialog, lame humor and laughable attempts at poignancy. And if that's not bad enough, it's also crammed with clichéd sound effects, unrelated trendy music and an array of un-called-for camera tricks and 'cool' editing. There's so much absurd stuff here, it would take me hundreds of pages to explain it all. Almost every aspect of this film is so implausible, that right from the start I could not suspend my disbelief.It's as if the filmmakers decided to use every cool camera movement and editing that they ever saw and shoehorn it into this movie. That, coupled with the bad music choices, make the tone of this thing jump all over the place. It's disjointed and lacks a unified feel.Why are the characters introduced with typing across the screen? This is a pathetic cliché that goes back to espionage type movies, so why is it here? Who's documenting the case? This movie doesn't know what it wants to be. It tries desperately to be Frank Capra, Alfred Hitchcock, Spike Lee and Quentin Tarantino all rolled into one and it just doesn't work. Barkley narrates at the beginning and end of this movie. If it is supposed to be seen through Barkley's eyes, then we've been cheaply duped, because a ton of stuff has been left out that would have been shown to the audience. You can't have a character narrate and then hide what he sees and hears from the audience. It's a cheap trick.The tip of the iceberg of plot holes and implausibilities: What is the purpose of the gardener character? He could be removed and the story wouldn't change one bit. And why was he murdered? It seems absurd that they'd kill him just to vacate the apartment. These are supposed to be brilliant people; wasn't there a less illegal, less violent way to accomplish that? And what's with linking OCD with electric cars? The filmmakers often try to make a correlation between things that don't correlate. The Pat Benitar thing was a sad attempt at making a poignant link between the brothers. And how convenient was it that he left City Hall's apartment without his shoes. No one I know has ever been in that much of a hurry. He couldn't just carry them along with his shirt? Like so much of this script it's unbelievably contrived.If there's been four thumbs taken in the last month wouldn't it be on the news? Wouldn't everybody know about it? And, if so, why is it crucial to send a thumb, to show you mean business, when everyone knows it's probably not the kidnap victim's thumb. And how did they get the Mini-Cooper in the apartment? Where did the brothers meet and plan it all? How did they know about each other? And Eli's dialog about molecules luminescing is over-the-top sophomoric.Thaddeus spends a significant amount of time telling us how much of a horrible person his father is. Then, instantly, he wants his father to be proud of him and he wants to follow in his footsteps. What? He wants to steal other people's work and mess around with grad students and other people's wives? And Barkley seems like a dork even after we're shown that he's some kind of evil genius. I know a heck of a lot of Phds and not one of them ever played a Gameboy. And his mother is proud that he's an evil genius, because I guess, she's kind of evil too, even though she appears to have lived a successful and upstanding life for the past 50-odd years. Another cheap trick. OK, we get that people aren't all bad or all good. What a revelation. I think I got it when I was ten years old. And just in case we didn't get the message, Barkley actually tells us that during the opening credits.Fortunately, City Hall lit one hundred candles near her bed on the roof, just in case, she brings home Barkley, virtually a stranger, many hours later. And wouldn't it be funny if Barkley woke up in the morning and stretched, but forgot that he was naked and outdoors in bright sunlight and somebody saw him. Hilarious. If I was twelve years old again. Who's ever heard of moo-shu? I've been eating moo-shi for longer than Barkley's been alive.And we're spoon-fed embarrassing amounts of exposition: Thaddeus chronicling the gardener's history, Eli's history, etc. And just in case we missed the fact that City hall has done something twisted, don't worry, because right after she does it, a song is played that tells us that she's a twisted girl. And Barkley tells his whole personal situation to a clerk at a café. It's ridiculous. I've never seen such bad exposition. It's just lazy writing it really insults the intelligence of the viewer.There's the poetry reading place, where predictably, everyone's poetry is ludicrous, except, of course, City Hall's. I mean, this gag's got whiskers on it.And what's with the twisted logic of Sarah, "I hope it's Barkley's thumb. If it's somebody else's thumb then the kidnapper is a calculating psychopath." So, by that logic, if the kidnapper cuts off Barkley's thumb, then he's a psychopath, just not a calculating one. OK, I'll be on planet earth if anybody needs me.You can't tell what's going happen because you're not given enough information. They've stacked the deck where you can't possibly figure it out and by the end there's so many ridiculous and implausible situations that you don't care. A mystery must include all the info needed to get it. Otherwise, it's cheap trick, which is what this is.
princess_t_storm
i was expecting this to actually be good because of a positive review by a critic who knows film and writes for my local paper. i'm surprised at just how bad it is. first off, the lighting leaves much to be desired. it's far too dark throughout the film. i'm sure this is on purpose, for some reason. second, the editing. lots of scenes in this film are shot like a music video, with quick editing and electronic music playing over it. it also doesn't cover up the flat direction that i believe is at the heart of this film. third, the music again. it's not just played in the quick-edit montages but throughout more static moments in the film. it does not help the film, in my opinion. also, i don't believe that it adds the sense of excitement that i think it is probably intended to. although with a film this uninvolving and flat i don't know that there's any music that could have helped. but the electronica seemed a bad choice. also, there's little to no character development. i really didn't care what happened to any of the characters after a while, so i stopped watching. all in all, i found this film to be a sub-mediocre disappointment of an attempt at quirky black comedy. i give it a 2 because it has some good-to-decent acting despite the uninspired, flat direction.
