15 minuti - Follia omicida a New York

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have been to give an outsider perspective on the abuse of American culture, but that angle ultimately just plays into outdated audience prejudices against people who speak with an Eastern European accent.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.

(59%) A real piece of all over the place Hollywood that shuffles itself around like a deck of cards every other scene. The main focus is not on DeNiro, or even Edward Burns, but on two eastern European maniacs who feature heavily throughout. What makes this so uneven is the tone. It starts as a crime thriller, then there's some breaking news exploitation satire with Kelsey Grammar, then DeNiro comes in turning it more into a cop action movie, then there's a series of quite sweet romantic scenes that come in between footage of the two bad guys filming themselves murdering someone making everything feel more than a little slapdash. Yet it sort of works mainly because everything happens so fast, and there's so much of it to get through. The fact that the cast is more than capable doesn't hurt much either, and it is quite well made too so you just sort of except the flaws as they arrive. It's just action cop movie thrillers, romance, a playful sense of humour, and snuff movies all mixed together doesn't create a great recipe for success.

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.

There was just about 1/8 of this movie that I took it seriously. I was cringing and feeling sick at the bloody slaughter of people throughout the film. I was embarrassed for the screenwriters when I couldn't tell if the movie wanted to be an action thriller or a dark satire (and the result was a foolish parody). There was frustration with the wasting of the talents of Charlize Theron and Melina Kanakaredes.

15 Minutes is such a dispiriting mess of a something-or-another. There are so many good things that get lost or wasted or used incorrectly. Only three things about this movie are done well. Whenever Karel Roden, the lead killer is smoking a cigarette, you swear there's a hallucinogenic drug in the tobacco--he just looks crazier with every drag. In between all the stupid twists and turns, there are a few that just leave you gasping with surprise and shock. Finally, the scene with Edward Burns and Vera Farmiga trapped in the apartment with fire advancing on them and the bad guys watching from across the street was one of the more suspenseful, yet not ludicrous set pieces I've recently seen in a movie.

Unfortunately, a smidgen of good here and there does not fill 121 minutes. When the parody is played out and the roar of ritualistic gunfire has dissipated, your left with nothing much more than a remake of David Bowie's "Fame" blaring in your ears.

Not a good note to leave on.

Now, firstly, I found the movie to be a pretty tense and rough one. The idead behind the film showed itself thoroughly in the secomd half and it was less subtle and more definitive then it should be, but i still think its good to have such ideas in a Hollywood movie. Second thing, the camerawork of this movie is awesome, finaly moviemakers are regressing from the typical steadicam widescreen bombastic camera shots and arre returning to the "amateurish" and personal level of camerawork. But the thing that I REALLY want to state here is this : you guys are crazy arent you ?!?! Ive read some of the comments and all Ive seen is how Robert DeNiro and Edward Burns were the stars of the movie...I even read that the movie lost appeal once DeNiro´s character was out of the way...NOW what a bulls***...yes DeNiro made his high standart performance no doubt, Burns was also FINEEE...BUT how can you not notice that the two psychopats were the showstealers here...I dont know Oleg Taktarov as an actor but he gave soul in his performace..and Karel Roden (yeah..I know im from Czech republic myself, but Im being realistic), hes one heluva actor and it SHOWS here...his character is not only a violent psychopat, he looks at the american society through the tv screen and what he sees makes him try his luck....a smart villian indeed....