Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Flowbeer This movie wasn't very good. I think the director is the son of Edward James Olmos and that he helped his son out by playing a cameo in the beginning, maybe helping him get the job or with financing. Someone else commented how "wooden" the female Detective's acting was and I have to agree. Maybe the director was dating her and let her have the part, because she certainly had no ability, showed no emotion, zero projection, no command as a cop, etc. Just stiff, sullen, quiet, low-energy 'acting'.And then I see Tom Sizemore and he's slamming shots of tequila and acting out of control, which I like to see. But in general, it was a pretty weak performance, even by his standards. Here's a guy who has acted with the likes of Robert Deniro, Val Kilmer, Tom Hanks, etc. and was so down on his luck that he took this role as an out-of-control suicidal alcoholic cop, for probably pennies. I have always liked his work, but not so much in this one. Truly, he was the only reason I bought the DVD (he was on the cover), otherwise I never would have bought it. (Possible Spoiler)I like gritty L.A. gang/cop thrillers, but this one was far-fetched and hard to follow. The flashbacks that try to explain what happen to the victims, show the female detective, as if she was the one killing people? Then you're never really sure. About the only interesting part that held my attention was in the special features, where they interview Tom Sizemore about his career and what happened to it. He said he was doing great, had a $5 million home, and then some woman said that he hit her and then it all went away; he spent all his money defending himself in court, trying to avoid a prison sentence, and then was kind of 'blacklisted' by other actors & directors who didn't want to work with him. It's really quite a shame to see how easily people can be destroyed by allegations. Years back, I used to get Tom Sizemore and Michael Madsen mixed up. They have both worked in gritty film roles and have larger-than-life personalities and played bad guys very well. It seems that both of these great actors have hit hard times and I hope they both get their chance for a comeback. No one deserves to be broke & homeless, not even movie stars.

fedor8 An hour into this movie, and I thought "okay, enough now; this is as much as I can take of this crap." I haven't seen the ending, and I really don't care.This inept piece of garbage would have even Ed Wood splitting heirs over its numerous flaws. Olmos, who is I assume either the son or nephew of that other Olmos - the one that played in "Blade Runner" - made this amateurish junk, proving for the umpteenth time that nepotism doesn't work. Not in movies, not anywhere. Movie-making is not DNA-based.Awful acting, phony-sounding "ghetto dialogue", muddled editing, an ugly look, and a dull plot. What more can one want?

griesimatthew I liked this movie considering it was about gangs. Usually I cannot stand these types of movies however I found this tolerable. What I could not stand is the main female actress. She was supposed to be a hard a** personality but would break down crying over things that seemed to be not so important. The movie did not develop her character too well and yet a lot hinged on her. The male characters were good, but not great. It was typical of the gang movie style. I am not sure why this movie caught my attention though, usually I would loose interest fast and stop watching.There is something i liked and respected in this movie. I am not sure what is was but I will say this is a movie I probably would not watch a second time.

overherebuddy so, i've seen this at a preview screening. here's my commentary: i don't know how many people go to blockbuster, but i'm sure anyone who has, regularly, has noticed over the years, a slew of low-budget "gang" films. well, those movies hitting the shelves, seem to only bring to the viewer the basic, generic love affair, doubled with an attempt (a poor one) at the "tough feel" better captured by classics like "american me", and "south central". well, after actually renting a few of those, i'd say they were more than a let down, they were HORRIBLE. but then again, they WERE low-budget. i can go on about these titles, bad acting, bad editing, etc. and rarely, anything new brought to the table.with splinter, it seems (finally) someone decided to actually jump off the cheap bandwagon, and make more than just another "urban"/mi vida loca/boyz in the hood b-flick. the best way i've heard it described is "memento" meets a modern "blood in/blood out". sizemore fits his character so well, you forget he's not really a messed up cop. ed olmos' deadpan look and stern dialogue also do great in the story. the main "gangsters" themselves, especially "dreamer", also do a good job, portraying these characters as more than just average street criminals, but people with messed up lives.anyways, i definitely recommend this if you want to see a "gang life" movie with some good twists and turns, along with numerous scenes of gratuitous violence. this is one i wouldn't be surprised HBO picking up.