15 Minutes (2001) User Reviews (271)

Makes you think

[segacs · 7/10 · 5 February 2005]

This movie took a severe beating in the press and most reviews, so I wasn't expecting much when I went to see it. However, I was pleasantly surprised, and reassured that my distrust of what the newspaper reviewers think is not misplaced.

This movie has a cast that includes the supremely talented Robert de Niro, Kelsey Grammar, and Edward Burns. It has some excellent writing and some top-notch acting performances. But its real accomplishment is how it makes you think.

The increasing relationship between crime and the media is not linear, and the movie does tend to oversimplify at times. In many respects, it suffers horribly from being predictable, although there were instances where it strayed sharply from the "rules" of formulaic movies. (Saying any more on that score would give away important aspects of the plot, so I'll refrain from elaborating.) Furthermore, in true Hollywood tradition, the main villains are dumb, completely amoral, and oh, did I mention foreign? The idea might have been to give an outsider perspective on the abuse of American culture, but that angle ultimately just plays into outdated audience prejudices against people who speak with an Eastern European accent.

Too, the movie has very graphic violence - but not as bad as I'd expected, and not as bad as what is shown in many other movies. Through creative camera angles, many of the bloodiest scenes are only obscurely hinted at, leaving the audience to fill in the pieces.

Not surprisingly, many entertainment reviewers disliked the movie, because it has the effect of exposing some of the more negative effects of the media. "15 Minutes" does not claim that the media causes violence; rather, it explains that the interplay between the two is ingrained in American culture. This movie may not be saying anything original, but it is sufficiently entertaining and thought-provoking to make it worth seeing.

Surprisingly good

[jhs39 · 6/10 · 3 June 2003]

Considering the critical drubbing this movie received, not to mention the fact that it's by the writer/director of Two Days in the Valley, I expected it to be pretty terrible. Surprisingly it turned out to be an exciting and occasionally quite funny thriller about two media obsessed thugs from the former Soviet Union who decide to become celebrities by committing a series of murders and videotaping the crimes. The movie is definitely not without serious flaws: for instance, nobody ever points out that it's almost impossible to mount a successful insanity defense in the US legal system. In a land where Jeffrey Dahmer and New York's highly delusional subway shooter are certified as sane these guys wouldn't have a shot in hell of making their case, and an insanity defence is the linchpin of their whole plan to profit from their crimes. Movie also ignores the fact that laws have been on the books to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes by selling their stories since the 1960's. Also, given the legal and ethical ramifications involved it's hard to imagine any credible scenario under which a news program, even a sleazy tabloid news program, would pay a million dollars cash to an at large murderer for a videotape of one of his crimes and then broadcast the thing live on television. Obvious flaws aside, 15 Minutes has several shockingly well-staged action sequences, great acting (except for the guy who played Ed Burns' boss--his grating one note performance went way over the self-parody line) and occasional welcome touches of black humor, like the very funny death scene of the thug who fancied himself a film director and manufactures the final shot of his movie for maximum emotional impact. All in all 15 Minutes is a dark and funny thriller and certainly a lot better than most of the schlock Hollywood churns out.

It has its good parts

[08131352022 · 7/10 · 9 September 2001]

15 Minutes is a thriller one needs to think about for a while, maybe even sleep on it, especially before writing any comments. I got the movie on DVD two days ago and I hardly couldn't wait to watch it, because I had already read quite a few comments, mostly negative one's, on it over the past few months. At first I was kind of disappointed. I was not the kind of movie I had expected. I was hoping to see a movie as great as `Heat' or `Ronin'. But one cannot compare these three movies. They are completely different. So I let my first impressions rest for a while and watched the movie the next day a second time. 15 Minutes is not as bad a movie after all. It has its good parts, though I would prefer some things to be different.

The movie clearly shows how greedy and immoral the media can be if it comes to win ratings and get some money, even though it appears to be overdone in some parts. `Bad news is good news!' That is how it has always been and that is how it will always be, as long as there is an audience. Who would watch a news channel with only good news? People want sensation, even though they don't want to admit it. But there is certainly a limit to what the media should broadcast. In this movie the media exceeds this limit by far. Furthermore the film quite well points out the problem with the insanity plea. Some critics say the film glorifies violence, which is not right. The two bad guys in this movie are so ugly and their crimes are so heinous, one cannot but loathe their deeds. I also want to mention how well chosen the cast is. Robert DeNiro is, as always, brilliant is his role. His performance is definitely the highlight in this movie. The action scenes are very well done too.

What I didn't like is the way the story goes in some parts. For example how the two criminals get access to Eddy's (Robert DeNiro) apartment. A famous detective just doesn't make a stupid mistake like this. Then the bad guy Oleg with the digital camcorder acts just way too silly, which lets him appear rather unrealistic to me. Even though he is meant to be crazy, his stupid behavior goes way too far. His character can not be taken seriously. Edward Burns as the arson investigator also has to act a little too unprofessional at times, which doesn't add anything positive to his character's credibility. All this gives the whole story an unrealistic touch from time to time, which is very sad. In general I don't like a movie to be cut down just to get it to an 2-hour length. Most of the time I prefer to have the deleted scenes put back in again, but this movie is really better off without them. The final scene has an interesting twist, but the coincidence with Nicolette is just too farfetched. Oleg's final appearance looks ridiculous and doesn't fit into the whole tragic, unless it were supposed to be a comedy. It is a tense thriller, with some suspense, though only two scenes really kept me on the edge of my seat. I also missed scenes introducing some more the characters played by Robert DeNiro and Edward Burns.

Nevertheless I rank it a 7 out of 10.

Lame, more than a little repellent

[dj_bassett · 14 March 2006]

One of those genre movies that really exist to Say Something Important. This one comes from a time when some people in America thought the gravest threat to this country was Fast Food Media ala "A Current Affair". Anyway, two criminals – one Czech and one Russian (the movie makes a big deal of distinguishing them, though it makes absolutely no difference in the plot), come to America to kill a partner of their's. They soon become immersed in the world of talk shows, and decide that the quickest route to fame and fortune is to kill somebody famous, plead insanity, go to the mental home, say they're not insane, then get out and write a best selling book and make a movie. Or something, it's not exceptionally clear – although presumably that's the point. (Although the movie has to allow its criminals enough smarts to be able to plot deadly arson traps and track down witnesses in a foreign country, which is unbelievable in the extreme.) Their target is Robert De Niro, an improbably famous NYC cop who they see on the cover of "People" Movie suffers in part from having its bad guys way out-act the nominal protagonists, De Niro and Ed Burns, both of whom have the charisma here of dead fish in a dying pond. So much so that I spent a lot of the time hoping the bad guys would win. Movie also suffers from a truly terrible script. Characters spout clichés as a way to Illustrate the Point ("If it bleeds it leads!" Kelsey Grammar's character says, as though it had never been said before). Oddball situations arise for essentially no reason and the script has to do a ton of backfilling in order to explain them, such as why Ed Burns, a fire inspector, is basically De Niro's partner, or how a crazy Czech killer knows enough to rig an apartment to burn up. Characters scream at other characters about something or other, but it never seems to mean anything in the long run. Etc. (The script does deserve to be commended for one very neat plot twist halfway through, though.) And the movie's oddly repellent. It wants to preach to its audience about the dangers of mass media, but besides the general hypocrisy of having a movie, of all things, tell me this, there's a specific vibe here that glories in the same thing it's denouncing. There's a completely gratuitous murder of a prostitute here, for instance, that's excitingly shot and performed and seems to exist only to gin the ratings up to an "R": I'd rather not be lectured on morality by a movie that does that.

In general, 15 MINUTES is a secret sharer in the very thing it denounces. Avoid.

Unfair Billings And An Underpublized Film

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 9 January 2007]

This a rough, edgy film but the interesting characters make it entertaining for the full two hours. For some reason, I don't believe this film got a lot of publicity.

Karol Roder doesn't get any billing but he's as much a star in this movie as big-names Robert Redford and Edward Burns. Another actor who also has a key role, Oleg Taktarov, has no billing! Wow, they really hosed the Eastern European actors in here.

The film is partially another indictment against the tabloid press. Playing the villain in that regard is good 'ole "Frasier" from TV: Kelsey Grammar. He plays a foul-mouthed tabloid television sleazoid "Robert Hawkins.

Sometimes this got a bit too edgy for me, nor did I appreciate Burns' verbal blasphemy, but I also enjoyed some of the black humor in here. Overall, it's not a film that, frankly, was that memorable yet I would watch it again.

Good film about crime and media-- 7/10

[Sfpsycho415 · 6/10 · 16 October 2003]

Robert De Niro does great in this movie. Like we haven't heard that before. You can tell he tries to let Edward Burns have his time, but he is such a charismatic screen presence, people would probably pay to watch him sit in a chair for two hours. The movie around him is also good, touching on the interesting topic of the media's effect on violent crimes. Edward Burns does a good job, but i think the real stars here (except for De Niro, of course) are the two East European criminals who come to America searching for fame and fortune, played by Karel Roden and Oleg Taktarov. They are funny and terrifying all at the same time. Oleg's character seems like a friendly guy, but he is actually a violent pervert. And Karel's character is just plain nuts. I recommend this movie for the great performances and it's thought provoking premise. 7/10

Disturbing look at the cult of celebrity

[mab8485 · 7/10 · 31 August 2003]

Warning: Spoilers follow:- In the days of "reality" TV this movie is most topical. People don't require talent to be (in)famous, all they need do is murder a celebrity as happens here. That a TV show is willing to pay murderers for their story is even more disturbing - this is a short step from reality today. Indeed, this has happened in Australia already eg. with convicted murderer Mark "Chopper" Read and various other lesser criminals - the so-called "chequebook journalism". In this movie De Niro is the victim as opposed to his roles in "Taxi Driver" and "King of Comedy". The movies only weakness is its ending that leaves the viewer with a feeling of satisfaction that the murderers get their "just desserts". In reality it is just as conceivable that the murderers would escape the murder rap and get paid for their story. Nevertheless a good topical story that stirs emotions 7/10.

The Blackest of Black Comedies

[gws-2 · 7/10 · 23 February 2002]

I hesitate to call "15 Minutes" a comedy of any kind but it seems the most apt shorthand description for it is "black comedy." The movie pokes savagely satirical fun at the media, the criminal justice system, and those who would use the media (and be used by it) in order to attain their 15 minutes of fame. I suspect that most who see this film will either love it or hate it because it is violent and ultimately sad. Nevertheless,it is funny, smart, well acted, and beautifully photographed, too. Recommended. 7 out of 10.

An ugly movie not worth 15 minutes, let alone two hours

[trevor-41 · 1/10 · 10 March 2001]

It's so much easier for me when a movie is just plain bad. 15 Minutes does me the disservice of sticking little bits of originality or thought provoking material in with the excess that makes up the rest of the movie. As a film, it has many flaws. It's choppy, with many useless scenes (watch for the scene towards the end with Ed Burns and Emil in the warehouse-what's the point?). It's characters are generally contrived and silly, but are brought to half-life only by the actors behind them. It is original in some spots (one in particular), but mostly runs on tired cliche. The timing of the humor is very poor, and leads to a general feeling of awkward discomfort in the audience. Everything about this film, right down to costumes and set decoration, is extremely ugly. I don't know if that was intended, but it's just plain hard to look at. The entire film was surrounded by that aura of ugliness- ugliness not only of the sets and costumes, but of the characters and story.

And that story involves a cop named Eddie Flemming (Robert DeNiro), an inferior rehash of Kevin Spacey's Jack Vincennes in L.A. Confidential. Eddie uses the media to make his job easier- and as a result, has become a minor celebrity. Edward Burns plays Jordi Warsaw, a New York Fire Marshall who joins Eddie on the case to find two Eastern European criminals newly in the US to wreak havoc. They have learned from watching television that no one in America is responsible for what they do- and that the media run the show. Murderers become millionaires, and these two know it. They begin to kill and videotape their killings. They plan to kill somebody famous and sell it for millions of dollars. Eddie and Jordi have to stop them.

Now you might ask, why is a fireman on the case- The answer is that there is no answer. They throw in a bit with fire just to bring the Jordi character into it. All writers in Hollywood like to invent different jobs that allow people to be just like cops- without being cops. I guess they figure it makes it more exciting because the cop thing has been done so much. They're wrong. Making the character a fireman is a distraction, leaving the audience wondering what he's doing there. There is no justification for his presence at the crime scenes. Just making him DeNiro's character would have allowed the film to run much smoother.

There are lots of scenes, character developments, and even romances in this film that serve absolutely no purpose. Writer/Director Herzfeld was filling gaps where they didn't need to be filled. It shows that he was looking for something to do, that he only really had one idea, and was strained to make a two hour film out of it.

I mentioned the film's ugliness- It just leaves you with a sick feeling in your stomach. This isn't a sign that the material was effective, just horrible. In a way, the movie is mean spirited, and that is never a good thing. The way the humor was added showed absolutely no skill on the part of the filmmaker. He should have watched his own movie before releasing it, because if he did, he would know how awkward that humour is.

So it all sounds pretty bad, I know. The film's only high points come from generally good performances (DeNiro never fails, even if the script does) and a single point of originality. The film's message, regarding the injustice of the American system, and its preoccupation with fame, publicity, image and the media that creates it all, are points well taken, but not properly executed. The first hour of the movie is deeply unentertaining and choppy, but the second half, at least, becomes somewhat suspenseful and little bit interesting.

Overall, 15 Minutes should be avoided. It was an ugly movie with low points far outnumbering the high ones.

Hello I am Oleg from Russia please forgive for English

[tbills2 · 7/10 · 28 March 2018]

Hello I am Oleg from Mother Russia. No confuse please for dirty crazy man Oleg Razgul in 15 Minutes American movie. I am no crazy. I am fan for movie. No no I am not supreme Russian performer Oleg Taktarov as well but its okay to confuse me with him. Hahahahahahaha I make joke. Oleg Taktarov great man very sexy like hairy Siberian bear. Not like baby face Edward Burns look like young shaved boy. Edward must make women in America throw up meal in aisles of film theater. I sorry for Edward and he ugly face so no woman make love for him. Oleg make love to many woman many time. I love Vera Farmiga. Vera make Oleg very happy. Im not good at make English word for describe Vera so I hold while use Russian translator to make English. God Vera Farmiga looks just like absolutely gorgeous in 15 minutes honestly what the heck she's a really good actress man I love her this must have been the first movie I seen her too but I would definitely fall for Vera just like Burns' character did. Russian translator reign supreme over crappy American translator. Beautiful Robert De Niro best man at make believe. Thank you for my comrades liking review. This is Oleg to say go see 15 Minutes American movie. It is a very very very nice but crazy killer Emil very sad. Karel Roden is very good and almost steals show. In theaters now!

Terrible

[fan4ad · 1/10 · 15 August 2001]

I had heard this was bad, but I sometimes find bad movies fun. THis was ludicrous. If you want social satire and commentary see Man Bites Dog, Funny Games, or (yes, because it is more effective) Natural Born Killers not this tripe. The only good thing was seeing the lead character De Niro die (which is rarely done a la Psycho). It was offensive, not because of violence, but because of the treatment of foreigners--yeah, ok--they say silly comments about law and insanity. Rent something else.

One of the Best Commentaries I've Ever Seen

[Krog__ · 9/10 · 2 August 2004]

This movie is a commentary. It is a commentary of fame, of the media, of America's justice system; and it's one of the best fictional film commentaries I've ever seen. Robert De Niro and Edward Burns star as a cop and a fireman, respectively, searching for two murderers played by Karel Roden and Oleg Taktarov. A few other great actors round out the cast of this medium-paced thriller/actioner with some depth of thought. At the very least it keeps you entertained until its cool ending.

I would highly recommend this to anyone who's ever watched a newscast, ever seen someone get off on the insanity plea or ever wondered what goes on behind the curtain of the justice system. Just see it.

few for Trivia and Goofs or something

[glum23 · 7/10 · 9 October 2008]

First sentence of bad guy Emil Slovak in movie is not "Don't fool around." as subtitle says but its "You cannot take pictures here." Daphne claims, she killed a cop in Slovakia. Than in movie she says for TV, she will go in to Czech republic to face charges agaist her. Czech and Slovakia are two different states. Very close nations + language etc. Once joined in one state. You can suppose, she'll be delivered for trial to Slovakia in the end :o) Daphne is for us Czechs as "typical" name as you named an American "Francois" instead Johny. She does not look as czech girl by any chance. Every time when I see her character in movie I have to laugh really for long time :o))) But she is pretty too, very, very nice girl,OK :o) Emil have second name Slovak. He is Czech. It seem to be quite joke because "Slovak" is our and slovak term for slovak nationality. But you can find it in our second names sometime too :o) I like 15 minutes very much and bw. consider this movie as the best acting of Karel Roden (as Emil) in foreign movie ever ;-) pls, sorry, my poor English

terrible

[yuppabunka · 1/10 · 2 December 2002]

the reviews are quiet favorable for this lacklustre film. Burns is terrible in one of the lead roles and de niro does not exactly do much -he doesn't make you believe in his character. The whole plot of the film is just too unbelievable and the acting is too weak to even go along and enjoy the unbelievability of it all. The only decent acting comes from the two bad guys ...

Pot film calls kettle tv black

[Spleen · 5 November 2001]

Credit where credit's due. Robert DeNiro does a good job. Unlike everyone else, he plays a human being. He also has the good sense not to appear until most of the clumsy exposition is out of the way, and also to -

Spoiler! Spoiler!

• to die halfway through, before the film becomes truly dreadful. Afterwards I found myself forgetting that he had been there at all. A human character ... in "15 Minutes"? Surely I must have imagined it.

The hero (a fireman/cop) seems a nice enough guy at the start, which makes his subsequent moral nosedives all the more depressing. Not just depressing; sickening, too, since the film seems unaware that its hero is doing anything particularly wrong; in fact, he never loses his self-possession, and we're clearly meant to be cheering him on. Ugh. For the record, here's the worst of it (more spoilers ahead, obviously):

(1) He kidnaps the villain (who was already under arrest), and takes him to a warehouse for a reason that's never clearly stated - I presume it's to inflict pain.

(2) He confronts the lawyer who got the villain off on a contrived insanity plea to deliver some high-horse posturing. And what does he say? The kind of what-about-the-victims-of-crime talkback radio speech that ought to remain buried there. Does it occur to ANYONE in this kind of film that the purpose of courts is not, repeat NOT, to exact revenge?

(3) He shoots the villain. Six times. Arguably, the first shot freed a hostage, and, if you think the villain needed to die, then the second shot achieved something, too, in killing him; but the remaining four shots were pure bloodlust. There was little to justify even the first shot. The "hero" was no longer a policeman, but a private citizen taking the law into his own hands; moreover, the villain had already been decisively defeated (you have to pay attention to notice this, since by the final scene the director has long since forgotten what his film was supposed to be about). What's particularly disgusting is the way this scene is presented. We see law enforcement officials smiling to themselves as the hero - now a criminal himself - walks away from the scene of the shooting. Nobody stops him. Our hero, we're meant to think, having become a gunslinger, is now a MAN. Wrong. He was a man at the start of the film; he is now a petulant child.

The film ends with so much random, tawdry sensation that you have to stop and ask: WHAT, exactly, is its complaint against random, tawdry sensation on television?

Great film! considering the fact that it now shows our new found image

[dimbost · 6/10 · 1 March 2015]

The film is centered around a fire marshal and a detective who are working a case where the murderers are video taping their killing, so as to become famous and rich. The "American Dream"...

The film has great acting by all of its members, and a great story to follow, but probably the greatest aspect that this film posses is the new trend that our society has with stardom. and the Glorification of killers, murderers and the criminally insane. Just like its predecessor "Natural Born Killers" it glorifies society starting to love and want more of criminals getting away with crime and becoming popular enough to become hero's.

The film also explores the very interesting topic of law, media hungry for that "Juice blood" story with details, and the tied hands of police.

Overall this is a pretty great film. don't look at my score of 6/10 it is worthy of a watch and i have a very unique guideline of how i rank my films.

TV cop

[SkullScreamerReturns · 6/10 · 3 May 2021]

This movie seems to divide opinions a lot and I think I understand why. It's a bit strange comnbination of different "moods" and styles which might make you feel uneasy. On the other hand it's a rather serious and violent crime thriller but then again there's playful humor in an "action comedy" style. The funniest are the villains who are also the wickedest. But I don't fully understand why some viewers give it bottom rating and some the opposite. I think it's a decent action thriller but I wouldn't call it either super good or super bad.

Robert De Niro is always good, and even though this might not be of his strongest films, he does good performance. I must admit I picked this dvd up just for De Niro's sake. He gives more quality to this movie that would otherwise be more forgettable. On the other hand the movie suffers a bit of being "De Niro movie" because he has such a great filmography and this kind of average movies easily pale in comparison to some of his masterpieces.

The story is interesting. Two criminals start to video tape their misadventures and want to become famous by filming their violent acts. I think the buildup of the story was the best but towards the end momentum slowed down a bit and did not reach up to all the potential. But the script was mostly quite good and creative. But I would have changed the mood a little bit. Maybe toned down the violence and increase the comedy aspect. I think the best part was one of the villains who is obsessed with filming everything even when chased by the cops! If there was more of that, it might have ended more in the Beverly Hills Cop genre. But instead we have this hybrid thriller that has maybe a little bit Tarantono feel.

Even though I was left a bit conflicted about how much I liked the movie, I think it has clever themes, asking how far would you go to become famous. I think I'm going to watch it again at least once sometime because I want to hear the director's commentary. Since he is also the writer, I can see he had a vision of some kind. I mildly recommend this movie to fans of Tarantino style humor and stuff like Lethal Weapon that is more about action but there's a little bit of comedy too.

For a pretty standard cop thriller this is all over the place

[adamscastlevania2 · 6/10 · 12 September 2014]

(59%) A real piece of all over the place Hollywood that shuffles itself around like a deck of cards every other scene. The main focus is not on DeNiro, or even Edward Burns, but on two eastern European maniacs who feature heavily throughout. What makes this so uneven is the tone. It starts as a crime thriller, then there's some breaking news exploitation satire with Kelsey Grammar, then DeNiro comes in turning it more into a cop action movie, then there's a series of quite sweet romantic scenes that come in between footage of the two bad guys filming themselves murdering someone making everything feel more than a little slapdash. Yet it sort of works mainly because everything happens so fast, and there's so much of it to get through. The fact that the cast is more than capable doesn't hurt much either, and it is quite well made too so you just sort of except the flaws as they arrive. It's just action cop movie thrillers, romance, a playful sense of humour, and snuff movies all mixed together doesn't create a great recipe for success.

Bruce Cutler plays himself

[Dave Banks · 7/10 · 6 March 2002]

The other comments on this good film pretty much tell you the main plot. Therefore, my review will focus on the most perfect casting job that I have ever seen. From the beginning, the murderer has counted on getting away with his crimes because he has studied the American jurisprudence system and knows that he can make himself appear to be insane and, therefore, not responsible for his actions. To this end he hires Cutler to be his defense attorney. To those of you who may not be familiar with Cutler, in real life he is indeed a top defense attorney who has become a millionaire by successfully defending criminals like John Gotti. On too many occasions I have seen Cutler look straight into the TV cameras at pre and post trial press conferences and tell everyone how the authorities are trying to "railroad" his client and that his client was totally innocent of any and all charges. Of course, on those occasions, Cutler was a liar and everyone knew it. But, he knows how to perfectly play the system for all that it's worth and usually emerges victorious. In this movie he tries the same tactics on the jury. When you watch the film you will see the results for yourself. One thing's for certain. Cutler did not have to memorize any lines to play this part. He simply acted the same way that he does in real life, ie, cutting under the table deals with the defendant, etc. With Gotti spending the rest of his life in jail, I guess that Cutler wants a new and different source of income. Hollywood would do well to call him anytime they need someone to play a sleazy attorney.

What a waste

[cpotts13 · 1/10 · 4 October 2001]

With Edward Burns, Robert De Niro and Kelsey Grammar, this could have been a great movie with excellent characters. Instead it is what so many other "message" movies are -- a violent, misanthropic mess. I would have like to have seen a greater examination of De Niro's character motives for staying in the spotlight, the genesis of he and Grammar's relationship, and more about Burns' desire to be a hero and his quick attachment to De Niro's cop. Instead, we get a pair of ultraviolent villians, a ridiculous plot, and one-note characters that I cared nothing about. The great Avery Brooks (Capt. Cisco from "Deep Space Nine") is thoroughly wasted as one of De Niro's cop buddies. And any shred of believability or integrity the movie had left is completely blown by the ending, which is as predictable as it is awful. There is a better movie inside "15 Minutes" that could have been made, but this version is not it. A definite Must-Not-See.

Hard To Believe.......So Dont watch?

[CharltonBoy · 6/10 · 8 October 2001]

Sometimes when something happens in real life , like the trade centre attacks for instance, you hear people say " If this was a movie you wouldnt believe it could happen". Well ,15 minutes is so far fetched that it completely impossible to believe. Without going to deeply into what the movie is about we follow two eastern European on a spree of distruction and death and how they exploit the media and the American justice system to their own means. It's a shame that two great actors like Robert De Niro and Avery Brooks took on such a far fetched project but as we have come to expect from De Niro that for every Deer Hunter there is an Adventures of rocky and Bullwinkle . This is the first time i have seen Ed Burns and his performance is ok but the only People who come out of this with any justifiable credit Karel Roden (Emil) and Oleg Taktarov (oleg)they make this film watchable. 6 out of 10

Too much graphic and gratuitous violence

[hpayson · 1/10 · 24 November 2001]

This movie can't decide whether it's a satire or a reality film. The two villains are psychos and each and every detail of their murderous acts are vividly portrayed. If intended as a criticism of the media the movie failed, as the movie's graphic, gratuitous violence is itself subject to criticism. The only lesson I learned (and discarded) is that violence is the answer to violence. I have seen other films equally violent, but I usually was able to come away with something valuable. Not so here.

Pretty Good to the Last Minute!

[meeza · 8/10 · 2 April 2001]

The following review for the film `15 Minutes' will probably take you around that same time to read it. Wait! Come back! I was joking! This film is another flick that satirizes the media's influence in depicting real life crimes as sensationalistic newsgathering for the general public. We have seen this before in films such as `Natural Born Killers.' Critics have ridiculed `15 Minutes' because they say that the film actually demonstrates the same exact thing that it tries to satirize. It does this by showing gory murder -type violence and utilizing famous stars in small cameo roles. Even though I do have to agree with this concept that my colleagues (don't I wish) have criticized, I should say to them to `just wait one minute, or fifteen for that matter' and do not take it so seriously. Why? Because the film does entertain. I think that critics should just leave it at. By the way, the film is about a homicide detective and an arson investigator who hunt down some eastern european psychos who film their crimes on video. Robert Deniro, who plays the homicide detective, is more low key in this one; and Eddie Burns cinematic presence adds fuel to the fire as the arson investigator. I really do have to say that I enjoyed mostly every minute in `15 Minutes' even though most critics don't second my opinion.

**** Good

some off beat elements

[xzcgb · 7/10 · 11 March 2014]

I'd say a lot of the reviewers here focus too much on the 'message' of this film i.e. the idea that it's satirising the media's exploitation of violence blahblah. Thing is, the film never states anything about that directly; it's a thriller; and the first half (at least) is really well scripted and directed ,with great 3-dimensional characters, characters who speak to each other in a refreshingly likable way. One IMDb critic has stated, after seeing this film, that '...de Niro is now reduced to playing cardboard cut outs of himself...' What does that mean???? de Niro is an actor, playing different people - who exactly is 'himself'?

Anyway, in 15 Minutes de Niro, with a bit of fire in his belly, does anything but a cardboard cut out of a Scorcese anti hero. He is mercurial in this role, and reminiscent of the detective he played in Midnight Run.

I love it when de Niro plays a character you can trust, an ordinary but heroic man who does not have a psychopathic sting in the tail. He seems to take on a strange aura, in this role, being extremely watchable - as strange as it sounds, and maybe I am hallucinating here, he does on occasion have some vague John Wayne quality, and I would love to see him in a remake of e.g. Hondo!!!

With a bloody good script, and good direction, this film seems to bring that something extra out of the great actor's performance.

And inevitable this quality infects and lifts other aspects of the movie....

Unwatchably pretentious.

[adamstites · 1/10 · 10 March 2001]

This mess of a film attempts to be a dark satire of the mass media's corruption of American morals, but fails miserably. Instead, it assaults the viewer with flashy but pointless camerawork and a steady stream of cop movie cliches (the raging gray-haired police chief, the rival investigators competing for a case, the hero turning in his badge, etc...). Stay home and rent Natural Born Killers instead.