Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

kosmasp The movie does have a nice compelling B-movie flair to it. It works on many levels (especially if you like the movies this was obviously inspired by), but mostly in single parts. Put together something seems to be missing to make this stand out. But you can see that the guys who made this might be up to something. So as another reviewer also stated, good things will probably are ahead of us.The actors here are doing the best they can, but a real connection seems to be missing for the viewer. While the ideas themselves are well thought of, the piecing together of those ideas, might have been a bit faster than it should've been.

LeonLouisRicci A heist movie that has some style but the disjointed editing and the unbelievable premise smear the situation so that the view is overcast and the place is overly populated. The setting is just not believable and is an imposing impediment. Some quirky characters and visual gymnastics are a treat, but there is some superficial spoiling. There probably are a few to many psyches on display here that in the final analysis it's like a diagnosis dialed back from a 1-900 psychologist. This has pieces of talent at work and some artistic flair. However, while the initial viewing is visceral enough, the complete work will eventually melt away like ice on a windshield.A good effort from a low-budget crew and a feeling of better things to come.

Wizard-8 A word of warning to those who decide to watch this movie because Val Kilmer is prominently advertised on the DVD box. He actually only has two scenes in the entire movie, and his total screen time can't be more than three minutes. Actually, the movie has more problems than false advertising. For the first 30 minutes, the movie seemed to be going nowhere - just a bunch of scenes and characters that seemed to have no relationship with each other. If I hadn't read the plot description on the back of the DVD box and known what was coming, I would have been asking myself, "Just what is this movie about?" But after this bad beginning, the next thirty minutes are a big improvement. Showing the hotel robbery in action, these thirty minutes are interesting, suspenseful, and even have a little humor added in. I was entertained by this whole section of the movie.Unfortunately, the last thirty minutes of the movie quickly fall apart. This last part of the movie is slow-moving, often lacking explanation, and at one point relies on a wild coincidence to advance the plot.This movie doesn't work, though I wouldn't call it one of the worst movies ever made. That middle section is good, and the movie has a few other positive attributes like some good acting and some atmosphere by the snowy conditions of the winter setting. But even when you put all this positive stuff together, I don't think the movie is good enough to seek out (unless maybe you are planning a cinematic thriller of your own and want to see what NOT to do.)

torrentstorm By all the powers invested in me, could it be I am too dense to understand this movie? Could it be the noir theme that clouded my vision and imagination so that at 2:22, I saw but did not see? Could it be the continuous cold weather and snow of the movie, which reminded me of those dreary, lethargic days I spent in Russia years ago, opaqued my fiery spirit and made me slow to understand? Could it be the story was written in such a way that I kept leaping from one screen to the next looking for the missing links to put it all together? I understood, when beginning to watch the film, that this was a story about a heist gone bad, in fact, incomprehensibly wrong. But why? I couldn't tell; reasons were hard to grasp. For example, the story wishes to tell me that due to a couple of very small coincidences all hell broke loose, things that could easily have been even overlooked. Come on, now, unless the characters were possessed by some supernatural instinct, I do not see how they could have pieced things so quickly and accurately?Why exactly do we point at 2:22, when the time in question had little to do with the main story? The four main characters were supposed to be good thieves, going after highly valued jewelry and such. How exactly did they happen to know that The Grange Hotel would have all its safety deposit boxes loaded with goods on the night of New Year's Eve? I looked and looked at 2:22, but still at 2:23, SAW NOTHING! The grunge/new age music was good, yes, it lent an eerie effect to the movie, especially due to its dark nature. But then, why did we have Clair DeLune playing in the background during almost half the film? It became annoying after a while.The acting was one of the weakest points. None of the characters stood out, not even Val Kilmer in his role as the fence, which was pretty lame, I must add, considering Kilmer has played some major roles in the past. Most of the time I felt the people were waiting to be cued in so they could say their lines, because that's all they did - just say the lines. I remember at one point saying: "what is happening here? what's he doing? I'm lost". This looks like someone trying to put Max Payne together with The Usual Suspects. Honestly, Gabriel Bryne did nothing here, except look older, fatter, and tired.So, I call it 2:22 minus ½ (if there is such a time), because it was neither funny, nor logical, nor thrilling, nor dramatic, nor ... Aww, heck, you watch it if you want, and then tell me if I missed something at 2:22. For the life of me, I'm still looking but cannot see it.