15 minutes

The following review for the film `15 Minutes' will probably take you around that same time to read it. Wait! Come back! I was joking! This film is another flick that satirizes the media's influence in depicting real life crimes as sensationalistic newsgathering for the general public. We have seen this before in films such as `Natural Born Killers.' Critics have ridiculed `15 Minutes' because they say that the film actually demonstrates the same exact thing that it tries to satirize. It does this by showing gory murder -type violence and utilizing famous stars in small cameo roles. Even though I do have to agree with this concept that my colleagues (don't I wish) have criticized, I should say to them to `just wait one minute, or fifteen for that matter' and do not take it so seriously. Why? Because the film does entertain. I think that critics should just leave it at. By the way, the film is about a homicide detective and an arson investigator who hunt down some eastern european psychos who film their crimes on video. Robert Deniro, who plays the homicide detective, is more low key in this one; and Eddie Burns cinematic presence adds fuel to the fire as the arson investigator. I really do have to say that I enjoyed mostly every minute in `15 Minutes' even though most critics don't second my opinion.

**** Good

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have been to give an outsider perspective on the abuse of American culture, but that angle ultimately just plays into outdated audience prejudices against people who speak with an Eastern European accent.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

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....

Robert De Niro does great in this movie. Like we haven't heard that before. You can tell he tries to let Edward Burns have his time, but he is such a charismatic screen presence, people would probably pay to watch him sit in a chair for two hours. The movie around him is also good, touching on the interesting topic of the media's effect on violent crimes. Edward Burns does a good job, but i think the real stars here (except for De Niro, of course) are the two East European criminals who come to America searching for fame and fortune, played by Karel Roden and Oleg Taktarov. They are funny and terrifying all at the same time. Oleg's character seems like a friendly guy, but he is actually a violent pervert. And Karel's character is just plain nuts. I recommend this movie for the great performances and it's thought provoking premise. 7/10

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.