Dead Draw

The story behind the movie. First film from director and writer, Brian Klemesrud, he was actually still working on the details of the script when he was to meet Gil Bellows about another movie being made, Mushroom Man. Unknown to Brian Gil had seen a copy of his draft for Dead Draw and he wanted Brian to make the movie and he would play the role of Harrison. Brian was still thinking it over when Gil contacted him and told him he needed to start shooting it in three months. They ended up shooting the movie in a total of 18 days after getting the money to fund it.

The movie is about the heist of 25 million dollars from a bank, where specific safety deposit boxes are selected. Harrison (Gil Bellows) is their leader and it is his 19th heist and he said it would be his last one. Everything is well planned and executed and their getaway appears to be flawless then things go awry.

Loyalties will be tested and secrets exposed, as they realize someone set them up and they seek an escape from an apparent trap. Time ticks away as they try to find out who the rat is while they seek an escape.

It does have some surprises and might be predictable to some people but I do think it was entertaining and not bad for a first film where the director was rushed into it.

I know very well the many difficulties independent filmmakers often have when trying to make a movie, a lot of them coming from the fact that these filmmakers usually have a lot less resources than filmmakers of big budget major studio films. So I will give some praise for the filmmakers of "Dead Draw" for coming up with a story that could easily be filmed on the pittance of the budget they had on their hands. While the movie is low budget, the seams don't show. Unfortunately, that's about the only praise I can give for this movie. The main reason why the movie fails is its script. For about two-thirds of the movie, we are subjected to so many flashbacks - and flashbacks that aren't for the most part that interesting or insightful - that it's impossible for the main story thread to build up any momentum or suspense. As a result, most of the movie plays out really flat and dull, punctuated occasionally by some murky plot touches that just add some confusion to the narrative. I think the filmmakers were trying to be somewhat different than many B-movies, but honestly I think they would have been more successful had they told this story in a more conventional way.

This is a movie about a gang of thieves is put together to rip off a drug cartel who keep their money in safe deposit boxes in a nondescript bank in the Midwest, and of course "things go wrong". I hope it's not a spoiler to say it's basically a non-Tarantino version of Reservoir Dogs.

It's well acted, and they do keep you guessing, but like most neo-noir movies, you can't think too hard about the characters' actions and motivations, or you'll realize they're doing a lot of things that don't make sense.

I wouldn't have paid money to see this at the theater, but it was a decent way to pass an hour and a half on a plane.

To me, this is a well produced play with good lighting, cinema photography, sets, costume, interesting camera angles, all kinds of things that kept me visually engaged and directed the kind of mood to feel. It felt very real. Acting top notch, real people reacting and talking to other real people. One reviewer too exception, said the music is appalling, that one wanted to get away from it. I think it was perfect, because I never noticed it. Not once. I was watching life, in real time, and life does not, thankfully, have underscoring. There are several critical comments about the flashbacks. I found that interesting, because this film isn't about a bank heist. The bank heist is only the story line. The premise of the film, what the film shows us, is the characters, their inner struggles, their choices, and their relationships to each other and to life. This is a character driven script, to me, and I appreciate it. A lot. I especially like the sparsity of dialogue. We're allowed to be part of the conversations, to figure out what the character meant, rather than being fed what he/she means to say. What isn't said aloud is often much more meaningful than what is colored by our editing gray cells. It was not a surprise to me who the rat was, but it could be to others. I think it's something I can just do. I got "Sixth Sense" at the end of the first scene. Agatha Christie always tells us outright who did it early on in her mysteries. Even so, it's enjoyable to keep reading or watching to see what other little gems the writer has for us. If you pay attention, really tune into these characters, there's a lot of good writing here. As well as the aforementioned production qualities. A winner to me.

The premise of this revolves around a big cash heist committed by a gang of 4 guys with information provided by an information broker. Whilst looking like it goes off smoothly things subsequently don't go to plan. The story set-up seems solid, if nothing new. However, soon the movie revolves around being stuck in one physical location (one large indoor space) which makes it a bit boring. To compound this the movie then begins a flashback narrative on each character (more than one for each character), moving back to the present time and back again. This jars quickly as nearly 40-50% of the movie must in the end be composed of these flashbacks and it takes your focus and interest off the main story. It does redeem itself a bit at the end but I found that this mechanic was a fail for me and makes the movie a lesser product as a result.