Electric Slide

One thing I don't understand: the listings with my TiVo said this movie was based on fact, and yet the closing credits include the statement that it is a work of fiction.

Occasionally this movie is funny, and I'm sure it was supposed to be. But it's not quite a comedy. It's also not the wild and wacky adventure I expected from the description. It's still somewhat fun to watch.

And then there is the quirky and very friendly Sue, who I immediately recognized as Kate Micucci of "Raising Hope", who is cute.

Jim Sturgess does a good enough job as the lead. If he wasn't supposed to be a John Stamos type, then I would say he succeeded.

Several clueless bimbos hang out with Eddie, but they are played by respected, big-name actresses. I guess that's okay.

There are other quirky characters in the night clubs and other hangouts where Eddie goes.

One of the detectives seems intelligent enough, so I wonder why the cops can't seem to do anything. I don't remember the detective's name and I can't see any clue in the credits. But it was a good performance, whoever it was.

I think this was worth seeing.

Dodson owns a furniture store and aspires to a glamorous lifestyle he cannot afford. He borrows money from the bank and then a loan shark. As repayment pressures mount he resorts to bank robbing to fund his debts. He also teams up with a vacant blonde who likes to spout movie dialogue rather than talk with real feeling and their love story is a meaningless sidebar. The problem for me is Dodson is an unlikable man, he steals from friends and wants things without working for them. Sturgess portrays Dodson as ineffectual rather than charismatic which leaves you wondering why the bank tellers he robbed all liked him. I felt no emotional attachment to any of the characters.

The score also misses a trick opting to use generic synth music rather than some of the definitive 80s tunes. Its a stylish enough film but has no emotional core. The period is evoked sufficiently to feel like a period set piece. Could have been better with the talent involved.

I found this movie exceptionally refreshing. The adaption of the idea of Eddie Dobson was intriguing and mysterious. At times, subtle, the movie captivated my attention (hard to do) and I couldn't take my focus off of what was entertaining me. As many movies as I watch, many movies have become background noise, this is not one of those movies. A well played cast, Jim Sturgess is charming and his dialogue witty. I developed a connection with both his and Isabel Lucas' characters. If you want fast action, pass. This is a warming plot that heats up as it advances. If you like curiosity and underdogs, although troubled, this is your movie. Don't let the other reviews scare you away, give it a chance.

The movie went too slow for the pace I'm use to.

And for a movie about a bank robber, it was boring.

Seem they relied too much on how viewers wood react to the excitement of robbing a bank vs putting it on screen.

The nostalgia of the 1980s was faint to. They tired with the 80s music but overall I was disinterested.

Jim Struggs was actually pretty good though. Found him funny and enjoyable to watch as a furtive store owner looking to pay back a shark loan by robbing banks. Unfortunately, it's not enough to make the movie and neither was the mostly cameo appearance of Patricia Arquette, who the ad people decided to milked her academy award win to promote the movie and Chloë Sevigny.

I'd skip it

OK OK. I cannot totally trash this movie. On the other hand......... YES, I watched it pretty much because of the "name" JIM STURGESS. I have admired him for his work in various films. I was anticipating good things.

OK OK. I blame the director. WHO apparently OK'd Jim's silly costume, as well as that ridiculous mustachio, BUT. Here's the WORST: I always note that the Really BAD Actors wander around "expressing" emotions by keeping their Mouths OPEN ! what ??? WHY ?

Sweet JIM, in this role, kept his mouth open throughout PLUS had a scene of chewing gum......I mean CHEWING gum.......what? why?

As an actor, Jim should've protested. As a director ? I'm sorry, it was a waste of supreme talent.