Sand

The ONLY reason I bothered with this at all is because of Kari Wuhrer, who is one of the sexiest women in the movies today. Unfortunately despite the bad language, drugs, violence and low budget effort of the film, it was so low budget they could not even afford for her to have partial nudity...

Dennis Leary is actually the films strongest character, and delivers his lines with the same larconic smirking as in everything else he has been in.

The story is generated in the post Pulp Fiction era, but lacks any of the character building, or intelligent script writing of a Tarantino.

For all that, it is a good "pass the time" film for an insomniac sometime after midnight. There is a gradual escalation of hostilities between the beach bums and the hard nosed family, with Tyler caught in the middle.

There are reflections of male bull headed behaviour, together with laddish immaturity, as well as camaraderie and pride.

All in all, it is a film that paints every bad aspect of 20th century man into one film.

Matt Palmieri must go to a lot of Hollywood parties or be connected to somebody cool enough to line up this many b-list celebrity performers in one certifiably awful film. Is this a case of "paycheck time" or a case of "Hey, Harry Dean Stanton agreed to do it, why not join the party?" Maybe they all have the same agent who got a call asking for the whole group to do either 'The Surreal Life' or appear in this film. Either way, it's still Surreal Life. Stanton, Denis Leary, Jon Lovitz, Julie Delpy, Kari Wuhrer and Emilio Estevez...... what, no Janice Dickinson or Verne Troyer? Oops, this was made in pre-Surreal Life 1999 and only surfaced recently... like the bones of a corpse washing ashore. My mistake. And anyone else's mistake for watching this. Even back in 1999 the Tarantino copycats had worn out their welcome, but this flimsy tripe is more of a fifth generation carbon copy of a Tarantino rip-off. And even if you watch it for the interesting cast you get cheated. Sure, you get Leary phoning in his usual acerbic performance, but his lines are mostly weak. Then there is Stanton who has ONE scene, and Lovitz, Delpy and Estevez who have little more than that. These should really be uncredited "guest" performances but they're featured prominently on the video cover. The real stars are Vartan, Wuhrer and a bunch of other young actors who mostly posture and yell at each other virtually nose to nose throughout. It's the old game of covering weak dialogue by having the actors shout rather than speak. Ooh, the intensity. And the storyline is so wrong-headed that it seems to flow like a dream spun by idiots. No example of this is more telling than the endless back and forth battle between the low-life brothers and the surfer dudes--the surfers apparently believing, not once, not twice, but even three times, that their besting of low-lifes with GUNS (yet not relieving said low-lifes of their weapons) means the scumbags have learned their lesson and will not RETURN with their GUNS. Oh, why go on...this film is junk and leave it at that.

I'll give it a two for Denis Leary. He had some good lines, but that's it. What was the point? Where was the script? Who was supposed to act? A movie needs more than this one has to offer. Save the hour and a half to watch your hair grow, or fall out, whatever the case.

I thought the movie story wise had a conceivable plot. It was just executed poorly. I thought Norman Reedus did a great job with what he had but it wasn't much. The character development was bare little to none which didn't leave the actors with much to do. Michael Vartan was not a good lead for this movie. He was very wooden. Also with the little amount of character development it didn't leave you caring about any of the characters including Kari. I have thought about buying this movie so I could rewrite it and give more character development and depth. My favorite scene was actually the scene that involves Reedus and his friends confronting the two brothers after his sister is nearly raped. It was shot well and acted well. Beyond that, everything else was subpar.

The movie just had so much potential and it was executed poorly.

It is an extreme challenge to find a sufficiently negative phrase to describe this movie. It is utterly boring, predictable, and without any interesting features whatsoever... no wait, that doesn't sound nearly negative enough. The plot isn't worthy of a newpaper cartoon strip, nothing much happens, the settings are uninteresting. You'd be better off sleeping or watching the clouds in the sky float by. The only provocative issue is the question it raises (for me) regarding why I let it remain on screen. No, wait, there's also the question regarding how anybody could make a film like this.