I don't write too many of these comments but I couldn't believe how many positive reviews there were of this thing. I'm sure glad I didn't see them until after the movie so I wouldn't get my hopes up.
This is one of the most shameless and embarrassing of the many Tarantino ripoffs that came out in the '90s. In the opening scene there's even a character who for no reason asks Aaron Eckhart whether Picard or Kirk is better. Later the movie blatantly copies the Dennis Hopper/Christopher Walken scene from TRUE ROMANCE (but in unbelievable circumstances so there's none of the tension), the torture scene from RESERVOIR DOGS, the cleaning up dead bodies in a suburban house before the wife gets home business from PULP FICTION, the criminals who casually say racist and misogynistic things to shock the audience type dialogue of RESERVOIR DOGS, the story about Marcellus injuring the Samoan guy in PULP FICTION, etc.
True, Tarantino didn't make up the elements that make up his movies. But be honest. Clearly he is the one who brought all these things together and created a style of presenting them (with the mundane moments, darkly humorous situations and random pop culture references, all badly aped here). A dude putting all of these things in a movie in 1998 is not a coincidence. I don't know who he thought he was fooling.
More importantly though, he just does a bad job of it. The situations aren't believable. The whole movie revolves around the ridiculous idea that a criminal would leave a suitcase full of heroin sitting in plain sight on a bed in a friend's house with the door open. Even though he knows that various factions of hit men and corrupt cops are trying to get it. And then just leave the house for no reason, leaving it there for the taking. There's no reason why he would do this except that it's the premise of the movie. Just like there's no reason he would carry suitcases of freshly stolen heroin and money into a convenience store while buying coffee. No reason except to have a "cool" scene where they kill somebody and almost get caught.
To me the characters don't have personalities, they all seem like poses, trying hard to be Tarantino types and not pulling it off. Nobody seems very tough except Mickey Rourke, and he's only in it for a couple minutes near the end. The only part that doesn't seem directly lifted from Tarantino is actually the worst part, a painfully bad comedy routine where the main character has to pretend to be a normal guy while hiding guns and blood and a guy tied up in the garage. Somebody else could make it funny but the whole thing is badly overacted and it drags on forever, like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch from hell.
Worst of all, Thomas Jane isn't very good. He's the whole reason I decided to give this one a chance, but he overdoes it and they make him into kind of a dork. He's much better in THE PUNISHER and especially STANDER. If you want to see a little known crime movie starring Thomas Jane, FOR GOD'S SAKE you gotta go for STANDER. He gives a great performance and it's a truly riveting, intelligent and beautifully directed movie. It has a unique feel and has something to say about our world. The opposite of THURSDAY in just about every way imaginable.
I guess there are people out there who like this movie for whatever reason, so it serves its purpose. But I'm betting Skip Woods is real embarrassed that he made this amateurish ripoff. It was a phase he went through that seemed to make more sense at the time, like when he used to wear MC Hammer pants.
p.s. When I submitted this I got an error message that said, "Your comment contains a very long word which is not allowed." Then it highlighted the word "dialogue."
This is one of the most shameless and embarrassing of the many Tarantino ripoffs that came out in the '90s. In the opening scene there's even a character who for no reason asks Aaron Eckhart whether Picard or Kirk is better. Later the movie blatantly copies the Dennis Hopper/Christopher Walken scene from TRUE ROMANCE (but in unbelievable circumstances so there's none of the tension), the torture scene from RESERVOIR DOGS, the cleaning up dead bodies in a suburban house before the wife gets home business from PULP FICTION, the criminals who casually say racist and misogynistic things to shock the audience type dialogue of RESERVOIR DOGS, the story about Marcellus injuring the Samoan guy in PULP FICTION, etc.
True, Tarantino didn't make up the elements that make up his movies. But be honest. Clearly he is the one who brought all these things together and created a style of presenting them (with the mundane moments, darkly humorous situations and random pop culture references, all badly aped here). A dude putting all of these things in a movie in 1998 is not a coincidence. I don't know who he thought he was fooling.
More importantly though, he just does a bad job of it. The situations aren't believable. The whole movie revolves around the ridiculous idea that a criminal would leave a suitcase full of heroin sitting in plain sight on a bed in a friend's house with the door open. Even though he knows that various factions of hit men and corrupt cops are trying to get it. And then just leave the house for no reason, leaving it there for the taking. There's no reason why he would do this except that it's the premise of the movie. Just like there's no reason he would carry suitcases of freshly stolen heroin and money into a convenience store while buying coffee. No reason except to have a "cool" scene where they kill somebody and almost get caught.
To me the characters don't have personalities, they all seem like poses, trying hard to be Tarantino types and not pulling it off. Nobody seems very tough except Mickey Rourke, and he's only in it for a couple minutes near the end. The only part that doesn't seem directly lifted from Tarantino is actually the worst part, a painfully bad comedy routine where the main character has to pretend to be a normal guy while hiding guns and blood and a guy tied up in the garage. Somebody else could make it funny but the whole thing is badly overacted and it drags on forever, like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch from hell.
Worst of all, Thomas Jane isn't very good. He's the whole reason I decided to give this one a chance, but he overdoes it and they make him into kind of a dork. He's much better in THE PUNISHER and especially STANDER. If you want to see a little known crime movie starring Thomas Jane, FOR GOD'S SAKE you gotta go for STANDER. He gives a great performance and it's a truly riveting, intelligent and beautifully directed movie. It has a unique feel and has something to say about our world. The opposite of THURSDAY in just about every way imaginable.
I guess there are people out there who like this movie for whatever reason, so it serves its purpose. But I'm betting Skip Woods is real embarrassed that he made this amateurish ripoff. It was a phase he went through that seemed to make more sense at the time, like when he used to wear MC Hammer pants.
p.s. When I submitted this I got an error message that said, "Your comment contains a very long word which is not allowed." Then it highlighted the word "dialogue."