Montana

The kind of movie you can´t put in a genre. There´s a mix of violence, comedy and romance. One minute you laugh, then you sit stunned because a hooker has just shot the head off a young kid. Obviously not a big budget movie, but somehow I think that works as an advantage. The actors are great, the direction is great and the script is well written. It is a kind of cozy Pulp Fiction where the scenes are in order. The action scenes are not pumped up to be something they´re not, but are shot in style. Kyra Sedgwick deliveres a great performance and so does the rest of the cast. Worth pointing out is Ethan Embry as the young, annoying, psycho wannabe wiseguy. I give 10 out of 10. RENT THIS MOVIE!!!

Kyra Sedgewick (who? just kidding, Kyra) and Stanley Tucci team up in a more than adequate disorganized crime flick. Although this Bonnie and Clyde team are poignant enough, this one's more about two MVP hit men (hitpersons?) and competent gangland executions than complex character study. But me...I love the kiss-kiss/bang-bang formula and this one's a goody. It kept me on edge throughout this sordid tale of assorted nasty things, i.e.; gambling, greed, nepotism, homicide, loyalty and, finally, love revealed in a death rattling disclosure. I am a reluctant convert to the Stanley Tucci Fan Club but, after having seen his career's range, depth and script judgment over these past years, I'm attending regular chapter meetings and considering taking the secretary's position. This is a good film noir offering with lots of twists and plenty of hemorrhaging from gunshot wounds, fatal and otherwise. If you like this kind of stuff...(well, nobody admits liking gory, testosterone-driven cinematic carnage anymore)...uh..uh.. come to think of it, just in case my oldest daughter reads this, I didn't really like this film that much. It had too much gratuitous violence and too much gun play. Not!!! Two thumbs sideways...

@Lary9

I picked up "Montana" on a whim, and was very plesantly surprised by it.

I'll concede that there were some holes in the story, and some of the characters were very flat, but Claire and Nick made a VERY interesting study.

There were enough plot twists that I didn't forsee to keep me surprised, and the main characters were definitely engaging enough to keep my interest.

However, the violence and carnage were definitely worse than was necessary (comparisons to Tarantino seem justified).

I'd give it a 8 - not great, but interesting and engaging.

Montana is not a hit, but is a good example of how to make an excellent movie. The plot is 'tantalizer', the actors/tress are level one pro, and the director (Jennifer) is brilliant. I kept glued to the screen all the time, and my dinner went cold...I'd like to see more of Jennifer's work, but it seems this is the only film she did. At least I didn't find more titles at the IMDb. I'll appreciate any hint.

Well if you want to be a jerk... I'll point out that in Pulp Fiction the scene was a little different. The bullets did not miss Samuel L. They went through him. Watch it again and see when he moves to look at the wall behind him. The bullet holes are directly behind where he was standing. And i would be willing to bet Tarrentino did not invent this scene either. He just happened to make it in a popular movie.

I give Montana an EXCELLENT rating because it is not mainstream and some characters are more interesting (i.e. they don't say everything on their mind, so you have to figure them out). I like having to judge characters by observing behavior. There are many better movies with better directors, but this movie reminds me to figure things out on my own. These kind of movies can be much more stimulating. The only mystery in Pulp Fiction was what was in the case... so what.