15 Minutes

This a rough, edgy film but the interesting characters make it entertaining for the full two hours. For some reason, I don't believe this film got a lot of publicity.

Karol Roder doesn't get any billing but he's as much a star in this movie as big-names Robert Redford and Edward Burns. Another actor who also has a key role, Oleg Taktarov, has no billing! Wow, they really hosed the Eastern European actors in here.

The film is partially another indictment against the tabloid press. Playing the villain in that regard is good 'ole "Frasier" from TV: Kelsey Grammar. He plays a foul-mouthed tabloid television sleazoid "Robert Hawkins.

Sometimes this got a bit too edgy for me, nor did I appreciate Burns' verbal blasphemy, but I also enjoyed some of the black humor in here. Overall, it's not a film that, frankly, was that memorable yet I would watch it again.

This movie seems to divide opinions a lot and I think I understand why. It's a bit strange comnbination of different "moods" and styles which might make you feel uneasy. On the other hand it's a rather serious and violent crime thriller but then again there's playful humor in an "action comedy" style. The funniest are the villains who are also the wickedest. But I don't fully understand why some viewers give it bottom rating and some the opposite. I think it's a decent action thriller but I wouldn't call it either super good or super bad.

Robert De Niro is always good, and even though this might not be of his strongest films, he does good performance. I must admit I picked this dvd up just for De Niro's sake. He gives more quality to this movie that would otherwise be more forgettable. On the other hand the movie suffers a bit of being "De Niro movie" because he has such a great filmography and this kind of average movies easily pale in comparison to some of his masterpieces.

The story is interesting. Two criminals start to video tape their misadventures and want to become famous by filming their violent acts. I think the buildup of the story was the best but towards the end momentum slowed down a bit and did not reach up to all the potential. But the script was mostly quite good and creative. But I would have changed the mood a little bit. Maybe toned down the violence and increase the comedy aspect. I think the best part was one of the villains who is obsessed with filming everything even when chased by the cops! If there was more of that, it might have ended more in the Beverly Hills Cop genre. But instead we have this hybrid thriller that has maybe a little bit Tarantono feel.

Even though I was left a bit conflicted about how much I liked the movie, I think it has clever themes, asking how far would you go to become famous. I think I'm going to watch it again at least once sometime because I want to hear the director's commentary. Since he is also the writer, I can see he had a vision of some kind. I mildly recommend this movie to fans of Tarantino style humor and stuff like Lethal Weapon that is more about action but there's a little bit of comedy too.

This movie took a severe beating in the press and most reviews, so I wasn't expecting much when I went to see it. However, I was pleasantly surprised, and reassured that my distrust of what the newspaper reviewers think is not misplaced.

This movie has a cast that includes the supremely talented Robert de Niro, Kelsey Grammar, and Edward Burns. It has some excellent writing and some top-notch acting performances. But its real accomplishment is how it makes you think.

The increasing relationship between crime and the media is not linear, and the movie does tend to oversimplify at times. In many respects, it suffers horribly from being predictable, although there were instances where it strayed sharply from the "rules" of formulaic movies. (Saying any more on that score would give away important aspects of the plot, so I'll refrain from elaborating.) Furthermore, in true Hollywood tradition, the main villains are dumb, completely amoral, and oh, did I mention foreign? The idea might have been to give an outsider perspective on the abuse of American culture, but that angle ultimately just plays into outdated audience prejudices against people who speak with an Eastern European accent.

Too, the movie has very graphic violence - but not as bad as I'd expected, and not as bad as what is shown in many other movies. Through creative camera angles, many of the bloodiest scenes are only obscurely hinted at, leaving the audience to fill in the pieces.

Not surprisingly, many entertainment reviewers disliked the movie, because it has the effect of exposing some of the more negative effects of the media. "15 Minutes" does not claim that the media causes violence; rather, it explains that the interplay between the two is ingrained in American culture. This movie may not be saying anything original, but it is sufficiently entertaining and thought-provoking to make it worth seeing.

The following review for the film `15 Minutes' will probably take you around that same time to read it. Wait! Come back! I was joking! This film is another flick that satirizes the media's influence in depicting real life crimes as sensationalistic newsgathering for the general public. We have seen this before in films such as `Natural Born Killers.' Critics have ridiculed `15 Minutes' because they say that the film actually demonstrates the same exact thing that it tries to satirize. It does this by showing gory murder -type violence and utilizing famous stars in small cameo roles. Even though I do have to agree with this concept that my colleagues (don't I wish) have criticized, I should say to them to `just wait one minute, or fifteen for that matter' and do not take it so seriously. Why? Because the film does entertain. I think that critics should just leave it at. By the way, the film is about a homicide detective and an arson investigator who hunt down some eastern european psychos who film their crimes on video. Robert Deniro, who plays the homicide detective, is more low key in this one; and Eddie Burns cinematic presence adds fuel to the fire as the arson investigator. I really do have to say that I enjoyed mostly every minute in `15 Minutes' even though most critics don't second my opinion.

**** Good

FIFTEEN MINUTES / (2001) ***1/2 (out of four)

By Blake French:

"Fifteen Minutes" is a powerful, thought-provoking, and unexpected thriller about real life. It is a thematic movie that makes a strong, supported, and convincing stand on many current controversial issues, targeting and exposing the many weaknesses and absurdities of the American legal systems. The film also incorporates prospects dealing with greed, power, popularity, the public eye, influences of media, the power of television, and the desire of immigrants to achieve fame in America. This is not your typical Hollywood action flick; it is occupied with twists and unconventional surprises in which many producers would stay far away. "Fifteen Minutes" is a movie with guts and impact, and for the first time in a long time, the theater audience where I screened the film gave it a recognizable applause as the closing credits appeared.

"Fifteen Minutes" is complete with big Hollywood names, like Robert De Niro, Edward Burns, Kelsey Grammer, and even includes cameos from several distinguishable actors: Charlize Theron has a neat little appearance as a recruiter for hookers, and David Alan Grier shows up as a pedestrian causing trouble in New York City. But the movie actually centers on two Eastern European immigrants named Emil Slovak (Karel Roden), and Oleg Razgul (Oleg Taktarov). They have come to the United States looking for a man who owes them a large sum of money, but eventually discover opportunities for fame. They kill their debtors and capture the murders on a stolen home video camera. There is, of course, an illegal immigrant who witnessed the crime, Daphne (Vera Farmiga), who is now wary and on the run.

Enter homicide detective Eddie Flemming (De Niro), a local celebrity, and arson investigator Jordy Warsaw (Burns), who could not care less about the media. They form a team to undercover what appears to be a fatal fire accident, but soon discover the scene was the location of a brutal murder. Enter a subplot where a veteran detective informs a novice of the same sort new ways to explore his profession. The story then takes an unexpected turn of events where the criminal's intentions explode into sadistic atrocity: Oleg and Emil plan to sell the video of their murders to a TV network anchor (Kelsey Grammer) for a million dollars. They intend to beat the charges with an insanity plea, also stating that they were abused as children. Why would the two immigrants want to do such a thing? To achieve fame-even if it is of a notorious nature.

We wait patiently for the story to take off with the setup, but it stays with two separate narratives for quite sometime. When the narratives do cross its obvious this is not your typical, run-of-the-mill action picture, but an insightful picture that says something about, among many other concepts, the power and influence of the media. The madman fascinated with video taping is "yesterday's news" already seen in 1999's "American Beauty." It does not have the same impact in this film, however, mostly because here it is more of a sadistic obsession never truly understood, rather than the passion and exploration in the multiple Academy Award winner. It is fun watching the incidences photographed with the home video camera; there are some cool special effects that add a nice touch to the scenes.

Robert De Niro gives another suave hotshot performance; it is coming to the point where his talent is more effective in shtick comedies like "Analyzed This." Regardless, the veteran actor grabs us by the collar and yanks with no regrets and a thought-provoking, determined attitude. The screenplay provides his character with an effective soft side through a romance with his girlfriend. Edward Burns ("Saving Private Ryan") is never really bad in a movie, but his personality feels too resigned and modest to be in these violent dramas. He has a few understood moments, and often his performance fits his character accordingly, but a braver, more aggressive actor may have fit the part better.

Surprisingly, the best performances in "Fifteen Minutes" come from the villains, Oleg Taktarov and Karel Roden. Both are very clever in their roles, which are also exceedingly well written: when the two encounter a visit with a local prostitute, the scene does not result in mechanical sex, but in violent misunderstanding that furthers the complications of the plot. Both actors are convincing and unpredictable. Many early critics have complained about the film's implausibility, but Taktarov and Roden portray their characters with such mean-spirited brutality and complex emotions, I believed every step they took.

John Herzfeld is the film's director. His last project, "2 Days in the Valley," was quite a bit different from "Fifteen Minutes." There are certain aspects of his filmmaking style that carry over, but for the most part this film stands on its own from his previous achievements. Herzfeld constructs "Fifteen Minutes" with complexity and thought. It is a brave, courageous movie, deserving of controversy but will likely pass as a theme-orientated action picture. I think most audiences will appreciate the production for what it is and how it informs us on such distressing issues. When we walk out of the theater, we get a sense that we trust in our government's legal system even less than we did before watching the movie.