MovieChat Forums > The Untouchables (1987) Discussion > so COMPLETELY strange and frustrating -

so COMPLETELY strange and frustrating -

posted 14 years ago by dyahrmarkt
52 replies | jump to latest

I need to try and out into words what bothers me about this film....I just finished watching it again and really just can't seem to get to the bottom of this one....I've read many of the criticisms and defenses on this board and figured I'd throw my two cents in.

There are two levels for criticism here - 1) the logical inconsistencies. 2) tone. I'm going to leave #1 largely alone. We have a number of things that don't make a whole lot of sense in the film but overall those things didn't bother me. I'm not interested. "The Untouchables" has a far greater "problem", if indeed it is a problem -

I guess I'll start by pointing out when I first start noticing this.....thing...manifesting within the film: the bomb with the little girl (of course, the old guy is named "Pops"!). The whole entire scene is flat, utterly, absolutely uninvolving, predictable simply beyond BELIEF, and curiously "staged", as if DePalma WANTS to be that annoying friend who constantly spoils the film for you while you're watching it.

Then we have Catherine Ness's first appearance in the film. She tears off the calendar date and gives this almost wax-museum grin profile view towards the direction of Eliot. This is when the film starts its slide into the *almost*-surreal. I felt like I was watching a film directed by DePalma with David Lynch whispering advice in his ear. In every single scene involving Catherine there is this utterly frozen feeling, her smile a little too wide and made up....

This strange slide is accompanied by an absolutely perplexing David Mamet screenplay. Mamet has always been one of my favorites because he never settles for the simple route - you're going to get way more goodies thrown into the pot than you bargained for....in this case, however, it's like, Christ, I don't know - the dialogue is SO basic, SO beyond even the cliche' of the gangster genre, SO rather *deliberately* stripped down to its rawest element that it just lands like dead weight. The first time I saw the film I didn't notice too much. However, multiple viewings not only reveal the cracks, it shows that this dialogue was designed around a kind of mis-en-scene where the weight of the actors' presences were meant to contain a truly banal way of speaking:

Malone: Ness......Ness! I am just a poor [pause] beat cop! Now...how can I....help...you?

This is exactly how everyone talks in the film - as if John Wayne was the dialogue coach or something. The pauses aren't even necessary with this kind of writing - listen to every line one by one - it's shockingly simplistic. The actors may have been in collusion with DePalma and Mamet and gleefully played with ways to say this stuff to make it into the working definition of pretentiousness - something actively pretentious, rolling around in its own juvenile-sounding 8th-grade 'fighting stance' tone.

It's so frustrating to pinpoint exactly what's going on here, but a post I was just reading made a big deal about things feeling "overcooked" and that's it to a large degree, I think. It's as if DePalma, Mamet, and his cast got together and said, "We're going to make a send-up of gangster films and play it absolutely straight, as if it WERE a real gangster movie! And we'll make it so bloody people will have to believe it!" That's precisely the tone that this one rides. It's like watching a PG-rated kid's movie with these unbelievably visceral violent sequences that sort of "puncture" that bubble of artificiality - when the film goes all out into its most violent limb it's breathtaking - the train shootout, Wallace's killing in the elevator - it all just takes on this larger-than-life stylism that has you totally unable to look away.

When a scene of violence is over and everything 'settles', the banal dialogue resumes without us even being halfway aware. DePalma plays his 'talking' scenes like a sleight-of-hand magician, distracting us with those ceiling-shot camera angles, body language, and general background - even the actors themselves (particularly Connery and DeNiro) are allowed to not only tread water, but draw ATTENTION to their treading - not on the words coming out of their mouth but how they're delivered. Listen to Capone's "enthusiasms" line. It goes "Enthusiasms.....enthusiasms.......enthusiasms....." It's quite an odd way to direct and write - perhaps an unnecessary one - if "The Untouchables" played itself without the weirdness it may have been more effective. DePalma wants to push this one into some kind of comic-book universe. And how about those post-production loops? Almost every other scene has great swaths of dialogue dubbed in - I just can't believe on this budget and with this talent we had to resort to (quite obvious) looping of the dialogue...there has to be something more to it - maybe the looping gives that dialogue even *more* of that odd, stilted quality that feels like we're watching this thing drunk. They just can't possibly take all of this seriously - could they?!?!

Some more scenes to consider:
- Stone's one-two-three-four-five-six-OK let's meet him entrance.
- Ness's daughter's prayer with Catherine - Morricone's score flying high into the pink-princess-tinkerbell-stratosphere.
- The first raid with Malone. Listen to that guy (BADLY looped dialogue here) - "Hey! Hey! What is thiiiis? Thisssss isn't riiiight. You got a warrant?" Malone: "Yeah, sure, here's my warrant! (boff, boom, bing) How do you think he feels now? Better? Or worse? [WTF????]
- The matchbook. The scene with Nitti needing to remind himself where Malone is may be more towards the logical inconsistencies, but I'll go for it here - it's set up so obviously, like we're watching a silent film. When Ness discovers the same matchbook, watch the camera slowly zoom in - the entire thing is just so ridiculous! There is ZERO suspense here, just a kind of stylistic gleaning. DePalma is milking the scene for the style in *watching* the matchbook illuminate, NOT for any kind of traditional "aha!" suspense.
- Capone at the opera. Of course, the opera is "Pagliacci". Watch him 'cry'. Good Christ, this is DeNiro!!! They're up to something here. There's just no way I believe that they're expecting us to take this seriously.
- Ness's 'confrontation' with Capone. "Cmon, you wanna fight? You and me right here? [whimpers]" I want to chuck my shoes at the TV when I see this - IF DePalma was sincere in choosing *those* takes I just don't know what to say....except that I hope he wasn't!

I give "The Untouchables" 7/10. Despite all of this stuff (or maybe because of it????) it SOMEHOW pulls itself through. When Ness exits that gloriously phony rain/sun Chicago backdrop I always find myself back to my original thoughts: what the hell???
--

[–] JohnnieFavourite 14 years ago

Quite a long post, but I find myself in agreement on a lot of your points. I have always been baffled by the weird mixture of the over-the-top sentimental family stuff (like you point out about wife and daughter), some cheesy action-scenes (post office raid and shootout at the bridge) and scenes of severe violence (baseball bat-scene, for instance). It just doesn't sit right with me.

Also, the score is somewhat ambiguous as well. It sounds at times like something from a family movie and it does in fact go well with all the needlessly cheesy scenes (the shootout at the bridge where they charge the bad guys like cowboys comes to mind - the bespectacled guy even cheers like an overly excited cowboy!), but it feels out of place in a gangster/cop movie.

Another issue I have is the fact that there's little or no character development. No characters undergo changes or developments, they are all flat, one dimensional cartoon characters. The bad guys are mean and the good guys are nice... even though some of them display a shocking lack of morality and don't seem to mind. Costner is the cause of several dead civilians and the death of two of his partners but in the end he doesn't seem to care much. Capone gets 11 years and he goes off to get a drink. What a dick.

Overall it's just a weirdly indecisive movie that tries too much but accomplishes very little. But at least the costumes are pretty.

I'd give it a 4/10

If we're not back by dawn... call the president.
- Big Trouble in Little China

[–] dyahrmarkt 14 years ago

I do agree with a great deal of your response - despite my 7/10 I do think you're on target. My generosity towards "The Untouchables" has to do with being really dazzled by that juxtaposition of almost Spielberg-sentiment and corniness with those bursts of blood and carnage - there really isn't any other film I can think of that forces these two together. It's like watching a G-rated film with blood and bone spliced in by some sick-minded film editor!

It's all so baffling, and, yes, it doesn't really sit well with me but I can't dismiss it, either. It left a definite mark and I've yet to sort it out after all these years. For that I give the film credit.

Yeah, that bridge shootout - with the screaming, the swelling music, the humor, those shattering bursts of windshield glass, smoke, guys cut in half with machine-gun fire - I really throw my hands up. On one level it's absolutely absurd, and on another it's quite brilliant - IF they're intending that!!! I have this dreadful suspicion that DePalma meant for the film to be played 'straight', and that's what keeps me from giving it a full recommendation.

As far as the characters - not only were they not developed, they were SO cut-out-of-the box it was like you could see the cartoon dialogue bubble above their heads! Or, imagine the film as a silent picture, with the cutaway dialogue box - that's how I saw this film.

It's like the actors aren't even really saying their lines at all. It's, sh*t, I don't know....like they take a simple statement such as, "Hi, how are you?" and manage to make it sound like this: "HI.......how.........are YOU?" Particularly Connery - he's just all over the map. Much as I enjoy his performance, listen closely to just how utterly dry his dialogue is and how he manages to actually squeeze blood from these words...it's impressive!

"I need.....to find that.......bookkeeper."
"Are ye crazy? Yer crazy!"
"I need....that...bookkeeper."
"Yer fookin' nuts! Yer fookin' out of yer mind!"

I mean, on one hand, it's pure gold...on another, it's pure camp!
Thanks for the response -

[–] JohnnieFavourite 14 years ago

You're right, it is oddly intriguing and fun... but still pretty awful.

In relation to the characters, I actually think Costner is the worst. He displays a complete lack of enthusiasm (enthusiasm.... enthusiasm...) for his role and every line (even the less horrid ones) are delivered as if he couldn't care less. There is no emotionality, just his trademark "blank stare". But yeah, Connery is pretty ridiculous too, but at least he's fun... Costner is just bland as hell.

And yes, it is really campy and in some ways that makes it fun, but most of the time I just find myself cringing and during the bridge shootout scene and the corny family scenes, it's downright hard to watch.

If we're not back by dawn... call the president.
- Big Trouble in Little China

[–] dyahrmarkt 14 years ago

Costner has always been completely atrocious, but never more so than here. I almost wonder if DePalma deliberately exploited him for that 'weirdness' present throughout the film.

Those family scenes are beyond saccharine - they're absurd! His wife never ceases grinning - she looks like Nicholson's Joker. It's so plastic-hollow-artificial that it practically invites the hole-through-the-head violence seen so prominently in the film.

Please nest your IMDB page, so you respond to the correct person.

[–] octagon79 14 years ago

I find the views of a person on a film after 'multiple viewings' are completely invalid. A movie is meant as an experience, not something to be poured over multiple times until all its flaws become apparent. Judge a film by how you felt the first time you saw it.

[–] Henry_Marzini 14 years ago

I find the views of a person on a film after 'multiple viewings' are completely invalid.

Why ? just because they saw it more than once ?. If so I completely disagree. I don't think in order for you to judge a film or give an opinion on it you are only allowed to watch it once.

A movie is meant as an experience, not something to be poured over multiple times until all its flaws become apparent.

Sometimes it's the opposite. Peopler can watch a film once, not be so thrilled by it, then watch it again, notice things and techniques they didn't before and therefore enjoy it more.

Remember, there might be some MOMENTARY DISCOMFORT.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dyahrmarkt 14 years ago

@Octagon -

I really have to concur with the two responses above. If I hadn't mentioned that I saw the film more than once, would my reading of it then be valid? Or, more to the question, if I had seen *improvements* in "The Untouchables" with multiple viewings like I do so many other great films (i.e. "Miller's Crossing", "The Shining"), would you object just the same?

Furthermore, I didn't "pour over the film until its flaws became apparent". I actually enjoy "The Untouchables" and watch it every so often because of its crazy juxtaposition of violence and saccharine - however, those questions / flaws / inconsistencies grow and grow and I finally felt like I had to address them. Not too many other films affect me with such frustration.

You're going to be awfully lonesome if you are looking for people who, like you, watch a film once and only once and give a one-off "assessment". How utterly boring!

Please nest your IMDB page, so you respond to the correct person.

[–] jking143 14 years ago

Costner drives me nuts because he seems to never use contractions and sounds so incredibly stiff. There's a dialog in this movie where he's talking about going to Canada, tracking them down in Canada--and he sounds like a 5th grader reading off the cue cards. I thought when he sounded so stilted in Dances With Wolves, maybe it made sense, perhaps back then people hadn't started using contractions--but this is what, around 1930? Wouldn't they be speaking a little more casually by then? Or maybe I need to do some more homework. But both he and Keanu Reeves are stiff as boards--and the contrast against Robert De Niro just makes it worse. Good thing he's cute. Does anyone else think this?

[–] ak47wong 13 years ago

Everything except the "cute" part.

[–] dyahrmarkt 13 years ago

@jking

Totally agree. Costner was never a good actor - it was rather luck that put him at the top of Hollywood in the early 90s - look how fast he was dropped! Tom Cruise, by comparison, for all his off-camera weirdness actually *can* act and that's why he's held on for so many years.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] failboat 13 years ago

I don't have much to debate on with respect you your overall points.

But one thing you said really sticks with me because of how absurd it is.

"Costner is the cause of several dead civilians and the death of two of his partners but in the end he doesn't seem to care much."

Most cops/law enforcement/rational people do not see things this way. Perhaps not every single thing followed perfect due process or legal restrictions but it is absurd to blame anyone but the murderers/criminals/Capone for the deaths of the civilians/innocents/law enforcement.

If a criminal pulls a gun and starts shooting at people, and law enforcement arrive at the scene and start shooting back and a cop gets killed, would you say "oh it's the cop's fault for getting into a gun fight"? It's not the cops' fault for ENFORCING THE LAW, it's their JOB. So that statement of yours is kind of insane/victim blaming. It's NESS'S fault for their death and not the VIOLENT GANGSTER/MURDERERS fault?! Really?

[–] dyahrmarkt 13 years ago

@fail

I've avoided some of "The Untouchables"' problems logically in favor of my problems with its tone - but in this case I'll point out something re: Ness and his reactions / motivations. One problem I have is quite the opposite from the post you were disagreeing with - it's Ness's sympathy towards the criminals, not the dead cops/civilians! Take the scene when he blows the dude away in Canada for not listening to him. He seems totally distraught and then yells out, "Whattaya, deaf?" (use your best Costner whine here).

Another scene that makes me want to put the DVD in the microwave - the matchbook scene with Nitti. Nitti is caught, and knows it, and he tears up the stairs guns-a-blazin'. He shoots TWO PEOPLE (cops, I think???) who roll down the stairs, presumably dead, as Ness chases Nitti up to the rooftops. Now, Ness already has circumstantial "evidence" that Nitti did Malone, but he is practically a WITNESS to Nitti shooting these two guys IN THE FREAKING COURT BUILDING. Then, when he has the drop on Nitti, who's suspended so pathetically from that rope, does he shoot the bastard like any self-respecting law official would do? Hell, no - he helps the guy up! What is this?!?! I know it creates dramatic tension and all for the moment when he pitches Nitti off the roof, but that scene just asked too much from me. He's just witnessed Nitti gun down two cops trying to make a getaway. He obviously wasn't listening to Malone's advice (put him in the morgue, etc.) and I think many law officers would want Ness's ass for that hesitation had they seen him decide to bring the guy in "by the book". Oh yeah, and then he throws him off the roof anyway - so what was the point of him saving his life? Murdering two cops on the stairs not good enough? He has to wait until Nitti calls his dead friend a "stuck Irish pig" for Ness to lose it. Yeah. Uh huh. You bet.

But this is why I avoided initially wanting to "go there" with this film in the logic department - because the tone is what bothers me more - but your post got me thinking about Ness and what *could* have been going through his mind as that camera zoomed in on him during Nitti's attempted rope-getaway.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gordontli-1 8 years ago

No character development?? Are u sure?? I can name a big one in how Eliot Ness has changed from a by-the-book / everything-within-the-law type of lawman, to an utter murderer and extortionist by the end. And its the Only character development that matters in the story.

[–] royalkma 14 years ago

You forgot at the trial when Ness yells to Capone: "You got to keep fighting....blah blah." I like this movie but those things were really misplaced to me too. However I just chalked it up to it being an older movie and we hadnt been introduced to better cinema yet like Heat, etc. I mean those guys had to cut their teeth on something right?

Cindy

[–] dyahrmarkt 14 years ago

@Royal -

That would be (say it with your voice raised):

"Never stop fighting 'til the fight is done!"

I think the film had plenty to go on in the cops vs. gangster genre - I just have this sneaking suspicion they designed it to be deliberately, utterly cornball with these absolutely shocking violent sequences thrown in there.

Please nest your IMDB page, so you respond to the correct person.

[–] liquid-zero 14 years ago

I agree completely with the OP, specifically with the PG-13 with violence comment, that is EXACTLY how I felt when I watched this. It was the music for me mostly, the tone of this film was all wrong...such a mess...I still enjoyed it but it frustrated me so much!

[–] whowhatwherewhenwhy 14 years ago

I agree, especially about tone.

The tone is way too campy for a prohibition-era gangster period flick. Morricone's score is misused and creates weird tonal imbalances as well.

I expected more because of all the names behind this.

[–] dyahrmarkt 14 years ago

@who

I actually enjoyed Morricone's score....the question is, again, was DePalms deliberately going for the camp? I almost half-believe he was.

Please nest your IMDB page, so you respond to the correct person.

[–] Hollowshape 13 years ago

It feels like a movie made in the 60s.

[–] pablo-taylor 13 years ago

Watching The Untouchables now is an oddly refracted experience; we're talking about a film made a quarter of a century ago which is based on a 1950's television show that related a highly fictionalized version of real-life events from the 1930's.

Is it any wonder that it feels deliberately arch and stilted especially as (despite being a period film) stylistically it can't completely throw off the time in which it was produced. I think the contemporary positive reception was largely because people were in on the joke, nobody was treating it like The Godfather but as a piece of pure, somewhat tongue-in-cheek pulp fiction, not unlike what Warren Beaty did with Dick Tracy a few years later.

[–] Statutory_Ape69 13 years ago

So many viewpoints, feelings and opinions here. Why don't we all just shave off the fat and agree that: Costner = *beep* It's just like with Nicholas Cage. If you have seen ONE of these guys' movies, you have seen them ALL!

[–] wrs6565 13 years ago

Nicolas Cage is generally terrible, but watching one of the (few) movies where he was acceptable ("Adaptation," "Raising Arizona," "Wild At Heart") forces me to admit that in his non-action-movie roles he can be decent at times. Watching one of the good ones I named is NOT the same as watching "The Wicker Man."

Costner, really, I can't name a single Costner movie I really like. DWW is alright, I guess.

[–] one189teen50five 13 years ago

You people (critics) of this film are a complete and atrocious JOKE. You have the whole picture wrong about Kevin Costner. He's a great actor that is constantly misunderstood and panned. IF you are not good in the business, you simply fade into the woodwork. KC is still around and still doing very good things. I APPRECIATE his work.

[–] dyahrmarkt 13 years ago

@one

OK, so we're an "atrocious joke" for criticizing the film...how about some real defense of Costner and his portrayal of Ness in this film? How, exactly, is he misunderstood by those criticizing him? I'm honestly curious - lay out a good defense for Costner's performance and I'll listen to what you have to say.

Being "good in the business" doesn't always mean you're a good actor - come on! Leave Costner out of the argument for a second and I think we can agree to that, no? How many horrid actors / actresses, past and present, have soared right to the top for reasons that have nothing to do with raw talent? For that matter, how many immensely talented actors never get their due recognition?

So, again - why exactly do you appreciate Costner and his performances so much?

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] dyahrmarkt 13 years ago

@Pablo -

I like the "Dick Tracy" allusion here - an interesting way to look at it. I just wish the film pushed itself just a bit more to let us know it was indeed camp - normally I don't like that kind of underlining, but in this case the ambiguity (if that's what it is) is maddening - it leaves the uncomfortable impression that it was, indeed, trying to take itself seriously.

Please nest your IMDB page, so you respond to the correct person.

[–] ak47wong 13 years ago

So far nobody has mentioned the Odessa Steps sequence, which I found so absurd and forced that I couldn't help but think De Palma just wanted to do it so he could cross it off his bucket list.

[–] dyahrmarkt 13 years ago

@ak

OK, you're going to disagree with me here, but I found the Odessa Steps sequence breathtaking - it's one of the moments in the film that the elements really do fall into place - DePalma demonstrates a knowledge of editing and timing that is truly professional - he did set it up like a piece to be studied and I know it has been, just as Potemkin has after all these years...

The scenes of raw violence and power are everything the film has going for it. It's all handled with the skill of an absolutely pure filmmaker. But it doesn't in any way erase the glaring, glaring flaws in the rest of the film - it simply allows for that "spillover" energy to permeate the film and give it a weird resonance that I like. But I wouldn't be honest to say that what didn't work didn't bother me - because it definitely did!

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] Degree7 13 years ago

I definitely agree with the OP that De Palma was going for a complete clash in tone for this, very much style over substance.

Just look at this scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSm68IEDDT0&feature=relmfu

I can easily gloss over the logical fallacies. In my mind, Ness initially decides to spare Nitti because he wants to elevate himself from the murderers and thieves he apprehends by doing it by the book. It isn't an easy decision, and he promptly reverses it).

But concentrating on that surreal quality the OP mentions, just look at the sort of 'fish eye' lense that De Palma uses when Ness helps Nitti up from the ledge. And the dialogue:

"They're gonna burn you buddy... I'm gonna come see you burn because you killed my friend!"

"He died like a pig... You're friend died screaming like a stuck-Irish pig."

Ness' dialogue sounds so contrived, like a 5 year old wrote it. I definitely think that was the quality Mamet was going for, something you'd find in a 50s serial. And Costner only amplifies that awkward stilt (no doubt intentional, as the OP also mentions).

But then Nitti's line is just so dark, heartless, and cuts deep, degrading, racially and sadistically charged. How could anyone not want to kill that guy? Then the over-the-top score kicks in and we have a glorious orgasm of violence. The viewer is sastisfied. It's interesting the way that us viewers are so geared towards some sort of culmination for violence in these kinds of films, if they let it be. We all agree that it's the juxtaposition that both kills and saves this film. The violence is very realistic and in-your-face, but when paired with the saturday morning TV show feel, it still feels overly dramatic. Perhaps De Palma was, dare I say it, playing a trick with the audience by trying to make some sort of half-baked commentary?

Ah well, I still enjoy the film. Both this and Carlito's Way are the best I have seen from him, considering his relative lack of talent as an auteur.

You always know the truth... when you cut yourself or someone else with it, you bleed.

[–] dyahrmarkt 13 years ago

Degree7 -

You have an interesting approach to the topic here - yes, you could picture this film storyboarded almost as a comic book - picture a grizzled, sneering, shadowy Ness saying "They're gonna burn you!" It, maybe, tries to work in that fashion...."Sin City" made a damned good effort to try and capture the essence of a comic in live action and succeeded a lot more than this film did.

I totally agree with all your assessments here - the only part I'm still unsure about is how deliberate it all is. A lot of it *seems* to be the result of DePalma and Mamet getting together and gleefully having a go at their audience with this ridiculousness, but another part of me really wonders if they were tying to play it straight, or were met with puzzled executive reactions that demanded less camp and more 'straight' playing.

The result is an ambiguous mess - at least with "Sin City" we KNOW they're going deliberately waaaaay over the top, so it mostly works on that level.

What "The Untouchables" should have done is really went for it - they needed to ramp up the camp and corniness times 1000 in order to pull it off, IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE GOING FOR....if, on the other hand, they wanted us to take this film seriously for what it was....but I've already exhausted that argument!

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] eltotox 12 years ago

I completely agree. I came in expecting intelligent, smart dialogue but ended up laughing at the ludicrous script, which, by the way, turns into the worst of the westerns half way through.
And don't give me that "oh but it's been a quarter of a century already". Come on. There are many films that feel way more contemporary and timeless. I watched recently The Sting, and somehow felt less cliché and more authentic than The Untouchables.
The delivery from some actors was worth it, but the choice of Kevin Costner as a lead was poor, to say the least, especially with such strong figures next to him. Not that it really mattered, I couldn't take them seriously anyway.
I think that was the biggest problem, for me, watching this movie: I COULDN'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY! At all! I'll give it another shot and TRY to be objective about it, because I can't believe the hype and weight of the name "The Untouchables" comes from such a lousy movie.

[–] calvinnme 12 years ago

I'm glad I don't read what others write before I write my own review, else I'd be tempted to cut and paste what you wrote into one big quotation and add one comment of my own : "What he said".

You eloquently put into words absolutely everything that is weird and wrong with this film. Thank you.

[–] dyahrmarkt 12 years ago

Thanks very much! This thread is a good one, lots of good comments on this film. I'm glad to have these ideas verified; if I was all alone here on this film I'd feel even more frustrated! Cheers -

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] nitramd2000 12 years ago

i couldn't agree with you more. also, is it just me or did Kevin Costner just show up and collect a paycheck?

[–] staticdynamite 12 years ago

This movie is terrible. High budget and production value wasted on this crummy story. The direction, writing and acting all suck. It's absolute nonsense. It's so utterly fake all throughout. I know it's a film but there is no genuine feeling here.