Add a Review

  • Scrolling through the 135+ comments, I'm amazed at how outraged so many viewers are at the "excessive violence," "explicit sex," "foul language," etc., etc., etc. C'mon. A film is advertised as Elvises robbing a Las Vegas casino during an Elvis convention. How much more lead in do you want? You expect, action, thrills and ... content? Amazing. Listen. This is one of the funniest, outrageous films I've seen in a long time. Yes. The story's incredible. But, in any film, we have to consider the level at which we're willing to "buy in." I mean, some people were outraged at the farting scenes in Shrek. Now, they're complaining because Russell and Costner-- especially the latter-- are too violent. Well, let's go back a year or so when Russell and Costner both made Wyatt Earp films, playing the title roles. From my view, both vehicles were ghastly but entertaining. So, I submit that what we have here is the COSTNER and RUSSELL Revenge vehicle. Costner is always on the leafy edge, whether he's dancing with wolves, building baseball fields for ghosts or water-skiing as bait for sea monsters. Russell, whose track record in shoot 'em-ups is no less than Stallone or Arnie, is likewise coming off some hound dog roles, such as being an automated soldier, a remake of his Escape from New York (LA? Why'd anyone want to go there in the first place?) and the sci-fi Stargate. Now, we get these two guys in a mindless, black comedy, full of S&V-- the most since the cult film Thursday-- with quirky twists and turns. Mindless violence? Yes. Gratuitious sex? Yes. Entertaining? Yes-- but only if you don't take it too seriously. I loved it.
  • mm-398 March 2001
    Like True Romance, and Pulp Fiction this film is movie junk food that I love to eat. Film purest will classify this film as crap, and so it is; but this is crap that the masses want and the movie elite hates. For action films this is great, a few slow parts, and the action scene at the end got a little predictable, with the high kill counts, but rebounds with a great ending. An old western show down, and being a road movie it gives the junk food escapism I love and need. The acting is great, Costner plays such a great jerk in this film, his attitude makes the viewer dislike him, like a bad guys in wrestling. Costner should keep playing bad guys. I believe this is his strong point. Russell plays the hero or the not too bad bad guy. Russell character is the all American type he acts too the tee. Stay at the end of this film for they have a bonus with the credits, an Elvis video and a funny out take from the film. Taker easy, and give yourself a break and watch this film.
  • Blah, Blah, Blah. Yes, there is a lot of violence and foul language in this movie. If that is the sort of thing that offends you than don't see this movie. If not, this was a great action movie. I was really surprised because of negative reviews. I wanted to see it in the movie theater, but couldn't find anyone else to go. I regret now not seeing it at the theater. Costner was EXCELLENT as the bad guy. Russell was good too. And there was an excellent supporting cast. You will see this movie and after you were done with it you will say this movie was different than I thought - guaranteed. This is a perfect example of critics killing a great movie (it was the violence and language). One of the best action movies I have ever seen.
  • OK, it a piece of trash. It is one of those guilty pleasures of mine. You know, the movie you are not supposed to like, but can't resist every time it comes on.

    I mean, look at this cast: Kevin Costner from The BodyGuard, one of my favorites; Kurt Russell from Grindhouse; Christian Slater and Howie Long from Broken Arrow; Kevin Pollak from Hostage; Ice-T as the token rapper; and the best part of all, Courteney Cox, in a role that is so far from Friends that it is a classic.

    This film is funny (Jon Lovitz), sweet (David Kaye), and has more action than you could ever ask for in a heist film. It has showgirls, an Elvis convention, and, I don't care if people diss Costner, Russell, and Cox, the film is just fun to watch.
  • Queequegfilms27 February 2001
    Directed with a slightly overused yet still very affective "artsy" style by relative Hollywood virgin Demian Lichtenstein, GRACELAND starts with a bang. Judging from the television spots and theatrical trailers one would assume the film revolves around the slowly bubbling brewing plan to knock off a Vegas casino dressed as Elvises on International Elvis Night. But that is where you would be wrong. The ten minutes of nonstop action that are a result of the casino robbery (and in a weird dimension almost mirror the bank robbery scene in HEAT)happen in the first ten minutes of the movie; the other 120 minutes, revolve around the aftermath and repercussions of the bloodbath.

    Costner, who I swear to God will never do wrong in my eyes, does well for himself departing from the usual character and plays a bad guy. The great thing about this film is that all the characters are bad guys, we just have to decide how bad they are and how much we want to let ourselves care about them. Costner, is the baddest of them all, and eventually it becomes clear that the bad guy we are supposed to care about is the one played by the best "Average Guy" actor of all time---- Kurt Russell (remember BREAKDOWN?)

    In any case we have the romance, Courtney Cox and Russell. We have the bloody, cold hearted illegitimate (possibly) son of Elvis, Costner. We have the two cops chasing them, Kevin Pollack and Thomas Haden Church who compliment each other with wonderful chemistry. And we have the slew of supporting actors that plug up any possible holes the film might (but doesn't) have; Howie Long, David Arquette, Bokeem Woodbine (a Black Elvis), Ice-T, Christian Slater. Blah Blah Blah.

    This film on the whole becomes the first film in quite some time that I know I will see multiple times in the theater, and one that I am sure I will eventually know all the words to. Making it the fourth of the Costner Movies I can recite word for word (Robin Hood, Tin Cup, Postman)

    The relatively young director also made a unique decision in the editing of the film, allowing both of its stars, (Costner and Russell) cut their own version of the film. Costner's version concentrated more on the action, the blood, the guts, the death, the explosion, the "F" word with a strange annunciation of the "G". And Russell's focused on the budding, and slowly blossoming love between Cox and himself. Costner's cut won, but I can't see anywhere that film lacks because of it. overall this is one of the most fully fleshed, well rounded films I have seen in quite a while.

    I loved it.

    A-
  • After hearing a lot of bad reports on this movie I was pleasantly surprised when I finally saw it. The acting is good, Kevin Costner's bad guy is great, it's well filmed with a lot of excellent cinematography, combined with absolutely perfect use of the soundtrack from minor audio cues right through to the explosions. This is not a sophisticated movie, but in its genre it is excellent.
  • I saw elements of "Out of Sight" and "Honeymoon in Vegas" in this action movie. The film deals with a heist pulled off by thieves posing as Elvis impersonators during a convention, and their following dillemas afterwards. The film becomes fairly predictable and unbelievable in the ensuing chaos, as most of the action takes place in showdowns between Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner's characters, the latter of whom claims to be an illegitimate child of Elvis. I thought it was a pretty good movie, and you might find something you like in it.

    ** 1/2 out of ****
  • `3000 Miles to Graceland' isn't quite as dopey as the cover art featuring Kurt Russell and Kevin Kostner clad in Elvis regalia would suggest. Although it breaks little new ground in its already overworked genre, the film does emerge as an efficient crime drama thanks to a gallery of interesting characters, some impressive performances and Demian Lichtenstein's flashy directorial style.

    After a shaky first half hour or so, in which the film seems to be struggling to establish its direction and tone, the movie miraculously hits its stride and, thereafter, never really lets up. The story centers around a band of ex-cons, united by their almost obsessive love for the King of rock'n'roll, who decide to knock over a Las Vegas casino dressed as Elvis impersonators. Predictably, the heist serves merely as the pretext for one of them, the obviously psychotic Murphy (Kostner), to cold-bloodedly eliminate his accomplices. The fly in his ointment turns out to be Michael Zane (Russell), the most principled one of the group, who survives the holocaust and spends his time, along with a pretty single mother and her precocious child, trying to keep out of Murphy's way.

    In terms of plotting, the film follows a pretty traditional route for this kind of film. However, the characters here seem a bit more fleshed out than they often do in some of those other films, particularly Zane, who seems caught between his criminal inclinations and his innate goodness as a human being. Cybil, the single mother played by Courteney Cox, likewise seems conflicted between genuine love and emotion and the excitement of easy wealth and a life lived on the edge. But it is Kostner as Murphy who sets the real tone for the film. His portrayal of a steely-eyed psychotic killer literally sets the teeth on edge, as he callously mows down scores of policemen and innocent bystanders who happen to get in his way. He makes for a truly soul-cringing villain. Russell, who played the actual legend back in his own younger, more halcyon days, makes a fascinating subtle counterpoint to Murphy's unbridled ruthlessness.

    The film is not, however, a total success. For one thing, the violence often seems excessively brutal, graphic and mean spirited for a movie that seems to want to be a lark of sorts (after all, a movie featuring robbers dressed as Elvis impersonators can't be bidding to be taken too seriously). Moreover, the plotting, which far too often relies on unlikely coincidences to keep it rolling, also borders frequently on the incoherent. Finally, the morally ambiguous ending doesn't really sit well with those of us who find a couple of thieves, no matter how charming they may appear to be, unlikely candidates for heroism in the context of a `happy' ending.

    All in all, however, `3000 Miles to Graceland' will probably appeal to those who like their crime dramas offbeat, quirky and filled with interesting characters.
  • Costner's best bad guy role since Eastwood's "A Perfect World". He is an Elvis-loving criminal who robs a casino with his buddies and proceeds with plans to annihilate them all before they can collect their share of the loot. Simple set-up, heavy-handed execution. The thing is, though, it works as mindless, forgettable trash. Director Demian Lichtenstein is clearly churning out his Boys Own Gun Movie and he does so with unapologetic enthusiasm and not a single concession to political correctness. Which is refreshing. As usual, Kurt Russell is fine as the guy Costner underestimates and gets a world of trouble from. The climax is predictable, unfortunately, and doesn't leave us with much to chew on, but the overwrought stylings are the thing. The shoot-outs are big and brassy, and there is much collateral damage to be had. The Elvis angle is misleading because it suggests a lighter movie in the "Honeymoon in Vegas" mold; but there is no lightness here, just nihilism and firearm fetishism.
  • This started with such great style, color and pizazz, I thought I had discovered a real "sleeper," a film I didn't expect to be good that was turning out to be very entertaining.

    Well, after the big Las Vegas heist and shortly thereafter when we got a full look at the wild characters and even wilder action scenes, the film settled down and the dialog took over. Unfortunately, that was the film's downfall as the dialog is either incredibly stupid and-or annoying in the second half of this movie. Most annoying was this young kid, you know - the smart-ass kind that says things NO kid his age would say in real life. He also had a foul mouth, and I don't like to see that from young kids.

    All the characters in here are pretty much low-life people, the worst being the one played by Kevin Costner, who seemed to relish this role. If you like low-class people, you'll like this story. I gave it points for the style and the fast-moving story, but it's too unpleasant overall for me.
  • shaun9831 August 2002
    Warning: Spoilers
    *some spoilers*

    It's official: "3000 Miles to Graceland" is a very strong contender for the worst movie of 2001. Rarely have I seen such a long, boring, mind-numbing mess. There's the germ of an offbeat idea--Elvis impersonators robbing a Vegas casino--but right from the start something's amiss, and the film only gets worse as it goes on. The first part is a mildly diverting heist picture, but it degenerates into a mindless road movie, making it clear that the filmmakers had no idea where to go. The third act is nearly unwatchable, and I felt tired and depressed when it was over. It would be hard to list every flaw in a single review, but the most prominent impression on my mind was that it's an assault on the senses. A handful of viewers liked it, but I don't envision this movie becoming a cult classic anytime soon. The director makes everything flashy looking, with rapid editing and tilted camera angles. He thought he was making the film exciting, but all it did was give me a headache. I am reminded of "Armageddon," which had a similar problem but was at least a marginally more entertaining movie. Graceland isn't exciting, it's a poorly directed, sloppily written ordeal.

    I do not know how Kevin Costner was persuaded to appear in this travesty, except that perhaps he was tired of being the hero all the time. Well, if he wanted to play a villain, he got his wish. After watching the results, my guess is that he will stick with his more "traditional" roles from this day on. His approach to the character, a psychotic thug ringleader, doesn't have enough force or energy. It's clear that he didn't have any idea what to do with this nearly unplayable role, so he just faked it. On the other had, Kurt Russell does a fairly good job as his heart-of-gold partner, who eventually befriends a lonely single mother. I liked Courteney Cox's character, but her motivations are too vague for her actions to be credible. Does she love this guy or what? And does she so easily forget his threat to kill her? Likewise, David Kaye is reasonably good as Cox's son, but he's such a little brat. Christian Slater, Kevin Pollak, and David Arquette are utterly wasted and dispensed with early on. There should be a law against such misuse of resources.

    Demian Lichtenstein is one of the worst directors ever to helm a big-budget movie, and one hopes it will be a long time before anyone lets him near Hollywood again. Thankfully, his film was a miserable box-office bomb, so the worst of his legacy is probably over. According to the Internet Movie Database, he is better known for his rock videos, commercials, and short films. He should be forbidden from ever moving from that arena and inflicting more harm upon the moviegoing public. Who greenlit this thing? Who thought it would make a workable movie? What did the stars see in the material? Did everyone owe the director a favor? Why hasn't Elvis' estate sued?

    * (out of ****)

    Released by Warner Bros.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Spoilers herein.

    This is drek because the actors are lousy, the director doesn't have a center, and the narrative is unfocused. But you knew that.

    But if poorly written, it is pretty intelligently conceived. Think about the problem of the poor writer. Most film genres are going through a period of accelerated evolution. Copying old formulas in the sense of copying the essence of the whole film doesn't work anymore: if a specific film hits, the studios copy it exactly as a `sequel' until it burns out.

    Tarrantino was the most self-promoting of a breed of `samplers,' who changed the game of formula. Samplers copy elements of prior films in an overtly self-referential way: the quote is supposed to be obvious. The problem is not a lack of riches to quote, rather a challenge of novel composition.

    So the race for intelligent artifice is on. `Moulin Rouge' was a masterful combination of self-reference, satire and straightahead manipulation. Lots and lots of different solutions are appearing, many rather clever. So here we have a first time writer who starts from first principles: what are the basics of artifice to build on?

    Elvis himself was a serial impersonator who spawned a whole cult of impersonators. So that's a possibly rich skeleton, especially if the director is someone from the music video world, which is nothing but cinematically-enhanced posturing of celebrities. Add in the familiar device of thieves who are constantly revealing their motives to have been impersonations. Add in Las Vegas, which has cinematically rich gaudy, fake frippery, and some balletic shootouts. Finally add in some Tarrantino insurance: all the characters should be lowlifes.

    I think this could have been made to work. Parts of it have elsewhere. The lowlife transit of violence was painted well in `Kalifornia, ` even in `U Turn.' The choreographing of shootouts as an effect of random fate was recently done well in `Way of the Gun.' Elvis. Las Vegas, robber doublecrosses many times.

    So while this was a failure, and even though it had poor Kevin, it is an interesting failure. If you are like me and are interested in how societies mature, drift, evolve or get buffeted, you'll be interested in this. Its like watching the news. You expect it to be mostly bad, but you watch anyway.

    Side comment: wasn't the abused daughter at the gas station wonderful? The credits confuse on who she is. It is a small part, and she cheated by playing Julianne Moore. But she was great in her three minutes.
  • lonecap-24 March 2001
    I owe Roger Ebert an apology regarding this film. I was surprised by his review trashing it. What did he call it? "Mean spirited," I believe. He also described a few plot points that I had trouble believing. I thought, "He must be joking. They couldn't possibly have done something THAT stupid."

    Then I saw the film. So now, I apologize to Roger Ebert for not believing him. In fact, I thought he was being kind.

    Now, I'm determined that someone owes me an apology for having made that piece of garbage, and for making me wish I'd stayed home to watch XFL football instead.
  • What the? This movie was so bad, I thought that the Brady Bunch episode where Bobby got lost in the Grand Canyon was more intense! What is this movie's obsession with jarring camera angles? It was like a Spike Jonze album on speed. I can't believe there was a crew for this movie. This was 30 million dollars well spent. Kevin Costner was having a Sealy Posturepedic morning, and the "impersonators" were in the film for nine minutes, total. I want to take a shower and wash off this movie! Rating: 3/10 (I've got an idea for a movie: THE JETSONS: AFTER THE APOCALYPSE)
  • This movie is one of the worst I've ever seen. I like Kevin Costner. I like Kurt Russell. But why they made this waste of screen time is beyond me. Much of it made no sense, like why Kevin's character kills everyone in sight but leaves one particular character alive. There was absolutely nothing likeable about Kevin Costner's character and yet at the end of the movie the comments the cops made about him made it seem like he was supposed to be a folk hero to the viewer. I don't think so. If that is what the writer intended, he/they sure missed the boat.
  • I went to see this little fiasco based solely upon the very first review that I read here at IMDB. The writer in question planned to see this film over and again in the hopes of committing its dialogue to memory! Good Lord! WHAT dialogue? The F word?

    If you like psychotic camera techniques, explosions for the sake of orange flames, a soundtrack that begs to have your eardrums removed and above all horrendously bad acting by people you'd NEVER expect would be involved in such a terrible piece of dreck, then this is the film for you. Buy the soundtrack CD, memorize what little dialogue you can find between profanities, wear the T shirt, too. Your taste, or perhaps your sanity, is surely in question.

    The only question in my mind is why I didn't get up and walk out during that unforgettable opening credits sequence? It set the tone for what turned out to be a great big cinematic migraine.
  • john-8635 April 2001
    1/10
    Yawn
    The trailers look cool, but the movie is just lame. If you like watching inept security guards being slaughtered, this is the movie for you. Did I mention the acting is awful? Even the dubbed farts aren't realistic. Save your money.
  • robertofuiano19 February 2010
    10/10
    Good
    Costner is King!, 27 February 2001 Author: Queequegfilms Great, great action movie, I would not want the release date of this movie, not newer, had infected the trial, the scenery is excellent and the Pima Kostner time Kevin is playing the role of bad guy evil and gays. The action is great then the late Kevin Kostner is a bad death. Christian Slater, Kurt Russell are naive fools do not understand this vote low, has not even sufficiency. There are crap for movies such as Donnie Darko, a film for minds diverted, horrible and unwatchable. Shame, this site has two weights and two measures. Listen to me See it, if you love action, it is a pleasure to see so many shootings. Mythical.
  • This movie is hyped to be dark and funny - I was expecting something along the lines of True Romance or Resevoir Dogs. I have liked lots of violent movies and lots of movies in which women are treated pretty shabbily. This movie was totally offensive in the treatment of women which I presume was aimed for laughs but fell flat. The violence is not well done - just shooting of endless bodies with big guns. Frankly, the movie made me terribly sad for the state of our nation - that we consider this movie to be "entertaining" in any sense. When cultural critics talk about the glorification of violence and the numbing effect of seeing it, this is the movie to which to refer. Nothing thought provoking, nothing funny, nothing fun. At best, it is a waste of time and money that you can forget about.
  • It may have been amusing, even entertaining to see what John Frankenheimer, The Coen Brothers or Steven Soderbergh would've done to attempt to make this drippingly rancid sow's ear into a silk purse, (even if it were as imitation as the silk used in an Elvis impersonator's cape.) As it is, there's one abbreviated way to sum up the effect this movie will eventually have on a thinking, feeling filmgoer:

    Take a camera. Point it at a ludicrously immense mound of compost or a heap of various kinds of manure. Take about thirty million dollars in cash, throw it on top of the crap. Douse it liberally with gasoline, nitro, toss in some dynamite and C-4. Light a match and throw it in.

    The resulting explosion of waste products would probably be more engaging to watch than this entire film, and probably end up smelling a lot better, too. This is filmmaking at its absolute worst; irresponsibility bordering on the contemptuous, for the stars and those of its intended audience intelligent enough to be outraged by it. If this is the best the creative team responsible for this dreck felt they could do, maybe they should all retire from the business. Like yesterday.

    Kurt Russell, who did a decent portrayal of Elvis in the TV biopic, nearly undoes all the good work he did before here. The only reason he doesn't come off as totally assinine, is because Kevin Costner steals THAT honor from him, without so much as breaking a sweat, or losing those atrocious fake sideburns. Take it from those of us who've been watching you, Kev...we all like actors who stretch and take risks. It's generally conceded that you need a change of pace to revitalize your career, but bubby, THESE kind of changes you don't need.

    Maybe it's just me, but I thought I detected a few glimpses of near-embarassment from the supporting cast, regarding their brief appearances in this sorry excuse for an action film. Slater, Woodbine, Arquette, Cox, Jon Lovitz, Kevin Pollak and Thomas Haden Church are capable of doing much better work than this, and they have. They've also done some things I'm sure they've left off their resumes in recent times, but nothing THIS bad. Only Howie Long, taking a break from his Radio Shack commercials, seems to escape absolute shame in his brief cameo, and the young actor who plays Cox's juvenile brat of a son delivers what is possibly the best performance in this whole mess. As for Paul Anka...well, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Demian Lichtenstein is a former MTV video maven, and this shows in every frame. But does anyone have patience for an overlong music video masquerading as a sub-par "action dramedy?" If you seek to find the answer to that question, make sure that your local video store is running a two-fer special before you put this on the evening's itinerary.

    BTW, there are better action movies you could watch that are so over-the-top, they're damn near enjoyable. THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT and REMO WILLIAMS are two excellent examples. Or better still, go for Kurt one more time in the funky, junky, comic-book-extravagant BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA. Even seeing that flick for the nineteenth time is better than your initial viewing of this one.
  • 3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) This is a tricky film to rate and review. Do I rate it based off of how entertaining it was or do I rate it based on how terrible it is. I guess I'll meet them somewhere in the middle.

    To start with the positives, 3000 Miles to Graceland is very entertaining and keeps you watching. It has a lot of cool effects and great action sequences, and a relatively decent storyline, though ridiculous in many ways. One other thing I have good to say about it is that it has some pretty good cinematography, not always, but often. With an all star cast like they have (personally I love Costner's character) its hard not give it a chance and I think it deserves people watching it, at least fans of action films.

    On the other hand, the film is actually pretty terrible. Very bad acting by most of the cast, and a lot of generic and stupid dialog. As I mentioned, it does have a good root idea for the storyline. However, trying to be cool, and more action packed weakened the plot and made the film get worse as it progresses. Top all this off with an obvious and yet unfitting ending and you have 3000 Miles to Graceland.

    I think a lot of people will like this film if they are going into it looking for a hardcore action film and not looking for an overall good film. It will keep you entertained but I think whether you like it or not you will probably agree that the action is the only thing holding the film together and making it watchable.

    6/10
  • Seldom do I write as negative a review as this will be. I cannot find one redeeming quality in this movie, save that Courtney Cox gets more beautiful with each passing year.

    The story centers around thieves falling out, and the revenge they take. At least that's what it's supposed to be. There are SO many plot holes, SO many inconsistencies, that it's truly an unwatchable film.

    Why, all of a sudden at the end of the film, are these criminals, who don't care for anything or anyone, suddenly concerned about the life of the boy? Why does Howie Long's character take the bullets meant for Kevin Costner? Why do we believe that Kurt Russell will soften his attitude towards Cox's character just because she starts crying? And where the HELL did they find a scorpion in the Pacific Northwest???

    The movie fails on so many levels. It makes the US Marshall's Service appear as idiots, It makes the criminals appear comedic - unintentionally so - especially when Ice T is travelling along a wire upside down, spinning, and firing dual submachine guns.

    It's a harsh thing to say, but I'm glad this movie lost money, to the tune of 47 million dollars. Perhaps Hollywood will realize that a movie needs a plot, a story, and dialogue that will attract the viewer. Just putting a bunch of shootouts in a movie will not attract moviegoers (though I doubt it.)

    It appears that Kevin Costner needs to sit back, analyze his career, and decide what kind of scripts he fits as an actor. Every time he tries to stretch, he fails. Russell, well, for a long time now, he's just shown up, hit his mark, and taken his check home to Goldie. There was some great talent in this movie: Christian Slater, Kevin Pollack, et al, but it was all wasted. That about sums this movie up: A waste.

    Were you to go to any video store, close your eyes, reach out and grab any video, you would invariably find a better movie than this, even if the movie you grab is "Ishtar."
  • Kevin Costner has been known for doing projects that waste his waning talent, and 3000 Miles to Graceland ranks right down there with The Postman as one of the worst films he has had the misfortune of being associated with. It's at best a sloppy, thoroughly boring pseudo action-drama-comedy that destroys any interest or momentum it was building after the first half hour.

    Costner, Russell, Slater, David Arquette and Bokeem Woodbine star as a gang of hoods who dress up like Elvis to rob a Las Vegas casino during International Elvis week. After the caper turns into a bloodbath (predictably), Costner decides to blow away the majority of the cast and it's up to he, Russell, and Courtney Cox as the requisite love interest and David Kaye as the requisite 10 year old to carry the picture into the depths of strangling boredom and mediocrity.

    With the Elvis premise, one would expect the gang of criminal Elvi to be sought after and be confused with other impersonators, but that's never the case. Instead we are treated to the wooden acting of all the cast members, cliche after cliche evident in both action and movie-of-the-week plotting, and the grating, irritating penchant of music video director Lichtenstein to speed up, slow down, flash cut, and jerk the film around for no reason. In a particularly excessive, laughable shot, he decides to film Russell and Cox parking at a motel in slow-motion with MTV style flashes of white to the an ear-scraping heavy metal soundtrack.

    With no plot to speak of, uniformly lazy performances by the entire cast, and atrocious pacing, editing, plotting, dialogue, and cinematography, one would at least expect 3000 Miles to have some slightly rousing good action sequences. This film/music video fails in even that respect, which is why it's my pick for one of 2001's worst films of the year.

    2 out of 10
  • A bunch of guys dressed as Elvis decide to pull off a robbery in Las Vegas during an Elvis convention? Sounds like a great setup to me.

    But wait a moment – this movie follows in the footsteps of several other recent Hollywood horrors – the director's experience is all with music videos!

    And it shows. It feels like a two-hour long music video, but with some plot thrown in here and there. And the plot that gets thrown in is terrible. The heist setup is used up in just a few minutes of over-the-top violence, and the rest is a half-baked story of love at first sight, murder, betrayal, and so on ad nauseam, regularly inter-cut with uncalled-for music-video sequences, lots of gratuitous close-ups of women's bottoms in tight pants, and short, pointless scenes with Kevin Costner and some throw-away characters that were probably intended to be character development. Those character development scenes generally only confirm what one might suspect – that Costner's character really is the cookie-cutter bad guy that we thought all along.

    I'd be glad if Mr. Lichtenstein stuck to music videos, which I'm sure he's very good at.
  • At times this film delivers the high-octane action and intrigue just as promised. Unfortunately, it runs too long in too many directions and loses its "punch". It starts out as a Vegas heist caper. Then it turns into a road movie. Then it tries to be a mystery. Then they pump things back up with some mega-action but by this time they've lost me. It could have been a really satisfying package if they'd wrapped things up a good half hour sooner.

    On the plus side, I have to say, this is my favorite Kevin Costner performance. Turns out he's REALLY good at playing the "heavy". Sure hope he does it again, maybe in a tighter movie. I credit him for making the absolute most out of a not-very-good script.
An error has occured. Please try again.