Domino

If you find yourself in need of an escape, something that will hold your attention for two hours and allow you to be lost in another world, Domino will satisfy that need. This is entertainment, after all! The plot keeps your brain in motion - one of those movies (like Usual Suspects) where you want to see it a second time to figure it all out. I wondered about Domino Harvey herself, how her life became of interest to Hollywood. As for the acting, lots of celebrity appearances not shown in the trailers. And any actor that makes me forget who they are has done their job well. Not once did I think of Kiera in a soccer uniform or pirate costume. And granted, Mickey Rourke plays Mickey Rourke well and often, but here, despite the violence, he shows signs of being capable of caring for other people.

Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley) is a tough bounty hunter being interrogated by FBI criminal psychologist Taryn Mills (Lucy Liu). Domino is trying to recover $10 million of casino boss Drake Bishop (Dabney Coleman)'s money stolen from an armored truck. She lost her beloved actor father as a child and stuck with her gold-digging mother (Jacqueline Bisset). She got tired of her life and joins bail bondsman Claremont Williams III (Delroy Lindo), her tough boss Ed Moseby (Mickey Rourke), Choco (Edgar Ramirez) and their Afghan driver Alf (Riz Abbasi). Claremont runs the armored truck company. Lateesha Rodriguez (Mo'Nique) is one of his mistresses who is his inside girl in the DMV. Also the group is being filmed by reality TV producer Mark Heiss (Christopher Walken).

The movie starts off as an edgy heist story. I like the crazy visual style from director Tony Scott. Things are working more or less. It's overly complicated but I'm willing to follow. Then they pile on too much. The reality TV bit is the straw that broke the camel's back. Mo'Nique has a funny scene on Jerry Springer's show. Overall, there are just too many crazy things going on. I get tired of the random outlandish turns this movie makes.

If you go to this movie expecting something it isn't, you will be disappointed, as with any movie. This movie contains what Hemmingway described as the "iceberg effect". On the surface, its simply a cache of random movie clips smashed together to make a movie. If this would be written in a book, it would be a short story, because the action in the movie is very fast paced, and unless you actually try to catch it, the reasoning behind the plot (along with some subtle foreshadowing) can very well pass you by. Definitely a movie you will have to see twice in order to fully appreciate. Experimental Cinematography barely describes this movie. The camera-work and post production add much to the overall flavour of the film, making it quite artistic at some points and open to interpretation at others (something to be desired in American movies as of late). Although, at some parts it may get a little raunchy, gruesome and too heavy for some audiences, the movie never becomes completely unrealistic. The only aspect of the movie that I would write off as "needs improvement" is the soundtrack selection. No movie is ever good without a fitting soundtrack, and although the soundtrack is quite fitting, the opening is a little too long, and the other rap songs in the film really could have been replaced with something more appropriate (heavy, grungy rock or psychedelic electronica would have made this film a real trip). The flooding of imagery and dynamic... color palettes adds another "artistic" aspect to it, also combined with the events that happen throughout the film, this is not a movie you can miss any part of and still understand. However, that also makes it much more of a desirable film to watch, and not one you'll quickly get bored of. 8.5/10

This was a pretty good action movie which I believe could have been better if the director (Tony Scott) hadn't kept cutting away to one scene after another. In my opinion this technique didn't help to enhance the film at all. If anything it gave it a choppy feel. Other than that though I thought the acting was really good. I enjoyed seeing Jacqueline Bisset (as "Sophie Wynn") who still looks like dynamite. Mickey Rourke ("Ed Moseby"), Edgar Ramirez ("Choco") and Delroy Lindo ("Claremont Williams") also performed quite well. Additionally, Keira Knightley (as "Domino Harvey") was excellent but it was Christopher Walken who was nothing less than sensational as the television producer named "Mark Heiss". He definitely gave this film an extra edge. At any rate, if you're wanting a good movie with plenty of action and humor then this is one you should definitely want to check out. I honestly think you'll like it.

I just saw a sneak preview of Domino, followed by a Q&A with writer Richard Kelly. Kelly said that this whole film is "self-reflexive," and that it is supposed to be a satire of reality programming. However, it doesn't come off that way at all. Sure, there's a little satire in there. But the satire is so inconsequential, it ends up actually detracting from the force of the story. I don't know if Kelly just doesn't understand this movie, or what. Of course, it's not really his movie, as he freely admitted. It's Tony Scott's vision. And some of it works.

Mickey Rourke is in top form. However, I am very disappointed in how his character plays out. Just when he should really step up and show what he's all about, he fades away into the background. That was very disappointing. He's supposed to be the leader of this trio of bounty hunters. However, for the second half of the film, Domino is apparently in charge. This huge development is never explained or even acknowledged in the film. It really doesn't make any sense.

Also, the film has the makings of a slightly twisted love triangle, but unfortunately it is never fully realized. How the love theme plays out is wholly anti-climactic, unnecessary, and unconvincing.

Kiera Knightley does have some good moments here. She shows a lot of strength and courage. Still, her portrayal of Domino is often unconvincing. I don't think that is all her fault. I fault the direction and writing more than anything else.

Ultimately, I think the movie fails because of the style . . . that is, the plot and character development are too often sacrificed for the sake of style. Because of that, the film often seems a little ridiculous and occasionally nonsensical.

Richard Kelly said that it has to be viewed multiple times for all the subtleties to fall into place. I think he's completely wrong. This film is about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

On a more positive note, this film does have a few inspired moments. My favorite is a creative nod to the late Sam Kinison. So, if you like style over substance, this may be your favorite film of the year. If you prefer fully developed, complex characters, then you may want to skip this.