Machine

The plot is like one of those mouse mazes where you know you will get to the end, but you aren't sure how many turns it will take to get there, or if there will be any cheese on the way out. Others comment on the grain of the film...um. yea. who cares? Its the plot that counts, and I think this had a straight forward plot with enough subplots to make it that maze that keeps us interested. Well, it worked for me anyways. I definitely have to disagree with the rating it has, as there are terrible movies with at least a 4 rating and this one should be a 6 at least! If you like murder and criminals all wrapped up in a plot that twists like a ball of yarn the cat played with, well this is worth a watch.

Lots of killing, bad acting and terrible camera work. I lost count how many people got whacked in this flick after the first 3. At the end of this movie you will probably think "pointless" sums up this movie in a nutshell. I really couldn't find anything redeeming to make this movie worthwhile, even the plot stunk as it was way too easy to make the so called hits. Not even a total idiot would believe how easy it would be to find police protected witnesses or mob bosses. You know the least they could have done is find some good looking women or play some good theme music to make up for losing an hour and a half of your life watching it. I guess you could use this movie as a guideline of "what not to do while making a movie.

If you like action or crime drama, you probably saw something on MACHINE, maybe the cover, and thought 'hey this could be cool. So what if it's direct-to-video, it's probably just the usual indie budget issues.'

That's what I thought too. I was SO wrong.

This is from the school of post-RESERVOIR DOGS filmmakers that believe all you need for a modern crime drama are some cool looking people shooting other people down with cool looking guns, all the while maintaining their cool. Now I'm not a big fan of RESERVOIR DOGS, but Tarantino at least had clever dialog, good blocking, gritty lighting, some nice camera moves, Harvey Keitel, and most of all, a story to tell - he knew guys looking cool and shooting off guns doesn't make a movie. So yeah, Michael Madsen was in DOGS; now he's been in this one, a real dog.

It is difficult for me to describe a film this bad. My viewing experience of MACHINE was something like this: 'Wow, that's the worst camera-work I've ever seen...ever... it's really grainy, like that digital grain Michael Mann got for COLLATERAL with all those cool night scenes with Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise...except those guys aren't in this one, and this just looks BAD. Oh, there's Neil McDonough, wow he's great as ever...wait, is that all we get of him?' You get the idea.

The really astonishing thing was that Madsen and McDonough STILL knocked out good performances (the only reason there's a star in my rating) - a credit to their professionalism. But when they're not on screen (and that's most of the time), then it's just a painful exercise in what not to do when making your own movie. Your uncle probably frames up a better shot with his little hand-held at family get-togethers, than what these guys did here. This DVD is not what you want to watch; it's what you use when you run out of coasters for your drinks.

A friend bought this monstrosity on Blueray for peanuts from a well-known auction website. I guess the grainy look is supposed to be arty or some such nonsense, but it gives it the feeling of having been shot on a mobile phone. This copy had been somehow post-processed to make it "3D", but it's been done abysmally, with the 3D effect not being there for the first half second or so of each scene, which is a headache-inducing experience to watch.

As for the plot...who knows. People run around and shoot each other, for no immediately apparent reason.

Look out for the sex scene, it's truly hilarious.

IMDb needs a "0" (zero) rating for movies like this. Better yet -- how about a NEGATIVE rating (this should be about a "minus 9")?

Neal McDonough is a pretty good actor (I liked him in Guardian, Flags of Our Fathers, even Hitcher) -- what the hell is he doing in this piece of crap? Well, the answer is "not much" (same is true for the prominently billed -- but mostly absent -- Michael Madsen, although he hasn't been in a good movie since Reservoir Dogs).

I don't know much about the other so-called "actors" in this waste of time, except that they should at least have better judgment about the kind of projects they get involved in. And "star" Michael Lazar (also "writer," "producer," and "director" Michael Lazar)? FOUR strikes and he should be out!

Don't waste your money on this sorry excuse for "entertainment." Hell, even if you can get it as a free rental at your video store, don't waste your TIME!