User Reviews (34)

Add a Review

  • "Quicksand", a film directed by the man who made the mighty "Long Good Friday", is about a million miles away from that film. It is an action movie in the vein of "The Fugitive", messily made with an average result from the two lead actors. While the movie has nothing much going for it, after renting it on DVD I must confess that I watched it 'till the end and enjoyed it's

    trashiness. So... if you've got too much spare time (like I do) and feel like a nice, B-movie night at home, you could do much worse than renting "Quicksand". Just don't expect another "Long Good Friday", maybe a "Short Trashy Monday".
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It might be surprising to some that a film starring Michael Keaton and Michael Caine went straight to DVD in most countries; it is less surprising to anyone who watches the film. This is B-movie material all the way. You've seen the story a zillion times before: innocent man framed for murder, on the run, stranger in a strange land, trying to prove his innocence, picks up female ally / romantic interest along the way, corrupt police, thick-accented Russian mobsters, blah blah blah. Keaton is on autopilot here, but the supporting cast (not so much Caine, who for the first HOUR makes only a few fleeting cameo appearances, as Kathleen Wilhoite back in New York) try to inject some life into this clichéd, boring time-killer. *1/2 out of 4.
  • kellieb-114 February 2006
    Quicksand is a great movie. I was pleasantly surprised by the film when I caught it on TV. It had all of the mystery, suspense and drama of a top-notch film, but for some reason it lacks the notoriety. It didn't have a series of car chases and crashes that most American movies display. One has to wonder if this is why it wasn't the commercial success it should have been. Michael Keaton and Michael Caine gave stellar performances, which were supported by a wonderful European cast.

    If you want to see a great movie with great actors and great footage of Europe, this is one of the best choices I can think of.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Michael Keaton is banker Martin Raikes. By his co-workers' descriptions, and by his own admission, he is a demanding boss and a thorough businessman. When his bank notices a rather large transfer of money, he decides to go himself to investigate, at a movie studio in Nice, France.

    When he gets there he meets Michael Caine, playing an actor, Jake Mellows. Jake has a gambling habit, often going into debt, but always figures his acting income will bail him out.

    Pretty French actress Judith Godrèche is Lela Forin, who works for the studio.

    Old Serbian actor Rade Serbedzija is a Russian Oleg Butraskaya running a not so legitimate business.

    These 4 main characters interact throughout the movie, and quickly Martin figures out the studio isn't really making a movie, but are a channel for laundering money from illegal operations, some of which involves kidnapping women and apparently selling them into sexual slavery. Plus, Martin gets very cleverly set up so that it looks like he murdered a key French official. What started out as an audit soon becomes Martin's scrambling for his life.

    I like Michael Keaton, he is an interesting actor who creates interesting roles. And, I really was mesmerized with Ms Godrèche, I love her accent when speaking English, plus she is nicely attractive. This movie is a bit better than its IMDb rating would indicate.

    SPOILERS: People who get close to the truth get murdered. They go after Martin but he is too smart. He has a teen daughter who lives in England with her mom and stepdad, and the bad guys kidnap her for ransom. But Martin outfoxes them and in the final scenes sets up a video camera sending a live streaming video to computers everywhere, showing the bad guys for what they are. He and Lela set up a production company, and seem destined for more.
  • Martin Raikes is a banker who gets way over his head with one of the bank's client a group which is used as money laundry for the Russian mob in France. What's wrong with you people? This film definitely has all action thriller needed. A top cast, great villains, beautiful leading actress just as the beautiful filming location and cinematography. Both Michael and Michael bring wonderful performances to the screen. Director John Mackenzie directs expertly and shows he hasn't lost a thing since "The long good Friday" (1980). After watching this movie I hope for 2 things: 1. That people will give more credit to this film. 2. That the film industry will keep bringing us excellent films like this one. This, along with Ronin (1998) are two of the few smart action/intrigue films we have had in the last years. This one rates 10/10. Highly Recommended.
  • 'Quicksand' was showing this evening on CH 5, Now I'm always very wary of watching movies on that particular channel as it has become synonymous with terrible films, but I decided to watch purely on it's starring actors, in this case being Michael Caine & Michael Keaton, It's not a terrible film by any means, but it's just so mediocre, it's the kind of Film that even Steven Segal himself would probably turn down.

    Michael Keaton plays a New York Banker who travels to the South of France to investigate possible fraud on the Film that his company is financing, and soon finds himself up to his next in dirty cops & Russian gangsters and ends up getting framed for murder....


    Been there, done it, got the t-shirt! there is nothing in this film which hasn't been done better before.

    Michael Caine is really slumming it here, like he has done many times before..... JAWS IV: THE REVENGE or THE SWARM anyone?.... and makes what could be described as a glorified cameo.

    The Original 'Batman' Keaton pretty much disappeared after picking ghastly Movies to appear in, in the mid/late 90's, but really this is below him, Caine is merely cashing the check.

    apparently this was filmed in 2001 and not released for nearly 3 years...that tells you just about everything.

    as I've said above for a Film that never saw the inside of a Movie Theater it's not terrible, and watchable on TV on a Winter's night, but don't spend any money, it's not even worth the rental.

    **1/2 out of *****
  • My summary says it all. This film is highly unpleasant in places (for example one theme is systematic rape; this is also shown at one point). It does not even make up for this by being remotely worth watching: the acting is appalling, and even Michael Caine and Michael Keaton cannot make up for the terrific lack of ability in terms of plot, script and direction.

    The "setup" of Keaton (Keaton walks onto his balcony and discovers a sniper rifle there; rather than leave it he picks it up, just as a police chief is sniped) is ridiculous; apart from being hideously contrived and formulaic, it also neglects to take into account brutally obvious factors such as motive and bullet trajectory analysis, not to mention the fact that only the terminally stupid would assassinate someone by standing up on a balcony incredibly close to that person, while holding a sniper rifle. At that range Keaton could probably have popped the guy with a pistol.

    The characters are drawn with big, big brush-strokes, the female lead is just appalling, and to top it off the final scene shows the vindicated Keaton back as a workaholic in his office, and the girl walks in, he smiles at her and she smiles softly back. Cut to credits. Yuck. Oh, and apparently a corpse blinks at the start, something to watch out for.

    And WHY do they have to get shot in the eye? And WHAT is that tattoo which the bad guys have on their hands? And...WHY set him up in the first place if you're gonna try and kill him anyway?

    Save your money, time and brain. Go look elsewhere.
  • So says The Daily Mail as they not only want to give this film away as a 'freebie' with their newspaper, they are trying to make us want it too, because, this is a Michael Keaton, not Caine, film.

    Caine gets to shout 'bloody' again (as in his most famous ever line, in The Italian Job), this time about money he's owed, or he owes - not always sure who is pointing guns at whom, or why, the next, they're in a heap on the floor. Keaton is seemably always on the run, after setting off for south of France to dig up some info on some deal that's been flagged up as dodgy. Next thing, he's shot the Chief of Police, on Armistice Day, in a French town and everybody has seen him do it - and yes! there's a very convenient film crew who almost knew he was about to do it...The investigating police are dodgy as there's all sorts of cover-ups going on, to do with porno film rackets and illegal immigrants and such, I think..(nothing too explicit, cert 15).

    Anyway, this credibility straining movie, in old style 4:3 ratio has its moments, cannot recall too many of them, now, that it's finished, except Caine, who is really quite obnoxious, but in a Michael Caine sort of way - i.e - we know he's such a great guy in real life so we forgive him (& for his not-too-rare dodgy choices of film roles) as he gets to try strangling folk, with his bare hands as well as string, or rope, or whatever...

    Some of the French actresses are pleasing, both to the eye and their attempt at adding a different perspective to an otherwise quite unpleasant film.

    Never mind, this is still better than some Michael Caine movies out there and the transfer quality and sound is OK.
  • scifisuede1 January 2005
    It's not that good, but not too bad either. It's nice if you love France but are not there. If you're looking for a thriller, look elsewhere. The characters are rather flat, like cardboard cut outs. The plot is predictable and surreal, if not totally unreal. And, the chemistry between the characters are dry. Like between Keaton's character and the lead actress - you almost hope there's nothing going on between them because it'd be too predictable, but at the same time, you don't have the chance to hope so because it seems like there's no spark at all between them. It's rather hard too to tell who's who for each other unless you listen to their dialogue. Just too bad I missed the blinking corpse part - I didn't watch from the beginning! To be fair, it kept me watching until the end, and it's rather amusing to watch the predictable flow.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    1_Always use a movie star to narrate the ransom message.

    2_Always show the ransom message on a public cinema (and on the loop).

    3_Always walk in the streets without any make up while you're a fugitive (despite having an access to a make up room).

    4_Always stand under the light in front of the bad guys who are looking for you.

    5_Always meet the police in the same place that the main bad guy, who wants to kill you, uses to hang out.

    6_Always wait to the last second to alert the girl that there is a bomb on her boat.

    7_Always allure the men while being pregnant, and being in love with your man.

    8_Always tight the good man's kidnapped daughter beside the lunch table, so she can be tortured by seeing other people eating (while she's not), and be close to the telephone if her daddy talks.

    9_Always kill the bad guys who are fighting arresting while they have no weapons with them.

    10_Always in France the TV opens on the English-speaking news channels.

    11_Always the substitute clothes, that are found accidentally, fit the runners from justice.

    12_Always frame an American. These people can run so fast, and prove their innocence so plainly !

    What I really loved about this movie is Michael Caine's line "Are you his daughter ?!". And his frankness about doing some works, like this movie, only for the money.

    Finally, "Do you have lunch with me?" Well, NOOOOOOO !!
  • Jake Mellows (Michael Keaton) is a divorced American banker sent to Monaco to investigate the possibility of laundering of money. Apparently the laundry of money was made through the production of films. In Monaco, he meets Lela Forin (Judith Godrèche), the financial manager of Miramax films, and Michael Caine, a decadent, alcoholic and gambler previously famous actor of action movies. Being in Europe, makes him promise his teenager daughter to visit her in London. Then, he gets absurdly involved in the murdering of the ports chief of police of Monaco. Then he realizes that most of the high level characters of the story are somehow involved with corruption. Next, his daughter is kidnapped. Jake will have to fight against powerful persons trying to save his daughter and himself and prove his innocence. This plot is so absurd and has so many `holes' that becomes funny. The murdering of the ports chief of police `à la Kennedy' and how and why Jake is blamed are ridiculous. Anyway, if the viewer do not have nothing better to do in a rainy Saturday afternoon, there is a chance to enjoy this flick. The excellent Michael Caine is not decadent yet like his character, and Michael Keaton is a good actor. My vote is five.
  • I love Michael Keaton, but let's face it, the man hasn't done much since such classics as Batman and Johnny Dangerously. I'm still looking for a Michael movie that catches my eye because he is such a hidden talent. Quicksand is just like the others, average and nothing special as well as poorly written. It actually had potential to have suspense and an edge on your seat type of thrill ride, but ends up like most thrillers, because if you've seen the big shockers, then you have pretty much from that point see the rip offs. The acting is OK and the ending? Not so much to do with, this was an amateur movie and an insult to both Michaels. Let's hope for better improvements in the future!

  • The blinking corpse in the beginning of this film is a clue as to the shabby production which follows. A story of international intrigue with Keaton's character framed for murder and desperately trying to exonerate himself while on the run from both good and evil elements, "Quicksand" sinks slowly into its own messy conglomerated story which tries to do too much in too little time. Its good cast and nice locations can't make up for the poor screenplay, the herky-jerky flow, the numerous unanswered questions, and countless plot holes making this flick best saved for broadcast where one can switch channels with no liability as soon as they find themselves losing interest; which may be sooner than later. (C-)
  • This is a well crafted albeit formulaic movie. I don't find much fault with it - a blinking corpse can't distract me (contrary to other reviewers, as it seems). Incidentally, irritation is a major factor in the story, the main character, an ultra pedantic controller from a global consultancy enterprise (frankly a great, contemporary creation and a good, convincing performance by Michael Keaton) represents just a little, irritating grain of sand in the international machinery of crime.

    The plot is the 39 steps, Saboteur, North by Northwest etc. all over. A wrongly accused and framed man on the run gets help from a beautiful woman and succeeds in turning the table on his pursuers. The grace, elegance and beauty of actress Judith Godrèche is a major asset of Quicksand. As far as the crime and the front for it are concerned, I found the movie credible. I assume in this aspect it relates to actuality more accurately than one might feel comfortable with. White slave trade from Eastern Europe is a new and unpleasant reality in Western Europe and probably in America as well. It happens in front of our doorsteps, so to speak. If Quicksand helps to bring this to mind, all the better.

    They had some excellent location scouts working on this movie. Almost the whole story evolves in and around the town of Nice and I found they caught the feel of this picture postcard place with its not so nice underbelly perfectly. There is a great assassination scene in the central district - and one will find references to Hitchcock's Nice- movie To Catch a Thief here and there. My favorite location is the small open air cinema high up above the coastline in the hills which serves as meeting place between Keaton and Godrèche. Who wouldn't like to be there when the
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I once heard a saying that all happy families are the same but all unhappy families are unhappy in their own way. While not all good movies are the same, it's certainly true that bad movies come in an almost infinite number of varieties. Quicksand would be a particular sort of terrible film known as the "Movie Star Vacation Project". It's where not-all-that-talented people manage to get the money to produce their horrible script solely because one or more genuine movie stars agrees to act in it, but the stars only agree to do it because the film is being shot in a certain location where the star would like to hang out for a couple of months. They don't give a damn whether the movie is any good or not, they just look at it as a paid vacation.

    Martin Raikes (Michael Keaton) is a bank examiner who goes to the south of France to check on an allegation of improper financial behavior at a movie studio. Once there, he meets Lela Forin (Judith Godreche), unaware that she's the frontwoman for a Russian mobster named Oleg (Rade Sherbedgia). It turns out Oleg is using the movie studio as a way to launder money, something which Raikes doesn't appear at all close to discovering but Oleg decides to frame him for the murder of a French police official anyway. Raikes has to flee the authorities and become a crime-stopping detective to uncover what's happened to him, something he takes to like a duck to water. Eventually he and Lela team up with Jake Mallows (Michael Caine), an aging British movie star who Oleg has hired to make a pretend film as part of the movie studio facade. There's also this bit about the Russians using the phony French studio to make rape videos and Raike's daughter gets kidnapped and there's this weird subplot back in the U.S. involving Raike's smartass and very pregnant secretary Beth Ann (Kathleen Wilhoite), which seems to exist just to make Quicksand about 15 minutes longer.

    The first hour of Quicksand is pretty boring and lame. The highlight of it is largely Raikes being chased by French police through a tunnel. Yeah, that's the best moment. Raikes grabs a handy shovel and uses it to knock out some lights, which somehow causes the police to lose track of him even though the tunnel remains brightly lit at all times. Even for a melodrama where it's more about running and shouting and blowing stuff up than making any sense, the lack of any sort of realistic behavior or action is quite apparent. This is supposed to be one of those stories about an ordinary guy ripped out of his ordinary life and his desperate struggle to escape from the foreign "quicksand" into which he's plunged. But while these filmmakers have clearly watched those sorts of movies, they clearly don't understand how to tell that story themselves. This is like one of those bad episodes from the later seasons of Miami Vice, with an extra 30 minutes tacked on. Yeah, it's that terrible.

    The last half hour of this film, however, is more than just boring and lame. It descends into a bizarre and apparently unintentional parody. At least it's unintentional for the filmmakers. There's a point where you can tell Michael Keaton has figured out just how much this movie sucks and decides to see how far he can push the suck. It's not that he phones in his performance, but he doesn't bother to try and salvage anything decent of this mess. He just goes full bore, almost as though he wants to deliberately emphasize how silly and simplistic the story becomes. That's unlike Michael Caine, who does the same professional job and takes the story as seriously as he does anything else.

    There's no way Keaton and Caine were paid a lot of money to do this film and even though Caine is a old-school actor who'll take almost any job offered to him, you know the only reason they're in this is because when they weren't on set, they could lounge around Europe on the producer's dime. That's a pretty sweet deal for them. It's fairly sour for those of us unlucky enough to watch Quicksand.
  • davideo-217 November 2004
    STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

    Banking boss Martin Fraikes (Michael Keaton) is sent off to France to investigate a suspected fraud taking place on a movie set.However,as he delves deeper and deeper into the case,he finds himself framed for murder,money laundering and his daughter is kidnapped.It's a web of lies that leads directly to has-been movie star Jake Mellows (Michael Caine) right down to the local mob...

    Everything about this film is back to front,topsy-turvy.It's been held back since 2001,but I'd have believed you if you'd told me it had been made in 1991,judging by it's presentation.Keaton's character finds himself in a host of inexplicable situations in the film,yet on the front cover he appears the confident,self-assured villain.It looks like a really entertaining film,but it really isn't.It's a film with production values and attention-payed-to-detail that appears really befitting to the state of both it's lead stars careers,Keaton re-appearing out of nowhere after a five year absence having last appeared on the big screen five years ago in the children's film Jack Frost and Caine moreorless just playing himself as a washed-up,has-been movie star who nowadays can only seem to get work appearing in low-budget fudd like this.It's a film of laugh-out-loud implausibility that,as it veers towards the end,steadily progresses into out and out preposterousness.

    It's nice to see Keaton return and it's very hard to see why his career has veered into DTV oblivion and someone like Richard Gere still manages to rake in the big bucks,but that's truly where the novelty wears off.**
  • Warning: Spoilers

    This is a rough tough story, rated R in the USA.

    User comments at IMDb appear to be mixed. Some like this a lot. Some consider it weak compared to other stories in whatever genre they experience it as being part of. At least one considers the whole thing to be offensive for reasons of morality. I like it, but need untangling afterwards, there are real issues being tickled in this.

    The spoiler flag is because I am trying to muse on some difficult bits.


    I experience the genre as Booby Buster.

    A spy – cops – gangster movie with bosoms that shine strong when their cute holders are busted.

    Some will consider such a genre to be immoral. Some will consider it to be a way to pass the time. Some will consider it to be a ball crusher, not for the squeamish. Some will not be surprised at a winking corpse.

    Hopefully there is scope for considering Quicksand to primarily be of a very different genre.


    This as a sub genre, there are young people involved. I know other features close to this sub genre.

    One has a young Michael Caine. He travels to Newcastle because a relative has been killed and finds that the death was because a gangster had turned the early teen daughter to prostitution. I was too tied up by puritan ways when I saw this first to notice if there were bosoms. Modern times do make this feature stick in my memory, though. This might merit a different label to Booby Buster.

    Another is a spy story, a double agent who is not known as such, he climbs to the top of the Soviet spy world and is high in the USA spy world. Booby. He is putting the pressure on someone and has kidnapped most of the family to give himself pawns to use as pressure points. I did find this story a bit hot, okay. Modern times, it also sticks in the memory, for me.

    I assume that young people are needed for Quicksand to properly tell its story. That it is not gratuitous. Also, the Slavic pair do not shine, they cover and run.

    For me, a lot of modern Disney for kids is an equivalent to Booby B. Grit mixed with glam.


    Sticking in the memory.

    As an underclass – big baby, I have been under long term pressure. Bratislava.

    On one side is pressure to follow puritan ways, my past makes me consider that to be a horrible way to be living dead. Quicksand. Becoming one of the countless grains of smoothed grit.

    On the other is pressure to – black bra and panties -, which for a fool is more like maroon bra and panties. Pressure to baby level in a lot of ways and ways to mature from baby level are regularly pruned. This is a different living death to the puritan way. Quicksand.

    To be able to watch a Booby Buster with no lingering trouble, I assume that one needs a mature and healthy sexual and social life and underclass cum big babies are under pressure for that to not be able to happen. Ever. This feature gives me lingering tangles that take a while to get a practical solution for. I still rate Quicksand, though I do not like such genre.

    The rough stuff with a girl and young women. One of the range of natural outcomes when Booby Buster cannot be faced okay? In part? Both sides as victims, everyone becomes grit?


    This is my first UK DVD purchase from a La California second hand disk store. Three full weeks to arrive and a lot about this story is not bland. My disk rates an Oscar.

    I purchased it because it is a Clare Thomas, her of the 9ish Aggie of Madeline 1998. The term Booby Buster is from her in that role.

    Clare in Quicksand, very much an opposite to her others that I have. Those are fun and light, kiddie stuff, if with elements of the storyline of this one. In a way this fits her work well, just her bits miss out on the warmth that make the early work of such as her and Ashley Johnson stand out for me. The warmth here is grown up and comes from such as Michael Keaton, things are up side down.

    It is also an opposite in that she only appears occasionally.

    Clare at age 13, playing the daughter of the main actor, Keaton. Let down by dad, then kidnapped, if eventually rescued by dad she has every reason to say that reality is quicksand for this 13. She shines brightly in this, but I really prefer her other roles.


    I like it that Caine is in this, just because of the genre echoes.

    He plays an aging actor who is not in tune with being a person, quicksand. But he can act. The non person appears briefly, in the early parts, later we are shown the other aspect. He has to cover a range of qualities and the weak is pure ham and the effective is extremely effective. It is easy to consider that he has a lousy script, but really it is just the role.


    Quicksand is not so far from the world of Anna Popplewell and Thunderpants 2001, which is a waste sort of thing. Instead of Caine there is Rupert Grint. It is not Booby B.
  • Leofwine_draca19 April 2019
    Warning: Spoilers
    QUICKSAND is a cheap B-movie thriller with a cast all slumming it and a plot which seems to be stitched together hurriedly from bits and pieces of previous, better movies. It's set in Monaco and shot in France, where boring hero Michael Keaton turns up only to find himself framed for murder and on the run. Trite dialogue and dull direction are the order of the day here, with the only saving grace a fun, sweary turn from Michael Caine as a hasbeen actor.
  • OK, the plot is clear enough - a compliance officer for a bank travels to Monaco to verify the sources of investor funding on a suspicious movie production. The production turns out to be a front used by the Russian mafia (in conjunction with local police) to launder money. When Michael Keaton's character (the compliance officer) starts sniffing around, the bad guys decide to frame him for murder. And, because the local cops are involved in the scheme, they plan to catch and kill him. So, he's on the run in Europe and gets aid from a couple of other characters who get drawn in as well.

    Anyways... the point of this review is not to tell you about the movie, but to save you money. This movie is not even mildly entertaining. It's worse than most 'made for TV' flicks you've seen. It's actually even worse than some pornos I've seen. It was obviously a "C"-level movie that got bumped up to "B" level because it has actors like Caine and Keaton in it. However, even though they are, as always, good actors, they still can't save this train wreck of a film. Bad writing and bad production meet head-on in what turns out to be an embarrassingly bad movie. I think the only entertainment value is as a "what NOT to do" lesson in film school. It's actually kinda funny (in a sad way), because it's so bad.

    There are goofs in almost every scene, aside from the cheesy lines and plot holes. I'm not angry or being vindictive. It's simply the truth. I actually went into this movie with high hopes because I love Keaton. But this is just such a waste of time, I'm trying to save anyone else from accidentally renting it. Anyone who gave this movie a good review is actually working for the distributor or production company. It's not even debatable, it's soooo bad, and the goofs are so glaring.

    I honestly assume that the reason Keaton and Caine signed on was because they owed someone a favor, or because it was a slow time for them & they got to take their families on vacation in the South of France for free.

    Goofs and plot holes from beginning to end. Look for the blinking corpse at the beginning, and look for Caine's ventriloquism near the end.
  • arfdawg-130 January 2014
    The workaholic head of the compliance section of a New York bank flies to Monaco to investigate unusual deposits from an offshore bank.

    He meets a down-on-his-luck international film star who has become embroiled in criminal activities.

    From the very first frame you know this is going to suck.

    Poor production values. Poor story line. Horrible directing. Bad acting.

    Just the worst.

    Michael Keaton really can't act. And there is no wonder that this movie was shelved for so long and then released on video only.
  • John Mackenzie's "Quicksand" is a solid thriller with well known actors. Michael Keaton could done more in his career, obviously he's not capable of doing that. Michael Caine is great actor but in this movie he's just here for the poster, so people can see that great Caine is in this movie. Like trick to draw viewers. Judith Godrèche is beautiful French actress but when will you Americans start to notice other actors, especially supporting ones. I'm aiming at Rade Serbedzija, one of the best Croatian actors. Serbedzija acts in theaters and in the movies and with Caine he's the only man in this crew who's doing that. Serbedzija is far better actor then Keaton and you have to believe me on this one because you haven't watched most of the movies where Serbedzija plays main character. What really bothers me is one comment about this movie. Author of that comment says that in this movie stars are Kaeton, Caine and that professor from "Mission Immposible 2". That actor has a name and that is Rade Serbedzija. Remember him cause he is better then Visnjic, star from "ER".
  • Really, this movie is trash.

    The plot has more holes than Swiss cheese and the storyline is so lame I found myself laughing hysterically. I'm sorry, I could not suspend my disbelief for this one.

    My girlfriend rented it because she likes the two Mikes....I like 'em too but I swear they must have done this one for a tax write off or as a favour or to get out of some other contractual obligation.

    It was so bad I was looking at the credits to try and find out who funded was so bad I thought it had to be a telefim Canada project or some other government body somewhere...which would explain the multi shooting units, Canada, US, Monaco and England.

    But no...someone put up good money for this bad display of cinematography. How it ended up like this is beyond me.

    I mean, there are some okay moments but it's like it was shot in another language and then just doesn't work.

    I got lost so many times as to what the story line was I gave up...and some of the linkages are so weak a six-year-old could have done better at show and tell.

    I'm not going to spoil it for anyone because I honestly can't bring myself to parrot the story line....with it's predictable ending.

    At one point though, I did think it was art imitating life imitating art, or was that life imitating art...never mind..the premise has something to do the illusion of movie making and how things aren't always as they appear to be, but it's done with such heavy handed direction and editing, it's a complete yawner.

    My advice? Unless you are a student of the form, stay away. If you are a student of the form, watch and learn what not to do.
  • keaton did a very unconvincing and heartless performance in this absolutely rubbish movie. his wrinkled face didn't show any emotion during the whole set. he's acting was so unbelievably bad and almost looked like out of place in every scene of this movie. the screenplay was extremely bad too. every twist of the plot was awkward and contrite. an accounting inspector from new york to investigate the discrepancies of the investment of an European movie company? guy behind the french/monaco movie industries involved in human trafficking? local cops involved in all the dirty business? Russian mafia, police corruption, hit-man, hired assassin....blah, blah and blah. then the guy would suddenly become so interested in getting the poster signed by a male star whom he thought already dead? in order to make the stupidly awkward scenario go along, the guy refused a full case of $$$cash bribery and let it slide, the next day checked out earlier without any reason, but then he still could receive the poster that the female chief financial officer of the movie company in front the hotel check-in/check-out counter by someone so timely, yet the female chief financial officer didn't know that he already checked out of the hotel?? you tell me if this kinda scenario arrangement was logically enough. if you do, then what can i say?
  • This movie had potential. Speedy script: Class actors: competent crew; but somehow missed out. Half way through it became predictable. The denouement was hackneyed. There were enough bright moments to make it watchable through to the end but it is not a film I would ever watch again if I were given the choice. Nor is it one that either of the two Michael's will be remembered for.

    For me the freshest thing to come out of this film was the performance of the female lead Judith Godreche. Attractive and sparkling she earns the sympathy of the viewer which is something that the characters portrayed by Messrs. Caine and Keaton fail to do.
  • darrin30 April 2005
    This film proves that Michael Keaton is best suited for comedy. While he was convincing as a sociopath in Pacific Heights, his performance as the father of a kidnapped daughter had a lot to be desired. Keaton acted as if he didn't want to be in this film! eh Ditto for the rest of the cast! The entire film lacked any shred of continuity or believability. Not to mention the corny one-liners that were inappropriately thrown in. Now I know why it took me four years to see this piece of DRECK! LOL! -D, NYC "I hope people watch this movie (Sidewalks of New York) and still see New York as the greatest city in the world. I certainly do!" - EDWARD BURNS, actor/filmmaker
An error has occured. Please try again.