Montana

I like this movie. It's not bad at all as a story of betrayal and new beginnings.The humour is quirky and at times the violence startling, but I enjoyed it sufficiently to obtain a copy for my video library. Jennifer Leitzes' film certainly gets your attention from the very first scene.

This is an action movie. Ammunition consumption is enormous and the products of the gun makers' art send many malevolent bad hats to their doom. Good will to one's fellow man (or woman!) is in short supply in "Montana". The story proceeds with a brisk clarity, something I think is quite refreshing when there are so many movies around relying upon incredible plotting and intrusive style statements.

See this movie too for the sometimes surprising casting. I'm not sure Kyra Sedgwick would have been my first choice to play Claire Kelsky. No matter, her astute, charmless and dangerous sub-boss in the gang is professionally done. Claire is matched in status in the outfit by Nicholas Roth, one of the best character creations I've seen from Stanley Tucci. His lightning fast, well-read and refined killer is a classic. I'm impressed too by John Ritter's chilling Doctor Wexler, what a carnivore!

Robbie Coltrane matches the quality of these performances with his portrayal of the ruthless Boss, the maker of the one big and fatal mistake in the story, i.e. that of failing to recognise in his relationship with Claire Kelsky and Nicholas Roth that loyalty works both ways or not at all. Duncan, the sharp, slippery money man is the excellent creation of Philip Seymore Hoffman. His dialogue with Kitty, the trapped but quietly determined gangster's moll, played by the equally good Robin Tunney, provides one of the key moments in the movie.

The coarse language will offend some viewers, but I found it interesting and stimulating entertainment. So, not for everyone, but see it and hopefully enjoy.

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

It seems nobody could make a crime movie between 1994 and 2000 without being accused of copying Quentin Tarantino. Granted, his movies are great, but scoffing at any movie that has an ensemble cast of decent actors in a story that involves guns and money is just robbing yourself of entertainment. I admit there are a lot of copycat movies out there and some are really crappy, but you have to judge each one on it's own merit. I consider Montana and Things to do in Denver when you're dead to be two great exceptions. They're just too damn fun to watch for me to be so critical of them. Maybe that's just me though. I try to find things that mean something to me in every movie I watch.

I love Tarantino as much as the next guy, but how can you not enjoy Kyra Sedgewick beating and shooting people. You just don't see that everyday.

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.

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.