Electric Slide (2014) User Reviews (10)

Ultimately bland and soulless biopic.

[mac-ginty · 4/10 · 22 December 2014]

Dodson owns a furniture store and aspires to a glamorous lifestyle he cannot afford. He borrows money from the bank and then a loan shark. As repayment pressures mount he resorts to bank robbing to fund his debts. He also teams up with a vacant blonde who likes to spout movie dialogue rather than talk with real feeling and their love story is a meaningless sidebar. The problem for me is Dodson is an unlikable man, he steals from friends and wants things without working for them. Sturgess portrays Dodson as ineffectual rather than charismatic which leaves you wondering why the bank tellers he robbed all liked him. I felt no emotional attachment to any of the characters.

The score also misses a trick opting to use generic synth music rather than some of the definitive 80s tunes. Its a stylish enough film but has no emotional core. The period is evoked sufficiently to feel like a period set piece. Could have been better with the talent involved.

If you knew Eddie

[artrouble21 · 4/10 · 23 December 2014]

One could write the entire plot of the movie in here and it wouldn't be a spoiler. Thats because this film is not about Eddie Dodson, it's about who ever the character called Eddie Dodson in this film thinks he's portraying.

Dodson was a bit more than a furniture salesman, his shop on Melrose wrote the script for a hundred quirky 20th century/retro/moderne shops that followed in his wake and that includes all the original 70's Hollywood funk and fun. Out and about you might have caught Eddie cruising Melrose in a 1930's convertible with a bevy of gals or run into him at a party in the Hills.

Three things one can credit the film with are the Hollywood pretty people which was spot on for that time- probably still is- the excellent soundtrack and the resemblance of Jim Sturgess to Eddie, but there it ends character wise and with the absurd fedora. Eddie was famous not just for the number of bank robberies he pulled but also for the Yankee cap he always wore to a bank giving him name he was known for, the Yankee Bandit.

Eddies story is far more Hollywood insane than this film can deal with it seems, his connection to some big Hollywood names, his drug addiction- Its not hard to find with google- is not touched upon. What this movie is however is an effete homage to a time and place that was a lot more brash and impulsive. It's main character may have some interesting aspects but they don't add up to the type of person that drove Eddie to do what he did.

Can the movie stand on it's own given the absence of any real motivation on the protagonists part? Maybe but it's point is the people and the period and it barely goes there. If you view it knowing nothing of Dodson it might work for you but if you knew Eddie you are in for a disappointment. And if you find out about Dodson after you watch it you'll be miffed they didn't make the actual Eddie Dodson story. The directors seems to have had the components but not the story. Throwing in John Doe of the LA period punk band X playing a cop only underlines this point.

Slow, bland and boring.

[subxerogravity · 5/10 · 6 April 2015]

The movie went too slow for the pace I'm use to.

And for a movie about a bank robber, it was boring.

Seem they relied too much on how viewers wood react to the excitement of robbing a bank vs putting it on screen.

The nostalgia of the 1980s was faint to. They tired with the 80s music but overall I was disinterested.

Jim Struggs was actually pretty good though. Found him funny and enjoyable to watch as a furtive store owner looking to pay back a shark loan by robbing banks. Unfortunately, it's not enough to make the movie and neither was the mostly cameo appearance of Patricia Arquette, who the ad people decided to milked her academy award win to promote the movie and Chloë Sevigny.

I'd skip it

Bland exercise in egotism

[susan-bayre · 1/10 · 4 January 2015]

I am not often given to writing reviews. Often with bad films, I take the Zen view that the director/actors tried and, heck, it didn't work out so I would let it be.

But this film grated on me so much that this deserves a viewer sanity health warning. None of the characters make much sense (hence one is frustrated by their inane, illogical actions) and for certain none of them have any charm. Especially not Jim Sturgess, an annoying apology of an actor who wouldn't be able to inspire a blind lady on a walking frame to use his help cross the road, even if she wanted to. Isabel Lucas wasted her time looking vacuous and pointless to the point where she manages to convince the viewer that she must be, ultimately, a little brain-dead. And this is the only movie where a crime boss lets an admitted defaulter off 3 times without any form of punishment other than some stern words. You get the realism now?

My husband stayed till the end and informed me that the ending was as sappy and meaningless as the rest of the movie. I had left after the so- called bank robberies to watch a proper movie on my iPad in the car park. Yes, this movie is *that* bad.

There could NOT be a spoiler: I JUST watched this film, and I have NO IDEA what happened, nor how it ends.

[bstengel-05194 · 4/10 · 21 April 2015]

OK OK. I cannot totally trash this movie. On the other hand......... YES, I watched it pretty much because of the "name" JIM STURGESS. I have admired him for his work in various films. I was anticipating good things.

OK OK. I blame the director. WHO apparently OK'd Jim's silly costume, as well as that ridiculous mustachio, BUT. Here's the WORST: I always note that the Really BAD Actors wander around "expressing" emotions by keeping their Mouths OPEN ! what ??? WHY ?

Sweet JIM, in this role, kept his mouth open throughout PLUS had a scene of chewing gum......I mean CHEWING gum.......what? why?

As an actor, Jim should've protested. As a director ? I'm sorry, it was a waste of supreme talent.

Style over substance

[Seth_Rogue_One · 4/10 · 20 May 2016]

When I saw the trailer and the cast-list I thought that this looked really promising, when I saw the IMDb rating my hopes of it being great went down a bit but I thought maybe it could still be alright.

But it was just incredibly bland and initially extremely confusing to the point where it was barely comprehensible, 30 minutes in or so it gets slightly more focused telling a more linear story.

Jim Sturgess in the lead can be great but not in this movie, him speaking as if he's nose is constantly clogged up doesn't do him any favours.

Isabel Lucas is the female love (?) interest and I was surprised that she had so many credits on IMDb cause frankly she's like a empty vessel in this movie, I thought she was a model and was gonna write that she should stick to modelling but yeah she's actually a full-time actress.

Chloe Sevigny is in it for a couple scenes, she plays someone who had a thing with Jim's character prior to Isabel Lucas entering the picture she barely has any dialogue.

Christopher Lambert plays the mob (?) boss with a really fake-looking prosthetic nose Jim's character owes money.

Patricia Arqutte is in it for a couple scenes as well as some random milf with a look inspired by Brigitte Nielsen.

You don't really get to know any of the characters or given much info on what their relationship to one another is or given a reason why you should care for the fate of any of them for that matter.

It makes some half ass attempts at some comedic moments as well.

So yeah not terribly impressive.

If you want to get carried away

[luvmarilyn23 · 10/10 · 3 January 2016]

I found this movie exceptionally refreshing. The adaption of the idea of Eddie Dobson was intriguing and mysterious. At times, subtle, the movie captivated my attention (hard to do) and I couldn't take my focus off of what was entertaining me. As many movies as I watch, many movies have become background noise, this is not one of those movies. A well played cast, Jim Sturgess is charming and his dialogue witty. I developed a connection with both his and Isabel Lucas' characters. If you want fast action, pass. This is a warming plot that heats up as it advances. If you like curiosity and underdogs, although troubled, this is your movie. Don't let the other reviews scare you away, give it a chance.

Beautifully Photographed and Truly Entertaining

[atomicis · 8/10 · 15 August 2020]

Every frame is like a painting. I'm glad I got about halfway through before I realized the absolute artistry of the lighting and focus. Just wow! And, as I said, I was midway through before I saw the beauty of the scenes - because I was _really_ "into it"! Maybe I am not as emotionally invested as the other reviewers (I am not from La La Land, but I've spent enough time there to recognize and absolutely hate it) but I really enjoyed this film!

Not a wacky adventure but mildly entertaining

[vchimpanzee · 19 October 2017]

One thing I don't understand: the listings with my TiVo said this movie was based on fact, and yet the closing credits include the statement that it is a work of fiction.

Occasionally this movie is funny, and I'm sure it was supposed to be. But it's not quite a comedy. It's also not the wild and wacky adventure I expected from the description. It's still somewhat fun to watch.

And then there is the quirky and very friendly Sue, who I immediately recognized as Kate Micucci of "Raising Hope", who is cute.

Jim Sturgess does a good enough job as the lead. If he wasn't supposed to be a John Stamos type, then I would say he succeeded.

Several clueless bimbos hang out with Eddie, but they are played by respected, big-name actresses. I guess that's okay.

There are other quirky characters in the night clubs and other hangouts where Eddie goes.

One of the detectives seems intelligent enough, so I wonder why the cops can't seem to do anything. I don't remember the detective's name and I can't see any clue in the credits. But it was a good performance, whoever it was.

I think this was worth seeing.

improvisation

[Kirpianuscus · 26 July 2023]

Not the most convincing story, but for effort of Jim Sturgess and for presence in a role , full of cliches, of bad guy of Christopher Lambert, after a tough work day, it is not so bad.

Maybe unrealistic , proposing, as simple source of interest, a cop passioned of fashion and banana earings.

And, nothing more because the feeling is to see a story created by a drunk - exhausted scriptwriter giving something in which improvisation rules.

The bad part is the nice potential of subjected, wasted, in this case, in vulgar , hilaric, absurd manner.

Sure, the atmosphere can represent a good point but it has the sin to not be real enough.