|The killers come up
with a brainstorm while watching sensationalist TV - kill a few people, video
tape it, kill somebody famous, sell the tape to the media, then hire a high priced lawyer,
plead insanity, and get rich off the movie and book rights. Their
original killings lead the famous detective to them, and killing him
is the real media prize! They nearly get away with their scheme. The American
obsession with violence and the news media's lack of ethics are the
themes here, giving depth to what is a pretty good shoot-'em-up
The lighting, art direction and photography have a much
different look than 2 Days in the Valley, looking more like a European
DVD info from Amazon.
Widescreen anamorphic 2.35:1. Good
features: six deleted scenes, rare rehearsal footage, and
more footage from "Oleg's camera"
Loved it! It works as
a thriller; it works as social satire; and the two genres don't
conflict with each other.
I think it is an
excellent movie, working both as an entertainment flick and as social
commentary. Tuna's grade indicates that it is a superior genre flick
without crossover appeal. I think it is more than a good crime flick,
with appeal to a broader audience.
- It has a terrific
set of main characters which are developed beautifully. De Niro
and Edward Burns bring depth and humor to the roles of the
- You have to love a
movie that casts De Niro as a brilliant, likeable, incorruptable
cop, then kills him off.
- There is a great
sub-text. One of the killers is motivated only as Tuna described
above. The other one, however, gets sidetracked when he wants to
be a real filmmaker, hoping to turn the tapes into great cinema verite!
You see, while his friend might be a great businessman, he fancies
himself a great artist. I won't spoil the ending for you, but his
death scene is great!
- It has an
interesting skewed commentary on the public's and the news media's
obsession with violence, wealth, and fame, in which even the most
likeable characters are seeking the 15 minutes of fame that Andy
Warhol promised them. It covers the same territory as Natural Born
Killers, but more subtly and accurately. It uses satire and humor
imbued into real, believable characters and situations, without
resorting to lifeless grotesqueries and lunatic parody.
General consensus: two and a half
stars. Ebert 3/4, Berardinelli 3/4, BBC 2/5, Apollo 70.
summary. 33% positive overall, 42% from the
- With their
dollars ... it was a failure in comparison to
expectations. Made for $42 million, it grossed $24 million
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this
description, this film is a C+ (Tuna) to B- (Scoopy)