Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Tim Kidner So says The Daily Mail as they not only want to give this film away as a 'freebie' with their newspaper, they are trying to make us want it too, because, this is a Michael Keaton, not Caine, film.Caine gets to shout 'bloody' again (as in his most famous ever line, in The Italian Job), this time about money he's owed, or he owes - not always sure who is pointing guns at whom, or why, the next, they're in a heap on the floor. Keaton is seemably always on the run, after setting off for south of France to dig up some info on some deal that's been flagged up as dodgy. Next thing, he's shot the Chief of Police, on Armistice Day, in a French town and everybody has seen him do it - and yes! there's a very convenient film crew who almost knew he was about to do it...The investigating police are dodgy as there's all sorts of cover-ups going on, to do with porno film rackets and illegal immigrants and such, I think..(nothing too explicit, cert 15).Anyway, this credibility straining movie, in old style 4:3 ratio has its moments, cannot recall too many of them, now, that it's finished, except Caine, who is really quite obnoxious, but in a Michael Caine sort of way - i.e - we know he's such a great guy in real life so we forgive him (& for his not-too-rare dodgy choices of film roles) as he gets to try strangling folk, with his bare hands as well as string, or rope, or whatever...Some of the French actresses are pleasing, both to the eye and their attempt at adding a different perspective to an otherwise quite unpleasant film.Never mind, this is still better than some Michael Caine movies out there and the transfer quality and sound is OK.

rightwingisevil keaton did a very unconvincing and heartless performance in this absolutely rubbish movie. his wrinkled face didn't show any emotion during the whole set. he's acting was so unbelievably bad and almost looked like out of place in every scene of this movie. the screenplay was extremely bad too. every twist of the plot was awkward and contrite. an accounting inspector from new york to investigate the discrepancies of the investment of an European movie company? guy behind the french/monaco movie industries involved in human trafficking? local cops involved in all the dirty business? Russian mafia, police corruption, hit-man, hired assassin....blah, blah and blah. then the guy would suddenly become so interested in getting the poster signed by a male star whom he thought already dead? in order to make the stupidly awkward scenario go along, the guy refused a full case of $$$cash bribery and let it slide, the next day checked out earlier without any reason, but then he still could receive the poster that the female chief financial officer of the movie company in front the hotel check-in/check-out counter by someone so timely, yet the female chief financial officer didn't know that he already checked out of the hotel?? you tell me if this kinda scenario arrangement was logically enough. if you do, then what can i say?

annevejb 1 This is a rough tough story, rated R in the USA. User comments at IMDb appear to be mixed. Some like this a lot. Some consider it weak compared to other stories in whatever genre they experience it as being part of. At least one considers the whole thing to be offensive for reasons of morality. I like it, but need untangling afterwards, there are real issues being tickled in this. The spoiler flag is because I am trying to muse on some difficult bits. 2 I experience the genre as Booby Buster. A spy – cops – gangster movie with bosoms that shine strong when their cute holders are busted. Some will consider such a genre to be immoral. Some will consider it to be a way to pass the time. Some will consider it to be a ball crusher, not for the squeamish. Some will not be surprised at a winking corpse. Hopefully there is scope for considering Quicksand to primarily be of a very different genre. 3 This as a sub genre, there are young people involved. I know other features close to this sub genre. One has a young Michael Caine. He travels to Newcastle because a relative has been killed and finds that the death was because a gangster had turned the early teen daughter to prostitution. I was too tied up by puritan ways when I saw this first to notice if there were bosoms. Modern times do make this feature stick in my memory, though. This might merit a different label to Booby Buster. Another is a spy story, a double agent who is not known as such, he climbs to the top of the Soviet spy world and is high in the USA spy world. Booby. He is putting the pressure on someone and has kidnapped most of the family to give himself pawns to use as pressure points. I did find this story a bit hot, okay. Modern times, it also sticks in the memory, for me. I assume that young people are needed for Quicksand to properly tell its story. That it is not gratuitous. Also, the Slavic pair do not shine, they cover and run. For me, a lot of modern Disney for kids is an equivalent to Booby B. Grit mixed with glam. 4 Sticking in the memory. As an underclass – big baby, I have been under long term pressure. Bratislava. On one side is pressure to follow puritan ways, my past makes me consider that to be a horrible way to be living dead. Quicksand. Becoming one of the countless grains of smoothed grit. On the other is pressure to – black bra and panties -, which for a fool is more like maroon bra and panties. Pressure to baby level in a lot of ways and ways to mature from baby level are regularly pruned. This is a different living death to the puritan way. Quicksand. To be able to watch a Booby Buster with no lingering trouble, I assume that one needs a mature and healthy sexual and social life and underclass cum big babies are under pressure for that to not be able to happen. Ever. This feature gives me lingering tangles that take a while to get a practical solution for. I still rate Quicksand, though I do not like such genre. The rough stuff with a girl and young women. One of the range of natural outcomes when Booby Buster cannot be faced okay? In part? Both sides as victims, everyone becomes grit? 5 This is my first UK DVD purchase from a La California second hand disk store. Three full weeks to arrive and a lot about this story is not bland. My disk rates an Oscar. I purchased it because it is a Clare Thomas, her of the 9ish Aggie of Madeline 1998. The term Booby Buster is from her in that role. Clare in Quicksand, very much an opposite to her others that I have. Those are fun and light, kiddie stuff, if with elements of the storyline of this one. In a way this fits her work well, just her bits miss out on the warmth that make the early work of such as her and Ashley Johnson stand out for me. The warmth here is grown up and comes from such as Michael Keaton, things are up side down. It is also an opposite in that she only appears occasionally. Clare at age 13, playing the daughter of the main actor, Keaton. Let down by dad, then kidnapped, if eventually rescued by dad she has every reason to say that reality is quicksand for this 13. She shines brightly in this, but I really prefer her other roles. 6 I like it that Caine is in this, just because of the genre echoes. He plays an aging actor who is not in tune with being a person, quicksand. But he can act. The non person appears briefly, in the early parts, later we are shown the other aspect. He has to cover a range of qualities and the weak is pure ham and the effective is extremely effective. It is easy to consider that he has a lousy script, but really it is just the role. 7Quicksand is not so far from the world of Anna Popplewell and Thunderpants 2001, which is a waste sort of thing. Instead of Caine there is Rupert Grint. It is not Booby B.

ianharvey777 Really, this movie is trash.The plot has more holes than Swiss cheese and the storyline is so lame I found myself laughing hysterically. I'm sorry, I could not suspend my disbelief for this one.My girlfriend rented it because she likes the two Mikes....I like 'em too but I swear they must have done this one for a tax write off or as a favour or to get out of some other contractual obligation.It was so bad I was looking at the credits to try and find out who funded it....it was so bad I thought it had to be a telefim Canada project or some other government body somewhere...which would explain the multi shooting units, Canada, US, Monaco and England.But no...someone put up good money for this bad display of cinematography. How it ended up like this is beyond me.I mean, there are some okay moments but it's like it was shot in another language and then translated....it just doesn't work.I got lost so many times as to what the story line was I gave up...and some of the linkages are so weak a six-year-old could have done better at show and tell.I'm not going to spoil it for anyone because I honestly can't bring myself to parrot the story line....with it's predictable ending.At one point though, I did think it was art imitating life imitating art, or was that life imitating art...never mind..the premise has something to do the illusion of movie making and how things aren't always as they appear to be, but it's done with such heavy handed direction and editing, it's a complete yawner.My advice? Unless you are a student of the form, stay away. If you are a student of the form, watch and learn what not to do.