Johnny Skidmarks

"Johnny Skidmarks" does not seem to know exactly what it wants to be - it crosses a number of genres, from black comedy to thriller. As it turns out, none of the genres it dabbles in are particularly well accomplished. It's not funny, not thrilling, or insightful. The main problem with the movie, as my summary line points out, is that it's too soft and low key. This particularly goes for lead actor Peter Gallagher - he is so lacking in emotion (ANY emotion) for most of the movie that it's hard to get a handle on his character. But the movie's story is also weak. It's extremely slow moving and filled with unnecessary fat. There's also fault with the twist about two-thirds into the movie, which is not only predictable to a good degree, it depends on the characters being extremely stupid. The only interesting thing to be found in the movie is seeing a pre-fame Jack Black, though his scenes only add up to a few minutes of the total running time.

forget about all the bad things you may or may not have heard about this one ,trust no one - but me. this is one fine film, enough said.

I was scopping out the new releases at the local Blockbuster, and I came upon the movie, Jonny Skidmarks. I read the summary on the back of the movie box, and I thought it would be good. I got home popped it into my VCR, and started watching, the beginning and end were really good, but the middle of the movie....well, it got a little out of wack, and slipped away and never came back. I say thought-provking because it makes you think, this really happens to a lot of people, not like other movies...letting the plot get too out of hand. But this movie did get out of hand, having your arms, legs, and head chopped off and laid where they are supposed to be on your body, but not actually attached, and in the shape of JESUS CHRIST on the cross. I don't think so. This movie was alright , for just one viewing, and will never be played in my home again, Frances Mcdormand needs to look at her Oscar and think to herself, 'I need to get better roles.' Over and out.

I found Skidmarks absolutely compelling. Peter Gallagher plays a crime-scene photographer with a sideline of blackmailing men who take his prostitute friend to motels. Gallagher, whom I've not much liked in other movies, does a terrific job as the numb, depressed antihero, unaffected by the crime scenes and accident scenes he photographs until his fellow blackmailers start turning up as victims. The movie is full of deadpanned quips and black humor (e.g., the exchange between McDormand and Gallagher when she's trying to pick him up in a hamburger joint. McDormand, cool and tough: "Do you have a name?" Gallagher: "Yeah. Do you?") The film is not flashy enough ever to have made it big, but the plot and characters are utterly original and the acting is uniformly excellent.

This film wants to be a black comedy, but doesn't quite pull it off. It's like the director every now and then said "Oh yeah, it's a black comedy. Do something funny now". It just isn't consistent. Watch "Fargo" instead. I think Frances McDormand was trying to reprise her wonderful role in that film and picked this loser. And John Lithgow is capable of so much better. Not bad but very ordinary.