Montana

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.

This is most definitely an over-the-top film, starting off sick and getting progressively sicker and sucking you in during the process. the characters are well-defined and well-realized, especially Philip Seymour Hoffman's smarmy, reptilian Duncan, Robin Tunney's not-as-dumb-or-pathetic-as-she-appears Kitty and Sedgwick's hardboiled-on-the-outside Claire. Of course the film belongs to Stanley Tucci, the film's dying hitman. Another sublime, subtle performance from this extraordinarily talented actor; he actually manages to give this brutal excursion a heart.

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.

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.