The teaser on the front of the movie box said, "better than The Usual Suspects!" I couldn't disagree more. This movie solely lacked any character development, was poorly acted, and had a dumb storyline. Don't waste your time.
Add a Review
-
Vaquero-25 September 1999
-
Heislegend14 January 2010Have you ever watched a VHS (remember those?) that was copied from a tape that was already a copy? If you did, you'd know the quality was really bad by that point. That's how copies work...the more generations you make, the worse it gets. That's pretty much how I'd sum up this film. It feels like a Tarantino rip off, and all but Tarantino's first couple movies are rip offs themselves (you can call it an "homage" all you want...the dude steals stuff and makes a few minor changes).
The plot is pretty basic at best. A couple of friends decide to save their failing used car dealership by taking on more than they can handle with a random assortment of bad guys. Of course by the time that happened I was already bored to tears. The writers try to make up for a tired story with some snappy dialog and succeed once or twice, but overall the whole thing is just one big failure. They should really remove the "blood" and "guts" part of the title...there's not much of the former and none of the latter. The "bullets" part is up for debate as well since there's not much in the way of gun play going on. Sadly, there's not much of anything going onat all. Period. It's just bad...even for a low budget rip off. -
serpentsky9 October 2002Check this one out if you like corny, campy action movies. I'm not ashamed to say that I do, and enjoyed it. The acting is wooden, but come on, the movie had a miniscule budget. The story is pretty good, and the dialogue is (unintentionally?) hilarious.
-
merklekranz20 May 2008Two used car lot owners, who we know nothing about, get involved with numerous shady characters, who we know nothing about, while being paid to watch a Pontiac convertible, which we know nothing about. Why would anyone be interested in a movie that explains nothing, and has zero character development? The obvious answer is you wouldn't. Throw in unending closeups of meaningless dialog, a "surprise" ending that is so ridiculous, it will leave you wondering if it didn't come from a different film, and other trivial nonsense that does nothing to explain this confused mess. Forget even considering seeing B.G.B. & O, instead seek out "Suckers", another low budget crime drama centering around a used car operation, that is absolutely brilliant. - MERK
-
ziggyvideo14 April 2001I can't believe so many people are calling this a "great" movie, and I really have to suspect that someone paid the reviewer quoted on the box to say that this was "better than The Usual Suspects" (it isn't). Yes, it was made for less than eight thousand bucks, and it shows. Folks, it's a BAD movie! The characters are terrible, the acting is terrible, the story, far from being quick, is a bore. Some people will praise anything independent and low budget just for being that, but not me. Independent or studio, it still has to be good, and this isn't. Yes, I'll give Carnahan all the credit in the world for taking a cheap, awful flick and getting enough juice behind it to market the thing to where it is today, but that's all. This did not belong on the video store shelf, nor did it belong on a channel that viewers have to pay for. It's marketed as a regular film; it should carry a warning that notes what it really is: something just below "demo tape for rejected artist". Do not waste your time.
-
byght23 April 2003It amazes me the impact that two movies ("Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction") can have. Quentin Tarantino has become by far the most imitated director of his generation on the strength of those two movies.
"Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane" is one in a long, long string of Tarantino ripoffs, but it's certainly not a bad one (like "Two Days in the Valley," which made me want to puke). As the title suggests, it's high-energy, high-impact, and gritty. Actual, indie-film gritty, not Hollywood faux gritty. Still, the overwhelming unoriginality of the whole affair kind of bogs it down.
Carnahan has since attained his own identity and gone on to vastly better things, though: "Narc" is perhaps the best cop movie I have ever seen. -
Purgatory3143 December 2006A firm proposition instills opposition with skeptical minds on the make.
And the two with the few become one with the many with merciless souls on the take.
Intriguing conviction in characters' diction had preset the pathway to yearn.
Ladened with larynx and leaded with bullets as bodies end up in the urn.
I have to admit I fell in love with the script at first sight.
Dialogue Dueling with intellectual fueling had left me with pleasant delight. -
rutt13-14 July 2001Garbage. Honestly I don't know if this had any redeeming features. Hmmmmm....I think it was a short movie, but I'm not sure. Somebody tried to give two talentless, unsympathetic gimps hip, trendy, Tarantino-esque dialogue, but failed miserably. The hitman is utterly ridiculous in every sense. The acting stinks, the characters stink, the script stinks. I guess I kinda like the title though...
-
mrclem17 March 2004A superb effort and entertaining action flick. The plot is logical though somewhat predictable (you just know they're going to get deeper and deeper over their heads). The dialog is intelligent, realistic fast and terse. The action hits fast and hard but is not gratuitous. The plot has some complexity to it, with different threads that tie together as the story unwinds. But they manage to do this with a short running time by having tight editing - no extraneous scenes. Hollywood should have movies with this kind of dialog, story and editing. The film quality is grainy, evidence of this flick's low budget. But the acting, dialog, story and action are all solid. Definitely worth seeing for those who like action flicks.
-
gkerns1 July 2000I have no idea whether this was an indie movie (or even what the definition would be), but it was pretty pathetic. The plot was horribly slow, acting was horrible... I'd call it a bad B movie, but I think it was trying to be artsy. Only the fact that I'd forced my g/f to rent it (thinking it would be a great B) kept me watching the whole thing. If a plot won't go anywhere, at least make it intellectually stimulating (like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead). Truly one of the worst movies I've seen.
-
wave5415 August 2001If you begin to watch this movie knowing that it's a extremely low-budget independent with non-actors, you'll be quite surprised. It has a better story-line, acting and editing than many of the multi-million dollar Hollywood productions that are foisted on us.
BGBO is definitely an edgy, sarcastic, dark comedy. It isn't meant to be true-to-life or a Hitchcock thriller with every loose end tied up and fraught with subtleties and nuances.
Accept it for what it is -- I loved it and never saw the plot twist towards the end coming (the reason for the GTO). Gave it a 9 out of 10.
If only the networks could come up with movies-of-the-week as original as this instead of the endless retreads with former models and sitcom stars. -
This movie is in my opinion just a bit underrated. I personally saw the movie and the beginning was very interesting and on-edge. I'll give this movie what it definitely had from beginning to end- suspense. Really I wasn't bored for a second, some scenes were a bit "corny", but when you're making an indie like this theirs a limit to what you can do. I myself am a cinematographer, and it is not as easy as it seems. Money changes everything people. You can have the best actors in the world, but if you can't get the right angles and right editing($expensive$) the oh-so hard work of the actors is tanked. I'll just basically leave off with this, if like a twist and turn movie with guns, criminals, drugs, etc. etc., I would suggest you give this movie a shot. You can copy Q.T. or anyone and make an entertaining movie.
-
MicheBel13 April 1999Although this is obviously a first feature, which draws heavily from our Tarantino times, there are nonetheless some stylish moments. Snatches of dialogue really sparkle, and the ending is a genuine surprise: pleasantly so. I also really enjoyed the fact that the main bad guy is a stylish blond.
The acting is pretty decent, especially by the two leads, though some characters seemed too conscious that they are indeed on camera.
For my taste, there is too much brutal violence, though thankfully, it's mostly off-camera. There is one ugly speech bashing women pretty bad (cringe-worthy). But the biggest problem I had with this was the Johnny Cash stuff. I'm sorry, but Johnny Cash is an American icon...and I just refuse to believe what was said in this movie about him. I even refuse to repeat it. You're just gonna have to go and judge for yourself. -
Well, you have hand it to the filmmakers on this one. How they managed to hypnotize Lions Gates into releasing this low-budget piece of crap must be an amazing story. Too bad they don't give out Oscars for chutzpah. These guys would be a shoe-in. Why don't I like this movie? Well, for one thing the plot makes no sense at all (how many weeks does raw, nonrefrigerated blood last in the trunk of a car?), the dialogue is horribly overdone and annoying, and the acting is grade C throughout. I actually saw someone praise the cinematography in this movie. Heck, even to use the work cinematography to describe the camera work in the film is laughable, and an insult to real filmmakers everywhere. The film's entire `style' consists of close-up shots of the actors in poorly lit and badly decorated sets. Do these guys know what a wide-angle lens is? The only time it gets a passable grade is in the final 2 or 3 minutes of the movie. It might have been fun if they had made it into a goofy comedy. Actually, Ed Wood fans might find this one a treat. I just saw this one in a theater, so it might look less cheap on television. Hey, I'm trying to find SOME pluses here. Seeya.
-
Punisher559 January 2009So here's another by-product of the Tarantino/Kevin Smith indy craze that got huge in the later part of the 90's. The film contains most of what is said in the title. As one can expect, the film attempts to contain a lot of gun play, sharp tounged rapid fire dialog, and some dark humor.
The film is bad. All there is too it. However, it is enjoyable and there are plenty of things to appreciate. The movie does try to look bigger then it actually is, the director wanted to make a movie that was kind of out of his reach. Also it should be mentioned the film is remarkably offbeat, weird and sort of hard to follow in its bizarre antics.
What does work is actually the acting at points. Its not as laughable as one might expect from a movie with the word "octane" in the title. The film does come together with some mild laughs, but the film is simply trying too hard. For example the film has annoying and very much unneeded transitional vocab screens that came on screen (trying to be like Clerks much?) As far as the Tarantino pop culture dialog, there is an embarrassingly dumb attempt that made me roll my eyes. The characters debate if Johnny Cash was a homosexual for absolutely no reason.
Yeah. The film kinda sucks. But its worth a viewing to see what the film TRIES to be like. -
berlin4517 January 2000This could have been a good film if it had a good director and someone to edit the script. Writer-director Joe Carnahan is a little too enamored with his Tarantino-like dialogue, a little goes a long way. Some of the acting is good, I like Carnahan and Dan Harlan as Danny Woo, but other times it is painfully low-budget. I give the film-makers credit for coming up with some visually interesting ways of filming the violent shoot-outs. Overall, the good bits are just a little too few and far between to make this really enjoyable.
-
0xmlktn028 June 2010This movie was outstanding. They cram about 4 hours of dialogue into less than half of that, and there's a laugh or a social commentary every few moments. People who don't "get" why others don't enjoy it seem to be of the type who left "Monty Python & The Holy Grail" after 10 minutes because it was boring. I accidentally ran across this on IFC or Sundance years ago, and had to own the DVD, which I did a few years later. Sure, you can think it's not funny, that's your opinion - but to be unable to see how others don't find it that way are just sheltered or closed-minded or something I can't describe. BTW, I intentionally planned my cross country drive last year so I could stay in Needles, CA due to this movie.
I read other reviews, and it proves to me how small-minded some of these individuals are - you are the same people who rave about Tarantino, for crying out loud, one of the most boring, predictable movie makers that has ever shown up. You need all of these jokes explained to you - considering that you complain about things in your reviews that are INTENDED TO BE JOKES - and even then, based on your views, you probably wouldn't get the jokes anyway. If you own cars or have children, we are doomed.
Say you don't like it - say you don't GET IT (more accurate). But don't say "PULP FICTION IS AWESOME THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE" because it makes you sound even dumber than you already are. -
jzappa19 June 2007When Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi came out in 1992, everyone was so dazzled by what Rodriguez could do for $7,500. Blood Guts Bullets & Octane was released in 1999, and everyone found it to be a simple Tarantino rip-off. Well, frankly, Blood Guts Bullets & Octane is at least three times the film El Mariachi is, because not only was Joe Carnahan able to make a feature-length film with choreographed violence and creative freedom like Rodriguez did, but he also wrote a very tight, extremely smart, creative script. Rodriguez wrote a laughable little direct-to-video fluff where the dialogue is stilted in the worst way and the story hardly works. Why when someone detects even the slightest acknowledgment of Tarantino in a film do they decide to fire criticism at it when maybe it could be more than a simple clone?
I don't believe Quentin Tarantino had any influence on this film. Yes, you could say he did, because the story flashes back and the dialogue is earthy and clever. But is he the only filmmaker to have ever told a nonlinear story with earthy, clever dialogue? No. Far from it. In fact, I think it's extremely injust and unfair to protect so ardently from imitation a filmmaker like Tarantino, who admittedly steals from every other filmmaker in existence, even ones that came after him. And those who criticize this film for being a Tarantino clone may not be as well-versed in film as Tarantino or Carnahan himself to the point where you would realize that the dialogue is not at all like Tarantino's. QT writes dialogue with the intention of sounding realistic. He acts as recorder while his characters segue into natural conversations irrelevant to the plot. Carnahan's characters speak like satirizations of car dealers and people you would only find in movies. His dialogue is written to be quick, jazzy, clever, and even a little poetic, because sometimes lines will be alliterative, contain similes and metaphors, and other such things. If you would like to zero in on Carnahan's influence---and every writer, filmmaker, or any other artist has their influences---then perhaps David Mamet is a better candidate. Even so, who cares? Carnahan's script is loaded with razor-sharp wit and his own knack for the pace and rhythm of a film.
I think for a film made for $8,000 and bags of Doritos the cast is quite convincing. Whether they are professional or trained actors I don't know, but whoever they are, they have natural penchants for acting. Carnahan himself is excellent, and perhaps the best of the performances comes from Dan Leis, who plays opposite him.
The cinematography and editing get a bit gimmicky and overexerted, especially in terms of the unpatterned switching off between color and black-and-white and title cards for each scene. It seems corny and gratuitous, and considering it as a movie despite its budget and circumstances, it definitely is, but Carnahan is a smart and practical director, and he made this film to pack a shattering punch of all that he can do and more with just that much money (and Doritos). -
mdewey11 September 2006"For a mere $10K, you too can make a wild and crazy neo-noir escapade film such as this!", or so my tag line would read! I've seen this movie about 6 times to date and I always find something new that I missed before. Is that because I have a severely low attention span (ADHD) or is it actually a good and challenging script? I tend to agree with the latter option, but then again, I was never known to face up to my deficiencies anyway.
The snappy, sometimes staccato, usually literate dialog, (which probably offends anybody, any ethnic group, political party, et al one time or another!) coupled with a well developed not-so-linear plot line provides the main impetus for this movie. The opening sequences dealing with car salesmen not only come across as wild parody, but also serve to foreshadow further plot developments. Joe C. and his band of outrageous thespian brothers come across in grand fashion to set in motion these equally outrageous sequences of events. My favorite dialog-tichian (new word!) is the FBI head agent whose articulate, snappy police banter provides a welcome interlude in this menagerie of already rampant clichés and assorted put-ons. See it, if only for the fun of it. That's what it's all about anyway, isn't it? -
Marty-G20 April 2002I think this movie works pretty damn well for something shot in 13 days on 16mm film for $8000.
It's raw and gritty, and fairly rough around the edges, but the plot is well-conceived, there's some fairly witty dialogue, and it rattles along at a fair old pace. For all its technical imperfections, it all comes together quite nicely.
The only thing that bugged me was the scene with the two leading guys in the very red bar bathed in blue light coming up with their plan to upstage the criminals - the dialogue here was so reminiscent of David Mamet (especially Glengarry Glen Ross) it felt like a direct rip off.
Other than that, this was a pleasant surprise on the whole, not 100% original, nor a masterpiece, it still makes for a pretty entertaining piece of filmmaking. -
Sofad12 February 2000This movie reminded me of the early Tarantino work.
I like the camera movement, I like the actors, I like the end. A quite entertaining and refreshing movie. It's too bad we always have to go the independent way to see a good movie these days (PI...) My favorite part is the plot build up on the 2 car dealers. Great !! -
Xex-Arachnid20 December 2009Never in my life have I seen a movie that presents a cast of no names that I have never seen before or since the film.
It was shot close to a very indie style that is similar to a film school assignment but even this I feel is not fair.
I must say that despite the seemingly trivial dialog between the characters that unfortunately makes it seem to be a Pulp Fiction rip off, I must say that the story line is one of the most original ones that I've been entertained with in a long time! And concerning the characters and their interactions (dialog), although it may be consistent with monotony, I find that the imperfection and chaos of it all closely represents reality than a flawless script executed.
It's basic, violent, cheap and mysterious but in the end, it compensates the curiosity well.
So I say if you enjoy obscure indie films concerning the everyday wheel and deal of blue collar scrubs trying to make it in some less than fortunate shady business, I say check it out. -
blando325 August 2003I just watched Blood, Guts, Bullets, and Octane on DVD last night, and found myself rather bored from start to finish. The camera work is sloppy, slipping in and out of focus as it pans back and forth from character to character, zooming in and out, and so on...The dialogue scenes are way too long, and the action scenes leave you feeling cheated, due to the shaky-cam, fast editing style that tries to conceal the lack of blanks and squibs. A good action sequence is created by the actual action onscreen rather than jerky camera work and loud sound effects. This film shows very little real action. The story takes way too long to get started, and once it does, it becomes boring, with very little pay off at the end. However, I have to give Joe Carnahan credit for making this film on such a low budget; regardless of the story, simply planning and executing this shoot is an impressive achievement. Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi still remains the most legendary low-budget action film ever made, with better writing, directing, cinematography, and special effects than Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane. So to sum it up, check this movie out, but don't expect too much; it is what it is.
-
Blinking_Fish7 March 2000This movie was good, I really enjoyed it, but if it were longer I would have probably gotten tired of the massive quick dialogue. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the fact that the people spoke quickly to each other and spoke realistically. Also I enjoyed Bob talking about car sales men then showing a bunch of tactics he and Sid would use to try and get people to buy cars. This whole movie felt familiar the way it was shot with close up shaky cameras, titles during most scene changes, and black and white shots. The story was good but didn't move very far, and the ending was different from what I thought it might have been.
My review 8 out of 10.