wmjahn

I have already seen quite a number of these so-called "Dogma"-movies, which are in general pretty good and mostly pretty strong stuff (the always revolve around human relationships and in most cases take place at family reunions, burials, parties or other meetings or get-together, where people can get "out-of-control"), but this is - at least in my humble opinion - one of the best and strongest of them.

Directed by a female with absolute merciless, this one sets out to obviously destroy the last positive thoughts one could have about "investment"-bankers and I am notwithstanding to admit, that I hate the whole crowd. So when I saw this movie (about which I had never heard before) on the TV-program yesterday, I immediately decided to give it a try, despite it's late airing not much before midnight.

And what I did get was more than what I had hoped for or dared to hope for: this movie is not so much about a party, which goes out of control (like the summary says), but about a bunch of people, who actually can't stand each other (at least most of them!), but who have been thrown together by fate in a business (and probably in a country), which does not take any prisoners, meaning where a person either "succeeds" or dies (economically and sometimes even physically). But this ain't a story about heroes, it's a story about emotional wrecks.

The whole movie, which runs app. 100 minutes, takes place at one setting, a big villa, and there are just 7 people in it (leaving aside people, who just appear for a few seconds), 3 (male) investment-bankers, 2 of them married, their wives, an au-pair-girl and the (pretty overweight) son of one of the 2 couples. But despite this rigid setting you won't find a boring moment in this movie! The get-together is set out as a party, organized by one of the married 2 investment-bankers, a hot-shot a few years ago, who wants to get a deal through with his boss (who seems to be pretty much of the same age), whom he has invited (together with his wife). The inviting couple has a highly overweight son, for whom the couple does not seem to care very much. Not a family, where you'd wish to be born in, despite their enormous wealth. They also have an au-pair girl, who does not seem to have much to do, and who's involved in an unhappy love-affair with ... no, not with the inviting investment-banker, but with ... guess whom! The invited investment-banker (with his pretty overweight wife) is a detestable person, but obviously this is a business, where you have to lick a persons ass regardless how despicable he is. He brings another young investment-banker to the party, who must have seen or read Tom Wolfe's BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES and considers himself as one of those cool mega-deal-makers.

From the very beginning of the party it is clear that none of the involved persons has any positive feelings towards any of the other persons, maybe except the inviting couple towards their au-pair-girl, for whom they seem to care (at least at the beginning). None of the investment-bankers like or at least respect each other and the same goes for the two wives, although all these people are in fact of very similar character and nature. It is just a question of time, until they clash at each other and that's exactly what happens as the movie starts to unfold.

I won't tell more about the dialog and quarrel, which then starts out, except that this is a highly recommendable movie. Although I usually fall asleep during midnight-movies I easily stayed awake through the whole 100 minutes without getting tired for a second. This movie really has a punch, so IF you have a chance to see this - obviously rarely shown - movie, take the time and see it, you won't regret it.

I give this 10 out of 10 points, although more critical viewers might rate it lesser (but I'd say every viewer who likes dogma-movies would give this certainly an 8).

My God, what an awful "dreck" this movie is!! I guess this must be the proverbial "one-joke-movie", but I couldn't find that one joke. :-( Why has this movie been made after all? And how did it get THIS cast ???? I usually LOVE to watch James Coburn, but seeing him in this pile of unfunny *beep* makes me cry.

The only possible answer I got to me asking, why in Gods name anybody turned a script as unfunny as this one into a movie is that probably someone tried to repeat the success of CAT BALLOU from two years ago (1965), but to be honest "Cat Ballou" wasn't that funny either (but still mucho better).

After that they finally (thanx!) dumped the lame idea of having a movie commented by a song, which sounds as someone sitting at the toilet having problems getting it out (until "There's Something About Mary" came along 20 years later, where it worked a bit better).

Does this movie have any defenders? If so, where did you laugh? I'd really love to find out where I missed a joke (if there was one)!

zero out of ten!

Whilst the original adaption of the Elmore Leonard story is a nice B-movie, the re-make is a D-script (if D at all ...) filmed with an A-budget and starring a totally miscast "hero" Russel Crowe.

My God, what a turkey! I have just seen the re-make on TV out of interest, so I could compare todays filmmaking with the old semi-classic. I didn't expect much, but what I got was even less than I could have expected.

I know, yeah, a really good western is probably the toughest movie to make (and the last time Hollywood succeeded in doing so was OPEN RANGE and before that Eastwood did one of his best works with UNFORGIVEN), because the settings of the genre are limited and you can't have that much "big/expensive scenes" with explosions, car chases (smile), etc, so you have to rely to a reasonable/good story and some interesting characters, but both is totally lacking here. In fact the makers of this re-make didn't trust the story at all and threw in all kinda over-the-top action-scenes, which just look much too implausible to be taken seriously.

The character of Russel Crowe and especially one of his gang-members is despicable, but of course having a leading man like Russel Crowe (who gives the label "wooden acting" a new meaning), Hollywood can't show him as filthy criminal, but needs to build a hero out of him. So the movie takes a good time developing that the people he has killed and kills "deserve" their fate. It's just ridiculous - and sorry for moralizing - that Crowe/Wade killing a member of the posse with a fork (!) gets him just a medium-severe beating. The same goes for his next victim: in fact the only above average-interesting character in the movie, the Pinkerton-man played by Peter Fonda, is characterized a good half-hour as the most evil person imaginable (by a moralizing (!) Crowe) to be then thrown off a cliff for good sake and what happens to Crowe: nothing again! Come on, I hate it when scriptwriters think I am an idiot, taking sh-- for gold.

And Crowe is established as some kinda good (!) anti-hero, about whom the boy fantasizes as being a morale person, not totally evil. That's ludicrous and I don't see how somebody, who kills and destroys merciless, can have a good side or be worshiped?? When LEONE had an evil character in his western, he established that right away, of course with a portion of cynicism, for example like in GOOD, BAD, UGLY (EASTWOOD being "good", Lee van Cleef being "bad"), but this 3:10 TO YUMA re-make does in fact take the good side of Wade indeed seriously.

And to "balance" that, the movie does of course need somebody really "evil" (to establish how "good" Wade is in comparison) and introduces a silly-staring gang-member, who lets somebody burn inside a carriage. That scene is especially ludicrous, because that just would not have happened in any decent western, it's totally against the "rules of the genre". Near gore-like scenes like this don't fit into a western, and it doesn't have anything to do with "widening the boundaries" of the genre to put in repulsive scenes like this one.

As I already mentioned, on top of all that Crowe is totally miscast. Not for a second do I believe his "character" as an outlaw, he just looks "too good", too well-fed with his puffy face (Mr. Crowe, stop eating junk food!) and too contemporary with his "I don't like fat" (haha!) eating-habits. Of course somebody like him cites the bible and tries to philosophize, which probably should establish the intellectual side of the evil. Yeah, in "modern"-day Hollywood it has become kinda "politcal correct" to have the bad guy being a misunderstood intellectual with a hard upbringing ... hey, come one, that can't be meant serious (but it indeed is!) ?? Of course, compared to that (the lesser star) C. Bale looks like a stupid farmer, whilst in a good script, if there would be some moralizing, then it would fit (T)HIS character ...

And the ending ... well, I think I can skip that, many other posters on the IMDb have already pointed out how silly/stupid/unfitting it is (btw, Elmore Leonard doesn't like the changed ending either).

So ... another re-make which should have been avoided. It's sad, but Hollywood can't do any good genre movies anymore. People, who don't understand the western-genre, should simply stay away from it instead of ruining it even further!