Reviews by PvtCaboose91

The Science of Sleep is a wildly inventive and imaginative film from the same writer/director who also brought us Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Like most of Michael Gondry's movies it's an acquired taste. While the film was not warmly received by critics who called it pretentious, incomplete and confusing, I found the film to be a wonderful and unique experience. In a nutshell: The Science of Sleep is a surrealistic concoction of the weird and wonderful, the magical and inspirational, and the infantile and mischievous.

This is Michael Gondry's bizarre imagination at its very finest: awe-inspiring visuals, great concepts and enchanting characters. As Gondry is addressing a scientific mystery of the chemical imaginings of the brain (that is, dreaming) you can definitely expect something vastly distinctive and different.

This deep, provocative film presents the story of a young man who thrives in the dream world, but appears awkwardly dysfunctional in reality. Since childhood, Stéphane Miroux (Bernal) has often been withdrawn from reality both psychically and emotionally. Stéphane has been living in Mexico for years, but is drawn back to his childhood home in France following the death of his father. His mother Christine (Miou-Miou) promises her son a creative job; however Stéphane soon realises that this "creative job" is a mundane career at a calendar-printing company. Stéphane is charmed when he inadvertently meets Stéphanie (Gainsbourg): a girl who has recently moved into his building. Although Stéphanie is initially charmed by the enigmatic Stéphane, she becomes increasingly confused by his childish nature and an unstable connection with reality. As Stéphane is unable to find tranquillity in his newfound love for Stéphanie, he searches for the answer in his dream world.

There's also a fascinating sub-plot concerning the happenings inside Stéphane's head: there's a charismatic host of "Stéphane TV" expounding on "The Science of Sleep" before an assortment of cardboard cameras.

For viewers with an actual imagination, you will find the blurred line between dreaming and reality both fascinating and mesmerising. Director Gondry creatively utilises cinematic techniques to help the audience distinguish reality from the dream sequences. Subsequently, it's an easy task to comprehend the world from Stéphane's complicated, surrealistic point of view. Gondry even uses a smattering of admirable low-tech animation techniques that are a prominent of the dream scenes. I must also mention the creative contraptions featured in the film: from the one-second time machine to the 3D glass, and even cardboard objects that principally feature whenever the surrealistic side of Stéphane has taken control.

This is a beautifully conceived film that uses brutality in its honest portrayal of relationships and friendships. The Science of Sleep can accurately be described as an eloquent dream - each scene is not constructed in a clear linear narrative order: instead the film is structured as a series of moments which are stimulated by the protagonist's perplexed emotions as well as his need to love and be loved.

Gael García Bernal delivers an appealing, lively portrayal of the confused central character. I couldn't fault his performance at any point throughout the movie. He is the one who carried all the dream sequences, and was supported by minor characters. Charlotte Gainsbourg is one of the key characters who rarely appears, surprisingly. But she is a pivotal cog in the machine and is memorable when given screen-time.

The Science of Sleep is highly entertaining viewing. This is a small-time gem directed to perfection by Michael Gondry. The visuals deserve recognition and are essentially faultless. The only marginal flaws lie in the script. It meanders frequently and plods despite some talented filmmaking. However this is insignificant and slightly detracts from the overall film value. Aside from that the film is a beautiful creation imbued with marvellously strange characters and an obvious vivid imagination.

8.25/10

Harold and Maude is an outstanding black comedy that reminds audiences the reason why films exist. In short, films exist to tell a story: a potent tale of characters who encounter a series of events that unfold during the film's running time. More importantly, films are worthwhile when they actually have a valuable message.

Harold and Maude has a meaningful message about taking advantage of life while you are still on this Earth. It also delivers the poignant message that age is no issue when it comes to relationships. These messages are rife and abundant in the form of this short, cult classic black comedy that is still regarded as one of the best films of all time.

20-year-old Harold Chasen (Cort) is a morbid young man with an affluent background who is obsessed with death - specifically suicide. Ever since Harold was reportedly killed in a chemistry lab accident at school and after subsequently witnessing his mother's priceless reaction, he concluded that it's more interesting to be dead than alive. When Harold is not staging elaborate phony suicide attempts he frequently attends the funerals of people he never knew. His mother (Pickles) attempts to break Harold of this unnatural obsession by sending him to a psychiatrist and hooking him up with young ladies. However this just encourages him to stage more phony suicides. Things look pretty hopeless for Harold...

Enter Maude (Gordon): an elderly 79-year-old woman who is soon going on 80. Maude tries to get Harold out of his shell and persuades him to enjoy life. To do this, Maude includes Harold in her never-ending string of lunatic adventures. Harold and Maude strike up an unusual friendship and as time passes by the fixation that Harold has with death gradually initiates a change into a thirst for life.

It has been several decades since Harold and Maude was initially released. Time has been very kind to this film; instead of its appeal disappearing it actually heightens with each year and each new screening. The film is indescribably charming and appealing. This black comedy will always remain basically unmatched. Interestingly, now that I've seen the film I envy those that have not seen it. I would do anything to travel back in time and watch it for the first time once again. What does this indicate? Quite simply: films containing this appeal and ingenuity are few and far between in this day and age. With Hollywood continuously forgetting the meaning of filmmaking and instead releasing a countless number of movies for money, it's relieving to revisit classics like this from the golden age of Hollywood. Harold and Maude holds up despite its age. In a sense it has a wonderful period flavour: featuring clothes and traditions of the time. Because of all these facts, the film is simply timeless.

Upon first release, critics did not like the performance from Bud Cort. They described him as simply flat. However it seems they have missed the whole point of the character: Harold is morbid, flat and dreary. His macabre nature is captured wonderfully by Cort. Ruth Gordon is best remembered for her Oscar-winning performance in Roman Polanski's 1968 film Rosemary's Baby. In this black comedy, Ruth is absolutely fabulous. She seems warm and friendly. Scenes featuring Bud and Ruth are sizzling. The chemistry between them in particular is insurmountable. Whenever the two actors are exchanging lines there's a gold-mine of witty dialogue brought to life with wonderful performances.

Overall, Harold and Maude is one of history's finest black comedies. Many filmmakers have tried, but the brilliance and originality of this magnificent cult classic remains fundamentally unmatched. The film is brilliant because it's atmospheric, grim and entertaining. Its appeal cannot be accurately described in words. The film is fun and frequently hilarious. Harold's phony suicide attempts are particularly hilarious! I heartily and emphatically recommend this movie!

9.2/10

What is there to expect from an aging Harrison Ford featuring in a buddy cop action/comedy film? Following the surge of bad reviews Hollywood Homicide was shamefully forced to bear, I certainly didn't expect much even considering talent involved. The trailer did look extremely funny; however the aforementioned negative reviews resulted in my decision to skip the theatrical run and perhaps eventually hire it when it is cheap to do so. It really pains me to say this, but the film is a lot more fun than some critics gave it credit to be. Hollywood Homicide is far from being even considered a great movie, maybe not even a good movie. Be that as it may, there is no denying that the film at least stocks a good supply of laughs and some of the action is lively and energetic.

Hollywood Homicide is equipped with an appallingly stereotypical plotline that we have literally seen hundreds of times before. Its structure and series of events in particular is clichéd beyond all comprehension. It pretty much goes without saying that the plot is the film's biggest downfall.

The incredibly convoluted story concerns a murder investigation. Said investigation is instigated following the murder of an up-and-coming rap group who were performing in a nightclub when violently blasted by masked gunmen. Assigned to take the case is aging LAPD detective Joe Gavilan (Ford) with his young rookie partner K.C. Calden (Hartnett). The two detectives moonlight dual careers: Joe is also a real estate broker who struggles to sell houses when not scrutinising a murder (currently attempting to sell an expensive heavy elephant), while K.C. has tremendous aspirations as an actor (currently working on staging a performance of A Streetcar Named Desire) as well as a yoga teacher to a bevy of young women who are searching for their inner spiritual being. The two cops then delve into the recording industry, thus beginning a tale of modern LA detectives on the Hollywood beat; attempting to juggle two careers that spontaneously take precedence.

So what else happens in amidst this convoluted plot I hear you think? Joe is desperately trying to sort out another real estate deal, K.C. is a busy stud, Joe is under investigation by Internal Affairs and Joe begins dating a radio psychic named Ruby (Olin).

Like I previously stated, the central plot of Hollywood Homicide is barely present. It seems all the sub-plots that endlessly emerge are dreadfully clichéd and only included to stretch out the film's lengthy running time. The pacing is an issue because the film plods - by the one hour mark nothing has really happened that advances the story at all. It takes a while for some of the action to kick in. Thankfully, the two chases present in the film are some of the genre's finest and funniest. I'm happy to report that some of this action does represent a redeeming feature.

Harrison Ford doesn't look very enthusiastic to be present in the cast. Occasionally he does do some embarrassing things that are worth a giggle or two, and some of his lines are very funny; however he does the same role over and over again. Josh Hartnett doesn't get beyond two-dimensional as the rookie detective-come-actor-come-yoga-teacher. Once again there are a few clever lines but nothing else to find here. It's a regrettable fact that most of the funny dialogue moments are spoiled in the trailer. It certainly does have its fair share of laughs. It's just unfortunate that these laughs are few and far between.

Hollywood Homicide is forgettable, and confusingly stuck between comedy, action and crime. The clash of the genres doesn't produce excellent results by any stretch of the imagination. On occasion the film is incredibly silly and stupid while also being funny and entertaining. Writer and director Shelton should have focused on the one genre, and should have made the film taut. Aside from its flaws it's an occasionally entertaining film that I would watch again. Look out for cameos by Eric Idle, Lou Diamond Phillips and many others.

6.0/10

It has been many years since Cameron Crowe accomplished consecutive mind-blowing success when he wrote and directed 1996's Jerry Maguire and 2000's Almost Famous. However, even with such triumph underneath his belt, his next film Vanilla Sky was met with severe panning from critics and audiences alike. After watching Vanilla Sky I ascertained that Crowe's career was gradually heading downhill and after that film I lost all faith in the man. Needless to say, without any qualms I gave Elizabethtown the dismissive cold shoulder upon theatrical release. Now that I've finally seen the film I can confirm that it is about as bad as I had anticipated, and Crowe's career has undoubtedly sunk to an all-time low.

Successful shoe designer Drew Baylor (Bloom) causes a loss of one billion dollars in his company, and is fired for his mistake as well as being dumped by girlfriend Ellen (Biel). In severe depression and on the verge of suicide, Drew then learns about the sudden death of his father Mitchell who was still residing in Elizabethtown, Kentucky when he suffered a fatal heart attack. Drew is given a whole new perspective on life upon arrival in Elizabethtown with the intention of attending his father's memorial. During his flight to Kentucky he meets quick-witted flight attendant Claire Colburn (Dunst) with whom he gradually falls in love. As his father's dying wishes and funeral plans (including a debate between cremation and burial) are sorted out, Drew's romance with Claire possesses the potentiality to get his life back on track.

Elizabethtown has many strengths; including a myriad of extremely cute moments and some bright humour. Crowe has even filled the movie with worthwhile messages about life. Unfortunately these messages about life are ripe and abundant in many other movies...including films that he has done in the past. The humour is unfortunately buried and exceedingly hard to unearth. Why? Rather simply because the film is boring beyond all comprehension! After the first hour I started losing interest. There is no substance past the first hour. If there is any comedy after this point in the film I didn't spot it. At the end of the day it also seemingly goes on forever!

But I digress to another extensive list of negatives that shamefully detract from the film's overall value. At every point in the film, director Crowe keeps making the film increasingly pretentious and unrealistic. The whole thing is clichéd from the opening few scenes. Even every character is stereotyped. The locals of Kentucky are shown as one-dimensional hicks with absolutely no depth. Then there are the gaping plot holes and anomalies. I mean a billion dollars to launch a new shoe? A widow learning tap-dancing, stand-up comedy, organic cooking and DIY repair in a few weeks? I could go on forever.

At least the cast were a marginal redemption of the otherwise bleak movie. I have never been a fan of Orlando Bloom, nor will I ever become one. It seems he has a knack for starring in cheesy romance flicks ever since his initial success in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now he's just doing sappy stuff like Troy, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc. Bloom is at his usual standard here. In this film it sometimes looks like he's acting...now that took a few minutes to sink in. I couldn't believe my eyes!! Dunst is the usual conventional love interest. Her performance is fair. I thought Susan Sarandon was mediocre at best, but her stand-up comedy routine was almost painful.

Overall, Elizabethtown is another weak film from director Cameron Crowe. At the time that this review is being written, Crowe hasn't tackled another project since and he has no plans to. If I ever produced a film like Vanilla Sky, then followed it with this film I would have happily left the film industry.

4.8/10

Are you sick and tired of the recent glut of strictly by-the-numbers, saccharine-coated Christmas movies? If so, then praise the skies for Terry Zwigoff's Bad Santa; a no-holds-barred misanthropic black comedy that casually takes every cherished cliché of Christmas movies, tears them to shreds and takes a piss on the remains. Crude, vulgar, crass and frequently side-splittingly hilarious, Bad Santa is a kick in the teeth to every exhibition of seasonal greetings. The one binding characteristic of virtually all Christmas films (from It's a Wonderful Life to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation) is that a character learns an important lesson, but in Bad Santa this is reduced to a child learning to kick bullies in the balls when he's being picked on. How's that for Christmas spirit? To an extent this is a one-joke film, but it's a rip-cracking one at that.

The "hero" of Bad Santa is Willie (Billy Bob Thornton): a hard-drinking, heavy smoking, no-hoper sexaholic who is fed up with life. Every year, Willie and his partner, an African American midget named Marcus (Tony Cox), pull off the perfect scam. They get a job at a department store as Santa and his elf, and once the mall closes on Christmas Eve they use their insider knowledge of the security system to disable the alarms and rob the place. They use the loot to live comfortably the following year before returning to pull off the heist again at a different mall. But the scam is becoming endangered due to Willie's excessive drinking problem and uncontrollable urges to fornicate with anything that moves. Trouble also ensues when Willie is forced to move in with an 8-year-old dweeb (Brett Kelly) who has no friends, lives alone with his dim grandmother, and believes that the frequently intoxicated Willie is actually the real Santa.

Bad Santa did not receive its R rating from the MPAA due to one or two uses of the f-word... The whole movie is crude, foul-mouthed, dirty, disturbing and perverted; containing about 150 uses of "fuck" and its variations, as well as several other profanities, sex scenes and explicit sexual dialogue. These characters make Ebenezer Scrooge look like a pleasant, mild-mannered eccentric. If you're in the mood for Christmas cheer, then go rent It's a Wonderful Life again, because Bad Santa is for the crowd who've had enough of Christmas carols and artificial goodwill. It may be true that Bad Santa manages a happy ending of sorts, but the filmmakers have their tongue firmly in cheek even for this final scene of faux optimism. Is the film at all realistic? Fuck no! It's unbelievable that girls find a man as seedy as Willie so sexually attractive, and it takes a healthy suspension of disbelief to accept that Willie hasn't been fired since he continually spouts profanity in front of small children. But let's face it, since when have Christmas movies been at all realistic?

To some, Bad Santa will be perceived as mean-spirited, and that's more than justified. But that's a point of praise - the film was designed to shock. Willie is shown urinating in his suit early into the film, and the contempt in which he holds kids is outright unsettling. The character is simply beyond redemption. He's so foul, misanthropic and downright pathetic; a prick throughout every frame who shows no restraint whatsoever as he fires off venomous language to child after child without even flinching. In an absolute raping of convention, the character never undergoes some lame third-act epiphany before going about changing his ways. And that's the film's brilliance: the way it mocks convention. Even more effective is the little kid, who goes against every "cute movie kid" cliché imaginable. He's not chubby-cute, but rather disconcertingly obese and impossibly blank. For most of the movie, the kid relentlessly questions Willie about the North Pole and only receives verbal abuse in response, yet it never appears to register or hurt the child...his first instinct is to offer Willie some sandwiches.

Willie's alcohol-fuelled descent into personal self-destruction is at times hysterical but at other times sad, and it's a testament to both Zwigoff's focused direction and Thornton's spot-on performance that the character never feels overplayed or contrived. Thornton was born for this role; effortlessly playing the last guy you'd ever like to see slipping on Santa's big red suit. And as Marcus, Tony Cox is pitch-perfect, while Brett Kelly clearly understands what it takes to portray a dork. Bernie Mac (R.I.P.) is his usual larger-than-life self as a store investigator whose dialogue with the late John Ritter (who plays the mall's manager) constitutes some of the film's funniest dialogue moments. Ritter died not long after filming, and the movie is dedicated to him.

The biggest success of Bad Santa is the way it provides line upon line of boundlessly witty, endlessly quotable and hysterically funny dialogue. The movie is a riot from beginning to end, and best of all the replay value is through the roof. Upon viewing the film for the 50th time, you'll still laugh hard. In fact, you'll probably embrace the movie more and more with each new viewing. Furthermore, Bad Santa is infused with a quality that Hollywood has continually neglected while producing conventional Christmas romps: heart. This is simply the best Christmas film to hit screens for decades.

8.6/10

To the inexpert eye, one might see Rogue as your customary crocodile horror flick in the same league as Lake Placid or Primeval. Hollywood distributors have no shame in releasing a countless amount of monster movies that resulted in being pure rubbish.

Greg McLean stunned audiences in 2005 with the release of his low-budget horror movie Wolf Creek. As I wasn't a fan of McLean's Wolf Creek my expectations had not been raised overwhelmingly high for this film. Rogue sounds like your standard concept of a large man-eating crocodile chowing down on a few people who wander into its lair. But the results are quite the opposite...in fact this is the only decent crocodile horror movie that has ever been released.

Set in the Northern Territory, a cynical American travel writer named Pete McKell (Vartan) is sent on assignment to the Australia outback. Pete joins a bunch of tourists on a river cruise heading out to witness some crocodiles. Pete initially clashes with tour captain Kate Ryan (Mitchell): a spirited woman who simply figures him for a depressing American in search of a cheap thrill. After an uneventful day in the murky river, one of the tourists spots what appears to be a distress flair. Bound by her obligations, Kate is forced to enter unfamiliar waters to investigate. The group are blissfully unaware that they have stumbled into a region occupied by a terrestrial giant man-eating crocodile. With the group stranded on a secluded island with no radio or communication, a fight for survival emerges as enormous crocodile circles below...

The distributors for this movie delayed its release on several occasions. Why? Because 2007 also had FOUR other killer crocodile movies set for release (another being a low-budget Aussie production). By all accounts, McLean's Rogue emerged as the superior film. Although having an extraordinarily low budget for a monster blockbuster, McLean doesn't let a cent of that money go to waste. Unlike most Hollywood croc films, McLean's team actually conducted thorough research into the movements and habits of the saltwater crocodile. The filmmakers utilised an actual rubber crocodile (gorgeously detailed) with some CGI that looks stunning. This may be a low-budget Australian movie, but the special effects are truly astonishing.

The script does contain some predictable scares and clichéd characters; however it's the best screenplay written thus far for a crocodile movie. Firstly, the dialogue is realistic. Secondly, the characters are realistic. Thirdly, about 80% of the genre's clichés have been removed. McLean delicately allows the audience to familiarise themselves with each character as some head towards their imminent doom. The character development is strong and fascinating: there's clever dialogue and interesting personalities. The only flaw is that the characters sometimes suffer from the typical clichés of the genre. We usually know which characters are going to get killed first.

The film's two central characters are played to perfection by Radha Mitchell and Michael Vartan. A special mention must be made about Stephen Curry. Essentially, he's the film's comic relief: your mainstream beer-drinking Aussie who makes funny remarks.

Young director Greg McLean has crafted this movie almost faultlessly. He effectively makes use of everything at his disposal: there are sweeping shots of the gorgeous locations and some intense horror scenes that are skilfully filmed. The score is also a particular stand-out. Whenever a piece of marvellous cinematography is showcased the score suits the atmosphere.

Rogue may be a low-budget Australian movie but it's the definitive croc experience. It's by no means perfect due to a few problems in the screenwriting department, but this is superior to any and all crocodile movies preceding its release. It's suspenseful, chilling and atmospheric. Highly recommended!

7.9/10

Three Kings is a rare contemporary war film that will satisfy the action junkies in addition to those looking for a more emotional experience. One of the film's most admirable qualities is the absence of drawn out political mumbo jumbo. In its place the filmmakers have opted to focus on the soldiers and their situation in the desert during the first Television War (i.e. the first Gulf War). It's a fitting and triumphant portrait that acts as an absorbing character study containing a commendable balance of drama and action.

Three Kings delivers a potent anti-war message. The film does not begin with the announcement of war, but soldiers celebrating its conclusion before coming to grips with its consequences. The film examines the impact of the media in the warzone: images and propaganda that the gullible American public were fed. With America under the rule of George Bush Snr. there is little wonder why the war suffered from such poor regulations. Just think...this is a man that actually said "I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them". Yes, he truly said that.

Anyway, David O. Russell's Three Kings is a film split into two phases: the first phase is about a group of bored American soldiers planning to steal some gold, with the second phase concerning the American soldiers witnessing the consequences of their decisions and actions. Major Archie Gates (Clooney) is looking forward to his retirement in a couple of weeks as he is disgusted with the war. Troy Barlow (Wahlberg), Chief Elgin (Cube) and Conrad Vig (Jonze) are three bored soldiers under the command of Gates who discover a map detailing the location of stolen gold. Greed getting the better of them, the four plan to venture out into the desert with the intention of stealing the gold for themselves. In theory it's a simple plan, but troubles ensue in its execution. The soldiers soon realise that the war (that they have been told is over) is still deeply in progress with Saddam Hussein's Iraqi soldiers now attacking the civilian population. With the civilians facing slaughter and eradication, the four men rise to the heroic challenge.

Director David O. Russell has created a very different war movie. Russell wanted to make every bullet count and he completes this objective. On that note, the cinematography and editing is outstanding. Early in the movie the character played by George Clooney talks about the effect of a single bullet when it penetrates the body. In so many other combat-oriented war movies we see characters firing off endless amounts of random ammunition. Three Kings makes the audience sincerely comprehend everyone who is shot - even the nameless grunts. There are a few unique images in the film as we see the interior damage of a bullet. Not entirely graphic by any means (seems like something from a simple documentary), but it really hits home. This is a tremendously effective cinematic device. A good creative decision for sure; however it occasionally overwhelms the story. Instead of being immersed in the events, the audience knows that it's a movie.

My interest in Three Kings was originally fired up when I looked at the cast list, with George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg and Ice Cube portraying the central characters. George Clooney rarely, if ever, churns out a faulty product. He hits all the right notes with this film. He proves that he is something much more than just a sex symbol. Mark Wahlberg is deep and engaging in his role. Credit must also go to Ice Cube for his best performance to date. It's a shame that Ice Cube's career soon went down the drain after his sublime performance here. A notable fact is that although the film's title refers to three characters, there are in fact four central protagonists (the fourth being portrayed remarkably by Spike Jonze).

Three Kings is a film with heart and action. Flawed only marginally in its script department, this is a solid film about war and men's actions during war. No gross exaggerations are present.

8.1/10

After spending the decade of the 1990s in the shadows and remaining overlooked, Steven Soderbergh made his mark in Hollywood with Out of Sight: this sufficiently entertaining crime drama. It's rather a daunting task to categorise a Soderbergh production - this film has elements of romance, comedy, drama, crime and thriller. With these elements in mind, the filmmakers have tossed in a dense, intricate, somewhat fractured screenplay to be implemented by a questionable group of actors. The stage is set for something moderately different to occur.

Jack Foley (Clooney) is a habitual bank robber with a formidable record. Jack decides to shorten his current gaol term by conducting a prison break with the assistance of long-time collaborator Buddy (Rhames). However Jack does not expect to encounter US Marshall Karen Sisco (Lopez) during his prison escape. The pair toy around with an obvious mutual attraction. As Jack and Buddy plan their ultimate scam, Karen is assigned to track them down and bring them to justice. It takes about half an hour to establish that plot. Subsequent to the opening half an hour the plot steadily dissolves with each passing minute. Basically the final 90 minutes of the movie (give or take) are concerned with Karen working to capture Jack and Buddy. However Karen begins having second thoughts about arresting Jack as the mutual attraction intensifies.

Out of Sight is equipped with talent in several departments: acting is generally very good, directing is strong and the screenplay is witty. But director Soderbergh's style will not be liked by all. Quite frankly the film loses its appeal and bogs dreadfully throughout the middle section. The problem with Soderbergh's movies is that, although they're sometimes really unpredictable, it's difficult to assess the importance of each scene. With so little action and so much dialogue there isn't much to sustain interest in the viewer. While watching the movie my eyes were glued to the screen but my mind kept wandering off...I could never remain entirely engaged.

Another fatal flaw is the lack of sizzling chemistry between Clooney and Lopez. George Clooney is always highly charismatic and appears abundantly determined. 60% of Clooney's screen-time features some skilfully-written dialogue and some absorbing drama. It's a shame this level of focus isn't maintained - something solely attributed to the mediocre screenwriting. On the opposite end of the spectrum there's a very questionable Jennifer Lopez. Honestly, I have never liked Lopez's acting so perhaps I am biased. Be that as it may, Lopez is poor at maintaining any degree of intensity. Her lines are occasionally quite witty (sometimes more so than Clooney's dialogue), but she does not do justice to the screenplay. There is zero chemistry between Clooney and Lopez. We have a charismatic performer opposite an actress who really requires a few more acting lessons.

Thankfully the supporting cast are a marginal redeeming feature. Don Cheadle's performance is similar to Clooney's - spirited but let down by the film's unique style. Steve Zahn is always a scene-stealer. It's a shame Zahn is allocated such a minor role. His potentiality could have redeemed this film more emphatically. Michael Keaton's insignificant (uncredited) role is also worth mentioning - a former Batman criminally underused.

Overall, Out of Sight is a mediocre crime film that will not be liked by all. Occasionally there's some great dialogue to absorb and a few strong performances. Not that I was looking exclusively for action, but the drama could have easily been balanced out by more frequent action. I'm glad I watched the film; however I doubt I'll be watching it again any time soon.