Sleepless

Not sure why this movie is averaging so low. Its not the greatest crime movie but it is decent enough. Acting is solid and pacing keeps things interesting. Action is well executee. Granted some things were quite obvious but its hard to not be in a genre like this. I enjoyed it.

Based on the coming attractions, I wasn't expecting much, and I got even less. This is another good cop/bad cop, is he or isn't he, kind of flick, set in Las Vegas with lots of glitz and glamour to hide what is a very shaky plot. If the glitz and glamour aren't enough to dazzle you, the music tracks will deafen you, and your visual delights will be satisfied with death by knife, death by pistol, death by automatic weapon, death by shotgun, death by truck, death by wine bottle - just to name a few.

The acting is pretty good, all things considered, but the direction is appalling and the action-every-minute film has low spots.

Generally I like films about internal affairs. "Internal Affairs" (1990), "The Departed" (2006) and "Q&A" (1990) are my favorites.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that "there is nothing new under the sun". "Sleepless" proves that in spades.

• Bent copper drama? Check.

• Dodgy casino owner? Check.

• Nasty "Black Rain" style hoodlum? Check.

• Kidnapped teen ("I WILL find you")? Check.

• Misunderstood family man? Check.

All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.

Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx ("Django Unchained") as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan ("Source Code", "Patriot's Day") as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.

In terms of the storyline it's best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, "The Grey") and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, "Argo"). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.

The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven't seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though through is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn't just stop and say "WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS" and demand a rewrite.

For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from 'full action hero fighting machine' mode to 'staggering and holding his side' mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??

And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn't seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!

This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff ("Straight Outta Compton") and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience's intelligence (that's the third movie in recent weeks I've made that comment on... it must be the time of year!).

It's also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (at 1:40) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines for the film on the posters. Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.

Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it's also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997's "My Best Friend's Wedding", back in a mainstream role.

By the way, I have no idea why the film is called "Sleepless", other than it being based on a 2011 French film called "Nuit Blanche" which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!

In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of "Die Hard, "Taken", et al would like it I've added a star to my initial rating. And it's done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it's not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.

The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.

(For the graphical version of this review, please visit bob-the-movie- man.com. Thanks).

First and foremost , this movie is not very fresh. One simply cannot pin point the exact movie with which Sleepless bears uncanny resemblance. Not because there are none , but because that are many.

I shall not divulge any spoilers here but long story short , the movie is directed in the fashion of some 80's and 90's cop movies. Having said that , the director failed to synergize the elements of a good 90's thriller and a 21st century flick.

The result is a fairly confused movie , with strange action scenes, insipid dialogue, textbook movie characters no comic elements , not the slightest trace of wry or even dark humour.

Designed to have the elements of mystery ( the who is who? kind) , the director misuses his actors and and the plot.

However,for some reason the movie keeps the interest alive. One knows that around the corner there lies a very ordinary sequence and typical dialogue but still the straightforward narrative succeeds in holding your attention .

I cannot pan the movie because it is ordinary and unimpressive . So much so, in fact, that one can tolerate it, to pass time.

Here's the thing - if movies never suspended belief, they would be both pointless and incredibly dull. The reasons that the things we see in movies rarely happen in real life is because logic generally takes over and prevents these things from actually happening. Thus it would be incredibly difficult to make an entertaining movie without having quite a few illogical things happen. It just stands to reason. So when people come out of a movie and say they hated it because "x" would never happen or "y" didn't make sense or when a certain character did something they should have done something else, I don't really buy that as a reason to ever hate a movie. I have a feeling that is a lot of what is going on with 'Sleepless' and people's opinions of it. Admittedly throughout the film I kept thinking to myself those kinds of things, like this guy got stabbed a long time ago and has had about 10 fights since and still seems to have superhuman strength. You can notice these things, but I think you are being very tough if you are judging your entire opinion on them.

There's rarely a dull moment in 'Sleepless'. The action begins almost immediately and basically never lets up. I loved the fact that almost the entire movie takes place in one setting. It was like a fun house by the end with all the nooks and crannies being explored and visited by different characters. I also enjoyed the fact that you could never be entirely sure about whether or not a character was loyal or not. The characters were actually very well written almost entirely across the board.

As just a straight up entertainment package I really enjoyed 'Sleepless'. It never lost my interest once and it knew its limitations. If you ever find yourself bored watching this movie then I would suggest action movies are certainly not for you. If you can suspend your belief and just sit back and enjoy the ride, I think you will find you'll very much enjoy this film.