15 minutos

There was just about 1/8 of this movie that I took it seriously. I was cringing and feeling sick at the bloody slaughter of people throughout the film. I was embarrassed for the screenwriters when I couldn't tell if the movie wanted to be an action thriller or a dark satire (and the result was a foolish parody). There was frustration with the wasting of the talents of Charlize Theron and Melina Kanakaredes.

15 Minutes is such a dispiriting mess of a something-or-another. There are so many good things that get lost or wasted or used incorrectly. Only three things about this movie are done well. Whenever Karel Roden, the lead killer is smoking a cigarette, you swear there's a hallucinogenic drug in the tobacco--he just looks crazier with every drag. In between all the stupid twists and turns, there are a few that just leave you gasping with surprise and shock. Finally, the scene with Edward Burns and Vera Farmiga trapped in the apartment with fire advancing on them and the bad guys watching from across the street was one of the more suspenseful, yet not ludicrous set pieces I've recently seen in a movie.

Unfortunately, a smidgen of good here and there does not fill 121 minutes. When the parody is played out and the roar of ritualistic gunfire has dissipated, your left with nothing much more than a remake of David Bowie's "Fame" blaring in your ears.

Not a good note to leave on.

(59%) A real piece of all over the place Hollywood that shuffles itself around like a deck of cards every other scene. The main focus is not on DeNiro, or even Edward Burns, but on two eastern European maniacs who feature heavily throughout. What makes this so uneven is the tone. It starts as a crime thriller, then there's some breaking news exploitation satire with Kelsey Grammar, then DeNiro comes in turning it more into a cop action movie, then there's a series of quite sweet romantic scenes that come in between footage of the two bad guys filming themselves murdering someone making everything feel more than a little slapdash. Yet it sort of works mainly because everything happens so fast, and there's so much of it to get through. The fact that the cast is more than capable doesn't hurt much either, and it is quite well made too so you just sort of except the flaws as they arrive. It's just action cop movie thrillers, romance, a playful sense of humour, and snuff movies all mixed together doesn't create a great recipe for success.

This movie seems to divide opinions a lot and I think I understand why. It's a bit strange comnbination of different "moods" and styles which might make you feel uneasy. On the other hand it's a rather serious and violent crime thriller but then again there's playful humor in an "action comedy" style. The funniest are the villains who are also the wickedest. But I don't fully understand why some viewers give it bottom rating and some the opposite. I think it's a decent action thriller but I wouldn't call it either super good or super bad.

Robert De Niro is always good, and even though this might not be of his strongest films, he does good performance. I must admit I picked this dvd up just for De Niro's sake. He gives more quality to this movie that would otherwise be more forgettable. On the other hand the movie suffers a bit of being "De Niro movie" because he has such a great filmography and this kind of average movies easily pale in comparison to some of his masterpieces.

The story is interesting. Two criminals start to video tape their misadventures and want to become famous by filming their violent acts. I think the buildup of the story was the best but towards the end momentum slowed down a bit and did not reach up to all the potential. But the script was mostly quite good and creative. But I would have changed the mood a little bit. Maybe toned down the violence and increase the comedy aspect. I think the best part was one of the villains who is obsessed with filming everything even when chased by the cops! If there was more of that, it might have ended more in the Beverly Hills Cop genre. But instead we have this hybrid thriller that has maybe a little bit Tarantono feel.

Even though I was left a bit conflicted about how much I liked the movie, I think it has clever themes, asking how far would you go to become famous. I think I'm going to watch it again at least once sometime because I want to hear the director's commentary. Since he is also the writer, I can see he had a vision of some kind. I mildly recommend this movie to fans of Tarantino style humor and stuff like Lethal Weapon that is more about action but there's a little bit of comedy too.

15 Minutes is a thriller one needs to think about for a while, maybe even sleep on it, especially before writing any comments. I got the movie on DVD two days ago and I hardly couldn't wait to watch it, because I had already read quite a few comments, mostly negative one's, on it over the past few months. At first I was kind of disappointed. I was not the kind of movie I had expected. I was hoping to see a movie as great as `Heat' or `Ronin'. But one cannot compare these three movies. They are completely different. So I let my first impressions rest for a while and watched the movie the next day a second time. 15 Minutes is not as bad a movie after all. It has its good parts, though I would prefer some things to be different.

The movie clearly shows how greedy and immoral the media can be if it comes to win ratings and get some money, even though it appears to be overdone in some parts. `Bad news is good news!' That is how it has always been and that is how it will always be, as long as there is an audience. Who would watch a news channel with only good news? People want sensation, even though they don't want to admit it. But there is certainly a limit to what the media should broadcast. In this movie the media exceeds this limit by far. Furthermore the film quite well points out the problem with the insanity plea. Some critics say the film glorifies violence, which is not right. The two bad guys in this movie are so ugly and their crimes are so heinous, one cannot but loathe their deeds. I also want to mention how well chosen the cast is. Robert DeNiro is, as always, brilliant is his role. His performance is definitely the highlight in this movie. The action scenes are very well done too.

What I didn't like is the way the story goes in some parts. For example how the two criminals get access to Eddy's (Robert DeNiro) apartment. A famous detective just doesn't make a stupid mistake like this. Then the bad guy Oleg with the digital camcorder acts just way too silly, which lets him appear rather unrealistic to me. Even though he is meant to be crazy, his stupid behavior goes way too far. His character can not be taken seriously. Edward Burns as the arson investigator also has to act a little too unprofessional at times, which doesn't add anything positive to his character's credibility. All this gives the whole story an unrealistic touch from time to time, which is very sad. In general I don't like a movie to be cut down just to get it to an 2-hour length. Most of the time I prefer to have the deleted scenes put back in again, but this movie is really better off without them. The final scene has an interesting twist, but the coincidence with Nicolette is just too farfetched. Oleg's final appearance looks ridiculous and doesn't fit into the whole tragic, unless it were supposed to be a comedy. It is a tense thriller, with some suspense, though only two scenes really kept me on the edge of my seat. I also missed scenes introducing some more the characters played by Robert DeNiro and Edward Burns.

Nevertheless I rank it a 7 out of 10.

Now, firstly, I found the movie to be a pretty tense and rough one. The idead behind the film showed itself thoroughly in the secomd half and it was less subtle and more definitive then it should be, but i still think its good to have such ideas in a Hollywood movie. Second thing, the camerawork of this movie is awesome, finaly moviemakers are regressing from the typical steadicam widescreen bombastic camera shots and arre returning to the "amateurish" and personal level of camerawork. But the thing that I REALLY want to state here is this : you guys are crazy arent you ?!?! Ive read some of the comments and all Ive seen is how Robert DeNiro and Edward Burns were the stars of the movie...I even read that the movie lost appeal once DeNiro´s character was out of the way...NOW what a bulls***...yes DeNiro made his high standart performance no doubt, Burns was also FINEEE...BUT how can you not notice that the two psychopats were the showstealers here...I dont know Oleg Taktarov as an actor but he gave soul in his performace..and Karel Roden (yeah..I know im from Czech republic myself, but Im being realistic), hes one heluva actor and it SHOWS here...his character is not only a violent psychopat, he looks at the american society through the tv screen and what he sees makes him try his luck....a smart villian indeed....