Reviews (897)

"No hay banda! There is no band. It is all an illusion."
David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" is a whole lot of nothing. People have attached various meanings to the images, dialogue, and events in it, but this has been a waste of a tremendous amount of time. "Mulholland Drive" is nothing more than a failed-television pilot that was edited together with some newly-shot material so that all the previously-shot footage would not go to waste. To think that some people believe that the end product is a momentous creative accomplishment is mind-boggling because "Mulholland Drive" is all smoke and absolutely no fire.

Wide-eyed Betty Elms (Naomi Watts) arrives in Los Angeles hoping to become a major star in the entertainment industry. Rita (Laura Elena Harring) has been targeted for death but has her life spared when an accident enables her to escape her fate. The lives of the two women become strangely intertwined when Betty finds the amnesiac Rita taking a shower in her aunt's apartment. In the course of trying to find out who Rita really is, the two women come across a movie director named Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux) who might hold some of the answers the women are seeking. Before all is said and done, a decomposing body is discovered which proves to be the key to unraveling the mystery behind Rita's identity and the strange relationship she has with Betty.

So what did Lynch intend to accomplish with "Mulholland Drive"? Did he want to create a surrealist work that would redefine the film narrative? Did he want to create a post-modern film noir that was so stylish and complex that it would belong to a category all its own? Did he want to prove that a film could effectively tell a story using only symbols and metaphors? Did he want to create the cinematic version of the cosmic joke? The more you think about it, it seems the "cosmic joke" choice might be the correct answer - and boy, did Lynch pull a fast one by tricking Universal into releasing this film and tricking us into watching it. Truth be told, "Mulholland Drive" is not the crowning achievement of his career - it is instead incontrovertible proof that Lynch has crossed over from being a director who makes "unique" films to being a director who makes "incomprehensible" films. The fine performances by Watts, Harring, and Theroux are wasted here as is the beautiful production design and cinematography. It is too bad that all of these separate elements did not find a home in a better production. "Mulholland Drive" is simply the equivalent of an abstract painting in which people see whatever they believe they see when looking at it. If you believe that pointless ambiguity is a desired goal of the creative process then this film is for you. Look elsewhere if you're not entertained by staring at nothingness.

a beautiful masterwork
This film has a haunting beauty that is akin to experiencing Klee upon the first time. The mystery and sensuality wrecks havoc of all your senses. I relished the experience.

Midgets!
This film is David Lynch doing what he does best: screwing with people's heads until they want to smash their VCRs. There's everything you expect from Lynch; bizarre, dreamlike situations, whacked-out characters with no clearly defined purpose, an inexplicably foreboding atmosphere. Oh, and of course, the entire cast shifting identities in the last half hour. While I loved it, there was one particular moment which was a bit too unsettling, even for Lynch. You see, there's this elderly couple who appear at the beginning. They're kind of strange, and have smiles plastered on their faces. They disappear for the next two hours, which is nothing new. Near the end, they show up again - as...hyperactive two-inch tall midgets. Even Eraserhead's singing worm creature didn't disturb me as much. I mean, midgets are kind of disturbing, and old people who can't keep smiling are also kind of disturbing, and when you combine the two...

25354. IRS97, stick to reviewing Charlton Heston movies
... Because apparently that's all you know.
Your recent attacks on 'Age' for her response to your original aggresively offensive review attacking anyone who has a taste for Lynch's art are as 'ignorant' as your original review was.
Age, as most people who admire Lynch's art, has a passion for the art of film and music.
Dirge9 (whom I do not know!) recently wrote a superb review of Mulholland and what it truly is.
A lot of reviewers (besides myself and my group of 7 artists)
have responded to your 'movies are just movies mentality'.
And, your conservatism shows IT'S age.
Comparing the art of Lynch to the 'art' of someone like Charlton Heston is excrutiatingly laughable.
I can see why, as an American conservative, you 'get' Heston, the most arrogant Hollywood actor of all time. There's even an 'in joke' in Mulholland with the casting of Chad Everett (who brilliantly parodies his own Hollywood image) that is comparable to the like and mentality of Heston, the once president of the Hollywood Actors Union who blatantly attacked Ed Asner for his political stances and had enough Hollywood clout to see to it that 'Lou Grant' was taken off the air.
Mulholland is so anti-Hollywood in every frame. It mocks Hollwood's 'The story must be clear, cohesive and literal' mentality.
This film pulls the rug out from under the Hollywood type viewer's feet in every sense imaginable.
Hollywood is a facade and Mulholland mocks that facade. Nothing is as it seems, hence the two halves of the film. First, we have the facade, then the ugly truth comes out and does so in such a way that it brilliantly leaves the viewer scratching his head.
'What the hell just happened?' is the typical response.
Admittedly, this film is not at all friendly to the Hollywood type viewer (aka yourself).
it's amusing too that in looking now at all of your reviews that you liked 'The Shining' (another anti-Hollywood film), anD detested both 'Twister' and 'Zardoz'.
'Age', in the college we attended, wrote reviews very similar to your views on those three films.
And yet,even though you, like her, pointed out the downright ignorance of 'Twister', and the Hollywood hyper pretentiousness of Zardoz, and praised the brillance of that horror epic, 'The Shining' you did not 'get' the similar sentiments of Lynch's 'Mulholland and 'Lost Highway'.
There are movies and there are films and Mulholland fits squarely into the latter.
Film is as much a visual 'art form' as painting is, while 'movies' are valid forms of entertainment, usually created by Hollywood business men.
Europe is far more advanced in it's thinking regarding film as an art form and Lynch has a very European artist's frame of thinking.
Another reviewer recently wrote of 'elitistic taste' and wrote that this is something to strive for.
Mulholland is a perfect example of a film being for 'eltistic taste' and like Dirge9 I agree that the fact that this film gets the passionate reviews that it does, is refreshing because it proves that Lynch's art is indeed challenging and every negative review you give it further proves this point.

and another thing, part two
I notice my previous review is getting only "unhelpful" votes. So let me try to explain myself yet again. David Lynch is interested in making preposterous movies. David Lynch is perniciously interested in making movies that are basically terrible, yet terrible in a dissociative way. The essence of a David Lynch movie is that it is a load of horse puckey, to quote the apartment manager in Mulholland drive. What's that? You want examples? Well, lets take another of Lynch's movies, Lost Highway. Bill Pullman's character is established as morosely mellow and more or less inert. Cut to: a scene of him playing his saxophone in a club, "wailing on it" as they say. This is in total contradiction to what we have just seen - contradiction being the main form of literary humor - but more importantly, Pullman is a very, very bad saxophone player. His playing is preposterous. One cannot take him seriously as a musician. Another example, from the same movie, is Richard Pryor as the garage manager on the phone to a potential customer. He says, "We got eight guys here. I'll let you talk to five of them; and if you can get that price from ONE of them, I'll let you ask the other three." Any questions? Is this not self-evidently complete and utter nonsense? And what about the fact that halfway through the movie Bill Pullman turns into a totally different guy and so is let out of jail. After all, since he is not the same guy they put in there, they gotta let him out. That follows, don't it? Am I making myself clear?
No? Okay, what about David Bowie in Fire Walk With Me? He plays a Texan. I am sure he was cast as a Texan precisely because David Lynch figured on Bowie being unable to do a convincing accent. He says to his casting director, "Let's have Bowie play the Texan. He'll do a terrible job and it'll sound like sh*t." Am I getting through to you people now? David Lynch intentionally makes very bad movies. What?!?!? Another example?!?!? Well, how's about Laura Palmer saying to her boyfriend, "I'm long gone, like a turkey in the corn." "Don't say that. A turkey's one of the dumbest birds there is." (tears falling down her cheek)"Gobble...gobble...gobble..." Can't you see what I'm saying to you?!?!?
DO YOU BEGIN TO SEE THERE IS NO BOY THERE IN THE DARK ROOM?!??! ... Read more

Reviews (27)

One of the best movies about the effects of the Vietnam War
I've seen quite a few movies dealing with the subject of the war in Vietnam but this is the best by far. I love the realism in this film and how effective the plot of the movie plays into the lives of the two main characters. This is one of the best films ever made period, the acting,writing and directing is superb on all counts. John Voight is brilliant in this movie as the bitter paraplegic. He won the Academy Award for Best Actor in 1978, which I was glad that he did because he truly deserved it. Bruce Dern (in his Oscar nominated role) is also wonderful and very convincing even Jane Fonda who I have never been fond of was very good. This movie was directed by the late Hal Ashby and Waldo Salt wrote the terrific screenplay. This film is excellent in every way and it would make a great addition to anyone who collects great movies such as this one.

One of the most important films on Vietnam!
This movie really blew me away. I rented it the other day not expecting much, but after the movie ended I realized how wrong I was! Jon Voight does an incredible job as the wheelchair-bound Vietnam War vet who falls for Jane Fonda. Bruce Dern is almost as good in his portrayel of Fonda's husband, who goes to fight in the jungles of 'Nam while Fonda & Voight fall in love. I've never been a big Jane Fonda fan because of her actions duing the war, but she did a very good job. However, I don't think it was academy award winning acting. Jon Voight's award was well deserved, though. One of my favorite moments is when he talks to the high school students at the end. The film is great & I loved it, but it's far from perfect. For example, the movie ends rather abruptly without totally resolving the plot. And how come one of the last things we see is Bruce Dern's rear!!! It adds absolutely nothing to the plot & takes away some of the power of Jon Voight's speech. One last thing I've got to mention is the awesome music. I've never heard so many great '60s songs in one film, and they add so much to the movie's dramatic mood. I especially liked the song "Once I Was" by Tim Buckley played during Jon Voight's speech at the end. I highly recommend this film for everyone (except kids!).

HORSE MANURE
As if to counter-balance "The Deer Hunter", good old Jane Fonda starred in "Coming Home" (1978) with Jon Voight. Saved by the pure benevolence of American goodwill from a treason trial, she was allowed to pursue her craft (she is excellent at it). "Coming Home" seemed to be the realization of the self-fulfilling prophecy she created in 1972. It was that year that she traveled to Hanoi, the heart of America's enemy, and allowed herself to be posed on Communist tanks, wearing an army helmet. It was blatant "aid and comfort" provided to an enemy during a time of war. Jane did not stop there. Like a modern day Tokyo Rose, she got on the radio and told the troops their wives and girlfriends were having sex with hippies and protestors back home. To this day, the G.I.s have never forgiven "Hanoi Jane". She tried to apologize and say she was wrong, but her heart was never in it.
Eventually she married CNN founder Ted Turner, a man who may not be the anti-Christ (but may be), and may not have achieved his success by invoking Satan (but may have). When Turner saw CNN employees adorned in "ashes" to worship Ash Wednesday, he went ballistic about "Jesus freaks" in his employ. Such a crime! Jane, in the first move she ever did that I liked (other than wearing skintight sex clothes in her hot-selling workout vids), declared she was a "born again Christian." That was the last straw for Turner, who divorced her. There is no word on whether Christianity took in Jane's life, but I wish her well.
In "Coming Home", she portrays the very cheating wife she described to the boys in her "Hanoi Jane" days. She tries to pepper the performance with an apology to her officer husband, Bruce Dern, but it ends up being more of an explanation, which in light of what we know about Vietnam does not wash. Two thumbs down.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM

THE MOST MOVING OF THE VIETNAM WAR FILMS
More emotional than THE DEER HUNTER, and that's going some, Hal Ashby has a masterpiece that moves even the most macho of hearts, especially when Tim Buckley's "Once I Was" plays its first five notes. Oscar worthy, as well as winning, COMING HOME is a gripping work of artistic integrity. Forgotten among the two big Oscar winning roles are Bruce Dern and Penelope Milford (both Best Supporting nominees) and Robert Ginty, all 3 of whom do more than fill screen space. The Rolling Stones "Out Of Time" cannot be more perfectly placed.

A Serious And Sensitive Portrayal Of Vietnam Vets!
Who would have thunk?? How is that someone as adamantly against the Vietnam war made such a transition that she starred in this terrific melodrama focusing on what happens to those who gave their all for their country, and have to live with the consequences. Certainly none of us veterans would have supposed Hanoi Jane to be capable of such a mind-boggling transformation. Yet her personal feelings about the damage done to our young men and women "in country' were truly galvanized by what she learned in preparing for her role as the wife of a Marine officer at loose ends with her time and spirits, and volunteers her time at the local Veteran's hospital. Both she and co-star Jon Voight won Academy Awards for their thoughtful, moving, and emotional portrayals of people caught in the biggest and most overwhelming geo-political issue f the sixties.

The entire ensemble cast is wonderful, with Bruce Dern superbly playing the marine officer feeling confused and cuckolded, on an emotional knife's edge as he learns of her romantic and emotional betrayal with the wheel-chair ridden Voight, and neither of them can save him from the roaring emotions Dern feels roaring through his head. This is a sensitive screenplay that introduces a lot of fairly sophisticated and sometimes shocking aspects of real life onto the screen, but it is so well done that it all seems quite natural and open and healthy. For example, this was the first time paraplegics are seen making love on-screen, and the action is both realistic and fairly explicit. So forget about Jane's confused and somewhat tortured past, take a chance and give this movie a roll. I know you will love it. Enjoy! ... Read more

Amazon.com

There are three unforgettable characters in John Sayles's contemporary adventure-drama set in Alaska. They are never seen but live only in a frontier diary found by teenager Noelle De Angelo (Vanessa Martinez). The life of the diary's narrator is much like everything in this movie: hanging in limbo. The first half of the film focuses on why men and woman turn to Alaska, a land still ripe with opportunity. A small town is at a crossroads, with its pulp mill and canning factory closed and new investors seeing different directions in which to take the area (one even boasts the state is the ultimate theme park). A local (Sayles regular David Strathairn) is just escaping his past, taking up commercial fishing again. He attracts a traveling nightclub singer (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in her best role in years) who struggles daily with her daughter Noelle. Like any good theme park, Limbo presents the threesome with an unexpected adventure. In the wilderness, the three relative strangers learn more about themselves than was ever possible in town. Sayles's usual craftsmanship creates a singular blend of drama and suspense with an ending designed to ruffle feathers. Not as accessible as his breakthrough hit Lone Star, Limbo is nevertheless a hearty film from one of America's best storytellers. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (78)

Wow. Amazing in every possible way.
I simply must take issue with the previous reviews. "Limbo" is a fantastic film. It is truly absorbing for the very reason that other people who are more used to, or hoping for, some kind of action-filled cliche movie would have preferred. You can't go into this movie wanting another typical lame Hollywood ending movie. Sayles' movies aren't that way. Yet neither are they boring--far from it! "Limbo" is about the lives of the characters. The key is to realize that by watching this particular film you are specifically watching a series of events in their lives go into inexorable motion, and then watching the consequences. The events themselves are quite simple on the surface...hence again, why some may call this boring as there are no cartoon characters, jet fighters, aliens, robots, explosions and the like to segue into the next scene. The scenes of the marooned group reading the diary they found in the ruins of their shelter are stunning. And as for the ending, well, (don't worry, no giveaways here! ) how else could it have ended? Anything else would have been another stupid Hollywood ending that leaves nothing to the imagination. And also, ponder the title itself. You think about this movie after you leave the theater, after you turn off the TV, you discuss it with friends. That's what good movies do...make you keep talking about them after the credits roll. If you want to see a truly original movie that will stay with you for a long time, get "Limbo." Whew. Thanks!

Vintage Sayles -- a Haunting Story that Stays with You
This a pretty incredible film, so take my advice and don't let anyone else spoil its surprises if you haven't seen it. It's a quiet and strange film filled nevertheless with a lot of complexity, chills and heart. But part of its magic does lie in the suspense of simply wondering what will happen next, so keep yourself in the dark if you can before viewing.

That said, this is vintage John Sayles that at the same time explores new territory. Like most of his films, it seems at first to be more about character than plot -- but the plot rears its head, and as with "Lone Star," the story is unexpected and flawless. "Limbo" offers wonderful performances (especially those of the three leads), but it also boasts a knockout soundtrack (who knew Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio could sing?) and moments of quiet and eerie poignance. The ending will leave you thinking (and talking) for some time to come.

This DVD is one of the good ones, by the way -- no paltry "extras" of just a trailer or "more movies to buy!" And what a treat to actually get a chance to listen to Sayles on the commentary track -- unlike many commentaries, this one adds layers instead of stripping them. It's a hard film to forget.

SOMETHING ELSE
Limbo is a fascinating movie - no Hollywood stuff, but independent film-making of very high quality. Most of all I like the two main characters played be David Strathairn and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio. The way they get to know each other is very tender, very convincing, and also funny at times. I particularly like the scene in the bar when she comes to his table after singing a song, and they start revealing little bits about themselves to each other - that's fascinating acting, and fascinating dialogue too.
As for the much-disputed ending - oh well, I don't want to give away too much, but director/writer/editor John Sayles says in his DVD commentary (highly recommended) that it was the only ending that seemed appropriate to him, and maybe he's right...

Awful Move; Cheaply Shot; Lacking A Story Line
This is an awful movie. It is so cheaply shot it's a distraction. Whoever produced this move needs to go into another career. Awful story line, what little there is. Stay far away from this movie, it's 2 hours of your life you'll never get back but wish you could.

Well, That Was ALMOST An Excellent Film!
I can't believe I just read through 75 reviews! Just goes to show, when you watch this film, you don't simply say "oh well" and flip the channel. That said, it seems to me that at least 90% of those reviews are off-target.

On the one hand, the half that are one-star can mostly be ignored. As with all John Sayles' movies, this is a slow-paced but involving story that anchors you into a "place-and-time crossroads": Alaska, as traditional industry jobs are vanishing and being replaced by tourism's less-satisfying service jobs. As always, Sayles weaves a community before your eyes, in this case, a community of people struggling to redefine themselves. Three characters rise to be the leads: they are fascinatingly and heartbreakingly human. Assuming that you like thoughtful movies, you will find yourself immersed, and then, as the title implies, suspended, exactly as the director intends. With all of that, this movie is definitely an involving experience.

Now, if that sounds interesting to you, fine, give it a spin. You'll be intrigued, and will understand why there are 75 screamingly polarized reviews here for such a small film. If it sounds dull, or depressing, it probably will be: skip it. And if you've never seen a John Sayles movie before, this isn't the one to start with: go rent "Lone Star", which satisfies on as many levels as Sayles ever chooses to go. (BTW, you will never find an upbeat, fast-paced, movie-movie Sayles film. He just doesn't do that.)

If you haven't seen the film, stop reading here.

OK, now for all those five-star reviews: nonsense. And as to the condescending POV that, if you don't like this you must have been looking for a Schwarzenegger ending: well, bite me.

This idea that, since "what would happen next" was either of two choices and both were trite, so just leave it to the viewer to choose between the two trite endings... what crap! YES, by stopping there, that is exactly what we're left with: romanticism or nihilism.

That's the point: THE MOVIE SHOULDN'T HAVE STOPPED THERE. They should have survived, obviously: otherwise, why bother filming the movie? Just stick a note in the DVD case saying, "Life sucks", and a handgun to end it all.

They should have returned to the town, plugged back into the story, begun their attempt to trust again together in Joe's house, and... then what? I don't know, cuz I'm not the writer. But surely there would have been a way to leave these characters with open, even ambiguous futures, while still not simply abandoning the story.

A lesser writer would never have gotten us to that beach. But a better writer (and Sayles at his best is one of our finest writers) would never have resorted to such a lazy tactic to leave us in "Limbo". Understand, it was HIS CHOICE to veer the plot midway (and btw, in retrospect? The introduction of the brother and drug dealers and all of that was really contrived). If he ran into this either/or boxed-in choice between two bad endings, he should have thrown the entire "strand them" twist into the garbage can, and rewrote.

IMO, Sayles will look back on this project and realize that he simply ran out of juice. A shame, since this is one of his finest setups for a film, and definitely, three of his finest and most sympathetic characters. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Double the pleasure... double the fun!
From the man who brought us "The Fugitive" and "Under Siege" (the good one), comes an original comedic tale of two brothers fighting over the same inheritance.

Starring Andy Garcia... and Andy Garcia, "Steal Big, Steal Little" succeeds in every way that "Multiplicity", "Dead Ringers" and a few of the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movies have failed. The twin brothers, both played BRILLIANTLY by Garcia, couldn't be more dissimilar (one is good and one is bad). So when their adoptive mother leaves her fortune and estate to only one of the brothers -- the fun begins!

Clever camera tricks and a fast-paced script make "Steal Big, Steal Little" the perfect movie for anyone who has ever been caught in the middle of a battle for family inheritance.

Andy Garcia's finest work.

Enjoyed Big, Seen Little...
One of Andrew "The Fugitive" Davis' few non-suspense movies, this comedy recieved terrible reviews and zero box office upon its theatrical release--but it would be well worth seeing for many. Full of terrific character actors and sporting a jumbled chronology, the film tells the story of identical twin brothers (Andy Garcia, once again a naturally joyful presence) at war with each other over their adoptive mother's bountiful estate. The more selfish of the two siblings may have a lot of politicans in his pocket, but his generous opponent has a few tricks up his sleeve as well. Though essentially a "dramedy" in tone, there are occasional detours into slapstick that treaten to tip the balance. On the whole, however, this is the kind of fresh and highly moral piece of entertainment that comes out of Hollywood pretty rarely. It's so much more popular, it seems, to be smug and ironic. "Steal Big, Steal Little" doesn't go that route and leaves me feeling positive and optomistic.

An excellent movie
I have been waiting for the release of this movie on DVD for years and finally my dream came true. It is a very enjoyable movie talking about love, money and greed. Andy Garcia is a wonderful actor and it is a double pleasure to see him acting as twin brothers. Own this DVD and you won't be disappointed.

One of Andy's Best
As with many of his other movies, Andy Garcia pulls out another great performace in Steal Big Steal Little. In this movie Garcia plays identical twins that are on opposite sides when their step mother dies and leaves thousands of acres up for grabs, in the lush valleys of California. Filled with great suppporting roles from very familiar faces this movie is a must see especially if you are an Andy Garcia fan.

TWICE AS NICE!
The only improvement they could have made to the film is to have Andy Garcia playing triplets. He is SO AMAZING. I love the way it jumps back and forth. Okay, one teeny tiny little detail. They could have done a better job super-imposing him on the horse at the end. A very nice story, especially with Ruth Dunbar. This film didn't get near the attention it deserved. ... Read more

Description

Hailed nationwide by critics, CROSSING THE BRIDGE is an entertaining winner you're sure to enjoy -- starring Josh Charles (DEAD POETS SOCIETY), Stephen Baldwin (BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY), and Jason Gedrick (BACKDRAFT). Through thick and thin, Mort, Tim, and Danny were friends. Now they're putting everything on the line with a dangerous drug-smuggling venture promising high-stakes consequences. The trio's about to leave their fun, carefree days behind to face a moment of truth. Their decision will not only determine their freedom, but the future of their lives! ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Good movie...
A great coming of age movie set in 1975 detroit. 3 high school friends are now graduated with uncertain futures. None went to college and none have decent jobs so they are emotionally caught between adulthood and the high school mentality of living at home. Symbolic of this are the high school letter jackets that two of the friends still wear. Stephen baldwin plays a guy who is losing his identity. He was cool in high school but now as an adult he is just another guy. Mort is the most intellectual and introspective of the three but he knows that he needs to go to college to realize his dream of being a writer. A dream that doesn't recieve much support from his friends. In fact he never shares a scholarship notice from central michigan university with them.

Early in the movie they encounter a drug dealer who offers them $9,000 to run some hashish from canada to the usa. Hence the name of the movie because of the bridge that runs between detroit and windsor ontario. The guys can't help but seriously consider that move. They need the money of course but they need a sense of identity even more. Thankfully the movie doesn't dwell too much on this one event but i'm surprised that these guys never once consider the morality of the action just the potential consequences to them. Other mini sub plots take form in the film of course. Their relationship with uncaring parents and romance. There are the cliche stuck up high school class mates who are now in college. One laughable character is a guy who smugly proclaims that he is majoring in pre law. Any one can major in that and most never go to law school.

Things heat up when the fellas decide finally to do the drug run. They deliver this atache filled with money to some really bad dudes in a farm house and realize they have bit off more than they can chew. Instead of hash they are expected to carry heroin across the border and they are lucky to be alive. One of them got beat up really bad. The scenes on the bridge are a bit drawn out but they all eventually decide to leave the car and the heroin and just cross to detroit on foot. This responsible move indicates a crossing over into adulthood and they end up tossing those high school letter jackets into the detroit river.

You will be involved enough in the movie to wonder what happens to these guys in the next ten years. Will mort get that degree and become a writer after all? It works. There is one major problem with the plot. These guys took a lot of money to get drugs in canada and bring them back to the us. What is a drug dealer going to do when he doesn't get the drugs or his money back? we will never know.

The acting is solid and i actually found myself liking stephen balwin's performance. A very good movie but the hole in the plot keeps it from being a 5* film.

.................socks

An excellent way to reminisce
Coming of age movie with emphasis on the results of the decisions we make. Applies to all of us who were indecisive about the future after high school. A good movie with which to reminisce on a cold night.

My favorite "CTB" Character...
I loved this movie, simply due to one certain character...
"High School Senior #3", portrayed by WWE Superstar Sean "XPac"
Waltman. This poor guy really took a pounding from Josh Charles'
& Stephan Baldwin's characters. I'd like to see a sequel to this film w/the main character being HSS#3. Give the dude some respect...he's been pushed around long enough!!

Great Coming-of-Age movie set in Detroit
Anyone who grew up in Detroit in the 70's will recognize most of the characters in this movie. This is the story of recent high school graduates who didn't pursue college who are in that void where they are too old to be kids but haven't become responsible adults yet. Their parents still support them. Their time is their own. They fumble around applying their high school values but essentially doing nothing until they happen upon a way to make some big, quick cash, smuggling hashish into the USA. When they get to the pick-up though they find out that the job is actually heroin. (Nicholas Cage is the heroin dealer.) In the process of deciding what to do, and what happens to them when they balk, they discover a lot about themselves and become real adults. Not to ruin the ending but watch the symbolism of the high school varsity jackets.

Shot on location in Detroit and Canada, if you're a suburban Detroiter this is wonderfully nostalgic too.

A dramatic, charasmatic film, brilliantly directed!
This is a magnificant story of three young men journeying to Windsor, Canada to attempt to smuggle hashish Back to Detroit. What is so powerful about this movie is the fact the it ignores the essence of Windsor, (fully nude strip clubs and all out gambling) and focuses directly on the situation at hand. It also prepares the viewer for a powerful sequel based on a true story of a young man, violently gay, trying to establish himself as a functional heterosexual by journeying to the strip clubs of Windsor in the hope he will be attracted to the opposite sex. The role is so convincingly played by Dave Painter, one must wonder if it is actually his life story. Look for the sequel, if JeffFey productions can budget it, to hit theaters in the year 2000. Special Mention must also be given to that of Jim Frazier, who plays Painter's oddly queer sidekick and partner. Frazier is extremely mellow in his role, yet wears clothes and glasses that gives the viewer the idea he made be a pedofile or serial killer.- JT 1/26/99 ... Read more