Gunshy

Okay, it's one of the oldest plot lines in the gangster film genre, but if done well, the "man infiltrates vicious gang and finds himself loyal to the friend who got him in.". The cast is good, William Peterson has the downtrodden man character down pat these days, Diane Lane is serviceable, but the real surprises come by the way of Micheal Wincott finally playing a sympathetic almost good-guy, and Eric Schaeffer for the first time in his life not being annoying on screen as the creepy hitman. Good dialogue, an abscence of bad acting, and dark look that hides its low budget origins. Definitely worth picking up from the video shop.

The only reason I watched this film was I'd read Michael Wincott had a leading role in it. Wincott is a superb character actor and always delivers in his villainous roles, proving the devil really does have the best tunes. This is another villain, on the surface, a brutal enforcer for the Irish mob in Atlantic city but Wincott, gives us something else as well, a sweetness and vulnerability that makes a interesting paradox for this type of movie and character. The other leads are filled out by the always watchable Diane Lane and William Petersen, whom, with Wincott form the menage a trois at the heart of the story. Director Jeff Celentano has also assembled an intriguing supporting cast of name actors; R Lee Ermey (Wasted in a bit part right at the beginning of the film), Michael Byrne, who is chillingly sinister despite the broadest Irish accent heard on cellulloid, Meat Loaf in a cameo that kickstarts the plot and Kevin Gage (Best known as Waingro in Heat) as an intense detective involved in a plot twist that comes out of leftfield and sort of works. So far, so good but where the film falls down, is a sometimes woeful script that at times makes you want to laugh in disbelief, the most ridiculous moment being Petersen singing "What shall we do with the drunken sailor", at length, whilst waiting as the getaway driver during a heist! Petersen was yet to star in C.S.I but had already been a very capable leading man in the likes of Michael Mann's "Manhunter" amongst others. Here, he is one note and irritating for much of the film, though he does improve, and it is hard to see why Lane's character would fall for him over the more charismatic Wincott. The plot, too seems somewhat contrived in bringing together Petersen and Wincott as friends but somehow the whole is better than the sum of it's parts. Once Wincott enters it is an engaging though flawed piece with good action sequences. With more care in the scripting this could have been a really good film but as it is, well worth a watch.

Most of the other comments here are right on the money so I will try not to repeat them. Michael Wincott's performance here is the chief reason to rent or buy this low budget indie flick -- he's amazing in what apparently is his only full length role after years of doing small supporting parts mostly playing psycho serial killers. Here he is very moving in a complex role as a soft-hearted Mafia wiseguy with a penchant for saving people. It's a neat idea that takes your initial stereotyped reaction to his appearance and deep gravelly voice -- that he is going to be yet another psychotic killer -- and spins it in the other direction. By the end of the movie, it's his character you are concerned about and not the "hero". While the film is otherwise pretty forgettable, I couldn't get this performance out of my mind after seeing it this summer. Prior to this, I had never noticed this actor before (but then I had never seen The Crow or any of his other notable films).

Unfortunately, the film is otherwise badly flawed, suffering from a genuinely awful script fillled with lines that are absolute howlers, corny situations and the other leads (William Petersen of CSI and Diane Lane from Unfaithful) are just unbelievably bad in this. They are otherwise respected performers, so I am not sure if the bad script or bad direction threw them off or what. Petersen in particular is actually embarrassing. He is very badly miscast, at least a decade too old for the character of Jake (the down and out writer) and his performance is full of annoying mannerisms. He makes us dislike Jake, who is the protagonist and narrator, and that throws the whole dramatic structure of the film off-kilter. Diane Lane is so affectless and flat that she is barely engaged with the story at all. (Needless to say, when either of them has a scene with Wincott, they are simply blown off the screen by his intensity and professionalism.)

The script feels like it was written by a Hollywood type who has never himself A.) visited Atlantic City or even the east coast, and B.) never known anyone in the "underworld". But who is definitely a "writer" and has a sentimental and glamourized vision of how important THAT is. For example, the idea that a woman would automatically find an unemployed writer more attractive and stable than her wiseguy boyfriend, i.e., that it would be NO CONTEST and she would immediately cheat on the boyfriend. No one I know of holds unemployed writers in this kind of esteem (with good reason). I might add that there is NO particular reason to believe that a writer would make any more money, or offer a woman any more opportunities, or even be more trustworthy, than a wiseguy either.

Another good laugh and complete absence from reality is the idea that a nurse (Diane Lane)...an RN in a hospital...would be poor and uneducated and without any chances in life. The reality: RNs have to have 4 yr college degrees, it's a serious and meaningful profession. RNs earn at least $45,000 right out school, more with experience, and the long nationwide nursing shortage means they can pretty much pick and choose working anywhere they WANT. I might add, no nurse I have ever known goes to work with her uniform unbuttoned down to "there" and wearing HIGH HEELS. It would have worked way better for the script if Ms. Lane's character were a part-time waitress or casino worker.

The absolute worst and most embarassing part of the movie is the idea that Frankie (Wincott) wants Jake (Petersen) to educate him about literature...starting with Melville's Moby Dick. It's an unfortunate choice of book...you'd think the screenwriter would have chosen a book that somehow relates to the story or characters (another reviewer here mentions Dicken's Tale of Two Cities, which would have worked much better). Why does Frankie want or need this anyhow?

Doesn't Atlantic City have a public library? Hasn't he heard of bookstores, the Internet, Amazon.com or Cliff's Notes? At any rate, the characters never progress beyond Moby Dick, kind of like being stuck in the first week of freshman literature in the Twilight Zone. Worst of all, re-reading the book with Frankie compells Jake to SING a sea chanty, probably the most grating moment in the film.

At the time this film was made (1998), all three actors were pretty much minor leaguers despite long resumes. Today (2003) Petersen has the lead in the No.1 TV series CSI, and Diane Lane is a major film star with an Academy Award nomination for Unfaithful and new film Under the Tuscan Sun...while Michael Wincott is still basically doing cameos as psycho killers. If this isn't total injustice, than I don't know what is. Anyways, rent this video for his performance and fast forward through the bad parts.

This is a fairly average movie about a writer wasting his life, and writing skills away on alcohol. Well, not actually wasting; It's just that he has lost his inspiration to write, and drinking seems to give some sence to his life. Then he bumps into Frankie, a poor man working for a gangster who Frankie claims he owes his life to. Frankie is very violent, and while not kills, he always gets the job done. The writer on the other hand is fairly well off on his own world, because he hasn't known of any other world for quite some time. Untill of course the day that brains (the writer) meet fists (Frankie) and this is where the core behind the whole plot of the movie lies. As a little extra, Frankies girlfriend, loves both men, and soon has to choose between the two very different two men.

The main character, and Frankies girlfriend, play fairly average, but Micheal Wincott as Frankie really surprises me. His acting is awesome, his furious expression from The Crow in the fight scenes, from the new innocent look when listening to Jake Bridges (the writer) read Moby Dick out loud to him. I never saw him in any serious movie, so this role he truly deserved.

The movie has a lot going for it because of the unexpected ending, and Micheal Wincott. The movie also has some quite good scenes which deserve some audience from other directors. Brill. See this movie.

This movie was good overall with great cinematography and the the special effects were well done. The actors did a great job in their roles despite a script that could have been better written as it had some unbelievable scenes.