Sleepless (III) (2017) User Reviews (189)

A potentially good 'B' movie undone.

[bob-the-movie-man · 5/10 · 4 May 2017]

Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that "there is nothing new under the sun". "Sleepless" proves that in spades.

• Bent copper drama? Check.

• Dodgy casino owner? Check.

• Nasty "Black Rain" style hoodlum? Check.

• Kidnapped teen ("I WILL find you")? Check.

• Misunderstood family man? Check.

All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.

Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx ("Django Unchained") as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan ("Source Code", "Patriot's Day") as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.

In terms of the storyline it's best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, "The Grey") and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, "Argo"). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.

The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven't seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though through is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn't just stop and say "WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS" and demand a rewrite.

For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from 'full action hero fighting machine' mode to 'staggering and holding his side' mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??

And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn't seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!

This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff ("Straight Outta Compton") and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience's intelligence (that's the third movie in recent weeks I've made that comment on... it must be the time of year!).

It's also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (at 1:40) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines for the film on the posters. Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.

Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it's also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997's "My Best Friend's Wedding", back in a mainstream role.

By the way, I have no idea why the film is called "Sleepless", other than it being based on a 2011 French film called "Nuit Blanche" which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!

In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of "Die Hard, "Taken", et al would like it I've added a star to my initial rating. And it's done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it's not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.

The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.

(For the graphical version of this review, please visit bob-the-movie- man.com. Thanks).

Watchable but not memorable!

[leonblackwood · 5/10 · 13 January 2018]

Review: Although this movie had an simplistic plot, which we have seen many times before, I still found this film quite entertaining, and the action was pretty decent. It is a bit corny in places, and the ending was quite predictable but it's intense throughout and the acting from the whole cast was believable. Jamie Foxx plays a cop, Vincent, who robs a ruthless drug dealer, Rubino (Dermot Mulroney), with his partner Sean (T.I.). When he realises who he stole the drugs from, he's immediately worried about his families safety and he tries to cut a deal with Rubino, who kidnaps his son for his drugs. For some unknown reason, he hides the drugs in a toilet, so he can bargain for his son but the internal affairs are one step behind him, and they take the drugs, which means that Vincent isn't able to get to his son back. Officer Bryant played by Michelle Monaghan, is on the hunt for Vincent, while he attempts to get to his son and the drugs that were taken by Bryant. With time against him, and his sons mum Dena (Gabrielle Union) asking uncomfortable questions about his sons whereabouts, Vincent is forced to take matters into his own hands, risking his job and his life in the process. It does seem like a "made for TV" type of movie but the double crossing from the beginning to end, leaves you questioning who he can trust. The action was surprisingly entertaining, even from Monaghan who didn't shy from throwing a few punches but it's not the type of film that become an all time classic. With that aside, it's still worth a watch, and you can't fault it in the intensity department but I was left feeling empty when the movie finished, and I won't be watching it again in a hurry. Watchable!

Round-Up: This movie was directed by Baran Bo Odar (What a name!), 39, who also brought you The Silence and Who Am I in 2014. For his third film, he done a half decent job and he was lucky to get some decent actors on board but he still needs to try and do something original, so he can make his stamp in Hollywood. Jamie Foxx, who recently starred in the popular Baby Driver, has had a pretty bad track record lately with Annie, which was quite bad, and the Amazing Spiderman 2, which was also not that good but he was funny in the Horrible Bosses franchise and Django Unchained and White House Down was watchable. He's due to star in the latest Mike Tyson biopic, which is in development and he's going to play Little John in the new Robin Hood movie, starring Taron Egerton and Jamie Dornan, so he has a lot to look forward to, if the movies actually turn out to be any good. I've never really rated him as an actor but he is gradually warming to me, and his choice of movies have been pretty successful to date, even though this movie didn't smash the box office.

Budget: $30million Worldwide Gross: $32million

Genre: Action, Crime, Thriller Cast: Jamie Foxx, Michelle Monaghan, Scoot McNairy, Dermot Mulroney, T.J., David Harbour, Gabrielle Union and Octavius J. Johnson. 5/10

I thought it was great

[Booster-Gold · 7/10 · 10 May 2017]

I watch movies to be entertained, Sleepless definitely did that. While not at the top of its class when it comes to crime action/drama, it had a lot going for it in my opinion. The fight scenes were well done, the scenery was dark but was still able to show off the glitz and glamour that Vegas is known for, and the story-line wasn't half bad. I was expecting to see a bit of Collateral in this, and I feel like that's what I got only with a bit more action and less Tom Cruise.

Don't go in thinking you're going to be seeing some Oscar worthy film, that isn't what this is. If you are expecting to watch a good crime action flick with Jamie Fox kicking ass then you will be happy with what you see.

Don't give it too much thought and you'll have a great time

[jtindahouse · 7/10 · 24 April 2017]

Here's the thing - if movies never suspended belief, they would be both pointless and incredibly dull. The reasons that the things we see in movies rarely happen in real life is because logic generally takes over and prevents these things from actually happening. Thus it would be incredibly difficult to make an entertaining movie without having quite a few illogical things happen. It just stands to reason. So when people come out of a movie and say they hated it because "x" would never happen or "y" didn't make sense or when a certain character did something they should have done something else, I don't really buy that as a reason to ever hate a movie. I have a feeling that is a lot of what is going on with 'Sleepless' and people's opinions of it. Admittedly throughout the film I kept thinking to myself those kinds of things, like this guy got stabbed a long time ago and has had about 10 fights since and still seems to have superhuman strength. You can notice these things, but I think you are being very tough if you are judging your entire opinion on them.

There's rarely a dull moment in 'Sleepless'. The action begins almost immediately and basically never lets up. I loved the fact that almost the entire movie takes place in one setting. It was like a fun house by the end with all the nooks and crannies being explored and visited by different characters. I also enjoyed the fact that you could never be entirely sure about whether or not a character was loyal or not. The characters were actually very well written almost entirely across the board.

As just a straight up entertainment package I really enjoyed 'Sleepless'. It never lost my interest once and it knew its limitations. If you ever find yourself bored watching this movie then I would suggest action movies are certainly not for you. If you can suspend your belief and just sit back and enjoy the ride, I think you will find you'll very much enjoy this film.

Strange, Unoriginal Albeit Passable..If Only Just

[lediscipledessocrates · 6/10 · 19 April 2017]

First and foremost , this movie is not very fresh. One simply cannot pin point the exact movie with which Sleepless bears uncanny resemblance. Not because there are none , but because that are many.

I shall not divulge any spoilers here but long story short , the movie is directed in the fashion of some 80's and 90's cop movies. Having said that , the director failed to synergize the elements of a good 90's thriller and a 21st century flick.

The result is a fairly confused movie , with strange action scenes, insipid dialogue, textbook movie characters no comic elements , not the slightest trace of wry or even dark humour.

Designed to have the elements of mystery ( the who is who? kind) , the director misuses his actors and and the plot.

However,for some reason the movie keeps the interest alive. One knows that around the corner there lies a very ordinary sequence and typical dialogue but still the straightforward narrative succeeds in holding your attention .

I cannot pan the movie because it is ordinary and unimpressive . So much so, in fact, that one can tolerate it, to pass time.

More Hollywood Garbage

[fbmike · 3/10 · 18 February 2017]

Jamie Fox and Michelle Monaghan, what were they doing in this? Both are way too good to be in a movie this bad. Hollywood continuing to churn out junk like this and showing their disrespect for the viewing audience by thinking people are going to continue to pay and swallow this stuff. Well maybe some are but my standards are a lot higher than this. Jamie gets stabbed in the beginning of the movie and then walks around through the rest of the movie like he can barely stand up and walk, but yet has all these fight scenes after that where he is beating up everybody with no hint of an injury. Then after each fight is over, he appears again all injured like he is going to pass out, that is until the next fight scene comes up. Jeez. I guess Hollywood is saying, "don't stab thus dude, cause it makes him fight better. Then the bad guy is shooting a machine gun in the parking garage with a gas mask on shooting tear gas all over the place yet nobody walking through it is coughing a bit. Heh heh. I guess Hollywood thinks everybody are idiots and are not going to notice. This movie was not a good one.

Better than crappy

[bankofmarquis · 6/10 · 15 January 2017]

The new Jamie Foxx action flick SLEEPLESS is a bit bi-polar as it alternates from surprising (sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad) and NOT surprising (sometimes for the good sometimes for the bad).

SURPRISING: Jamie Foxx tamps down his natural charm to play "against type" as a crooked cop who rips off a drug dealer.

NOT SURPRISING: Because of this, the first 1/2 hour of this film is a mess. Foxx is boring, the rapid-fire patter of his partner (played by hip-hop artist T.I.) is annoying and Michelle Monaghan plays a tough female cop trying to prove herself to her male counterparts, yet again.

SURPRISING: A fight scene in a kitchen at about the 1/2 hour mark was actually pretty entertaining, making me sit up from the slumped position I was in and thought "okay...perhaps there is some hope for this film."

NOT SURPRISING: David Harbour - who has made a career out of playing bad cops shows up as a cop who might (or might not) be bad.

SURPRISING: As the film draws towards the final battle, Foxx has given up downplaying his natural charm and I found myself actively rooting for him.

NOT SURPRISING: Gabriel Union, in the obligatory "wife on the phone" roll decides to leave the safety of where she is at and meet Foxx where the final battle takes place. Do you think she'll get involved?

SURPRISING: The over-the-top finale as staged by director Baron bo Odar was terrifically over-the-top. And the film, up to this point, had no indication of this. It was as if the Director said "Screw it, we're going for it" - and it works (at least for me)!

NOT SURPRISING: Dermot Mulroney (or is it Dylan McDermot?) and Scoot McNairy put in good,fun supporting performances.

SURPRISING: They actually set this film up for a sequel!

NOT SURPISING: This film won't win any Oscars nor will we break up into discussion groups afterward.

SURPRISING: My rating

6 stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)

It wasn't an easy grab: they had T

[johnniecarrmurphy · 2/10 · 3 June 2017]

Jamie Foxx has a lot of enemy's, as established masterfully in the opening scene and the trailer, which means it makes sense when Jamie Foxx clarifies to his friend that "It ain't no easy grab, they got T". An original movie that has lots of super 0r1g1n4l set pieces like a casino fight scene and I'm really annoyed that john wick copied that scene before sleepless even came out. 10/10

Watch Oscar Jamie sleep.

[JohnDeSando · 18 January 2017]

You may go sleepless while watching this abduction thriller with a couple of stars, Jamie Foxx and Michelle Monaghan. They're Las Vegas PD detectives involved in drug busting with all the kidnap, corruption components in place.

The outstanding element is the awareness that an Oscar winner--Foxx--can be wasted in a hum-drum actioner that surprises not at all. Believe me when I tell you that if you stirred Liam Neeson in with this script, you'd know the difference only by the skin color of the kidnapped children.

Although director Odar does a competent job with the foot races and car chases, they are still boiler-plate staples of the genre. While Foxx spends most of the film improbably finding his son, losing him, finding him again in an almost Groundhog Day motif, the action becomes tedious quickly. His life-threatening-wound is ludicrously not debilitating except for a few high-priced Oscar grunts that end up immobilizing a goon or two who have no similar disabilities.

It was a dismal afternoon when I saw Sleepless because I love cinematic visuals and watching Michelle make something out of nothing. Otherwise, you'll be more careful about the safety of your children. That's the good part.

Dumb...Fun...But dumb.

[johnplocar · 6/10 · 4 April 2017]

This movie wants so bad to be something akin to Michael Mann's "Miami Vice" or "Heat", but it so isn't. This would be one of the crime action movie that would periodically come out in the late 90s - early 2000s that I'd come across on HBO one evening to kill a couple hours and it would serve its purpose. That is basically this movie, and that's okay. This movie is pretty consistently entertaining; whether that be in terms of its action or some of the dumb things found in the writing. "Sleepless" takes place in Las Vegas where a seemingly dirty cop, played by Jami Foxx, steals drugs from the wrong crime lords and so they kidnap his teenage son in exchange for their drugs back. From there it is up to Foxx to save his son from the drug kingpins portrayed by Dermot Mulroney and Scoot McNairy, all while an Internal Affairs agent (Michelle Monaghan) pursues him amidst the chaos.

I'll have to get into some minor spoilers from here. Jamie Foxx plays a dirty cop that stole drugs from Dermot Mulroney and in an attempt to exchange the stolen drugs to get his son back, Foxx stashes the majority in a bathroom ceiling until he can be sure that his son is alive. That's all good and well, but with Monaghan investigating what Foxx is up to, she finds the drugs. Instead of making the bathroom a crime scene, calling in backup, or taking the drugs into her headquarters as evidence she stashes the drugs somewhere else in the hotel. Unrealistic to say the least. Or the fact that 90% of this movie has Jamie Foxx dealing with a stab wound in his stomach. Which he treats it more or less like an annoyance that he has to occasionally check on. Anyways, whenever Foxx discovers that the drugs are missing, his solution is to make his way into a kitchen and stuff a duffel- bag full of powdered sugar in hopes to trick the baddies. Presenting the bag, while it and himself are obviously covered in sugar.

Foxx does well in his role, at times I did this to myself how this could have been a spin-off Tubbs movie with just a few rewrites. The villains played by Mulroney and McNairy are kind of ridiculous in their attempts to outshine one another with how much of dick they can be. That kept me entertained. There are more than one plot twists and if you have ever seen a movie like this then you know absolutely where it's going at all times. *SPOILER ALERT* Jamie Foxx isn't actually a dirty cop, he's undercover. Michelle Monaghan's partner that is constantly trying to get her to go home and let him handle things...BIG SHOCK...turns out he's dirty. I know, I know. You never saw it coming...if you have literally never seen a movie before. But, again, that is what amused me about this movie. Especially since I've seen that actor who played her partner portray a terrifying serial killer before, so the second he pops up on screen I said to myself "well he's probably got a severed finger stashed in his desk for prosperity's sake"...okay, it never went that far. It was still obvious he was in on it though.

Oh, not only does Foxx get his son kidnapped once in this movie but actually twice! Twice!! And instead of going straight to Monaghan with his son to get directly out of the Casino they're trapped in. He tries to avoid her only to result in his son getting captured yet again after they figured out the drugs he gave them were bogus. Again, not feeling like a natural or logical progression of the story, but rather a dire need to pad out the film as long as possible. So that pretty much from there keeps the movie scrambling until it can finally reach a suitable length and hit its climax.

So once Foxx faces off against McNairy, Foxx is shot in the stomach. His wife and son are rushing him to the hospital, concurrently to that, Monaghan and her partner (David Harbour) has arrested Mulroney. Those three are sitting in a car being driven by a police escort when Monaghan receives a call from Foxx revealing to her a voicemail left by her partner that completely incriminates himself being in on the drugs and working with the bad guys and also backs up Foxx's story on being undercover...who leaves a voicemail that would contain all that vital information?! A desperate screenwriter, that's who. Now that isn't the dumbest part about this. The real kicker is instead of Monaghan acting cool until they got to the police station and then arresting him...her bright idea is to immediately act suspicious, put her gun right in Harbour's grasp. That way he can shoot her, their key witness, and the escorting cop causing their car to wreck; don't worry though, it's okay because it turned out that him and Monaghan survived so she could finger him for the crime...seriously, she got two people murdered...then the movie has the balls to sequel-bait with a crooked DEA agent answering a call on McNairy's phone talking to his father saying, "Sir, we have a problem"...cut to credits...HA! This movie ain't getting a sequel. Granted, I am totally on board if it does.

This movie is dumb, nonsensical, and at times flat out absurd. Luckily for this movie, I have a soft spot for stupid. The action scenes, while nothing new, are easy to follow and well done. The acting is honestly solid from all parties. The direction has potential and I felt as the director really wanted to make this as cool as possible; the writing held it back though. So I recommend everyone buy this movie only so I can get my sequel...that's just hilarious.

It sets a very low bar

[iantrader · 2/10 · 7 April 2017]

Jamie Foxx is always good value, especially when he's wounded. Although the only difference between his wounded and non-wounded state is that he stops every now and again, groans, feels his wound then takes off again as if nothing had happened.

I will refrain from making any jokes about the title - I'm sure there are plenty in the reviews here already - just to say that it bears no relevance to the movie at all.

Anyway, back to the movie. The direction, etc is just fine with a few set pieces, but the story is derivative, predictable and by the numbers. You'll even guess who the 'baddie' is long before the end.

As cop/action flicks go, it's not bad, but the point is, do you really want to spend your life watching so-so movies. There was absolutely no point in making this movie or telling this story, Jamie Foxx fans notwithstanding.

So if you're happy with low-bar movies, go watch it, but maybe you want to raise your expectations and, hope beyond hope, perhaps filmmaker will raise their game. But don't hold your breath.

THEY GOT T !!!!!

[theforcegamer-50435 · 10/10 · 12 April 2018]

• THEY SAID IT WAS GONNA BE AN EASY GRAB !
• WELL , IT AIN'T NO EASY GRAB , THEY GOT T !

Gets the job done

[Mr-Fusion · 6/10 · 17 May 2017]

"Sleepless" gets away with a lot, mainly because of its proficient cast. The plot twists are completely implausible, but these actors are able to )mostly) sell it. Nearly everyone here is working for someone else, and Jamie Foxx almost typifies this; is he a dirty cop or really deep undercover? The movie never puts that matter to rest.

But it does maintain its forward momentum and has a distinctly heated flair for violence; case in point (again) Foxx, who engages in merciless fight scenes with just about everybody. One thing that really surprised me about this movie was its look; take away a couple of neon signs and you can't tell it's Las Vegas. How often do you see that city filmed without sleaze?

6/10

What alternate reality were the makers living in?

[orivisioninc · 2/10 · 11 April 2017]

So there's an active shooter in a nightclub, an active sports car swirling around in the nightclub, an inactive bystander, the police show up and guess who all 7 police officers focus on? You just got hold of a gun in a life threatening situation and you bravely decide to use your fist against an attacker who is bigger than you.

You're on a manhunt in an underground garage and you shoot smoke canisters without any gadgets to give you an advantage in the scenario you've just created and then you start firing indiscriminately.

I give it a 2 for the established reputation of the cast but this must be the worst movie I ever saw.

You created this mess. You clean it up.

[nogodnomasters · 7/10 · 5 August 2017]

Vincent Downs (Jamie Foxx) is a crooked cop who is attempting to cover up a shoot out and 25 kilos of missing cocaine that he and his partner liberated. The mob wants their product back, threatening Vincent's family. No problem, except Internal Affairs officer Jennifer Bryant (Michelle Monaghan) has her eye on Vincent and throws a wrench into the works that endangers and exposes everyone.

This is a fairy typical police crime drama. It lacked the light banter between partners and kept a serious tone which started to wear at the end. Acting was okay, dialogue not that great. The twist was ho-hum, saw it coming. It was filmed in Atlanta, dressed up to look like Vegas...which is pretty much how I felt about the film...expecting Vegas, but getting Atlanta.

Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

Not too bad, considering

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 12 March 2018]

I watched this film as a huge, huge fan of the French original, SLEEPLESS NIGHT, which came out back in 2011. That's one of my favourite thrillers of recent years and I was under no illusions that this Hollywood remake would be anywhere near as good, and indeed it isn't. However, it turns out to be not too bad at all, all things considered. It has a fast pace and plenty of action, enough to see it through in most respects, and Jamie Foxx is a suitably tough protagonist. I liked the fact that certain facts and sequences have been changed around from the original movie which makes this more fun for those of us with a good knowledge of the French film, keeping us on our toes throughout. The action is nowhere near as intense, although inevitably bigger scale with machine gun shoot-outs and the like. This film seems unfairly maligned to me.

Everyone is angry

[theparadise_dream · 3/10 · 7 April 2017]

6 Apr 2017 in an small room with even smaller number of people I start watching this movie that I "vouched" for my girlfriend because I quote " Jamie Foxx plays in good movies." Half-way through the movie I already asked her more than 3 times if she want's to go home and watch Star Wars ep-2 (we started watching it because she never saw it). Few people already left the cinema and we only stayed because we payed.

Every main or supporting actor is angry for no good reason. The soundtrack is angry. Most scenes are predictable and all intentions are extremely easy to reveal.

I thing is for sure. Jamie Foxx can also play in bad movies.

Pretty cool

[mfd591 · 7/10 · 3 February 2019]

Not sure why this movie is averaging so low. Its not the greatest crime movie but it is decent enough. Acting is solid and pacing keeps things interesting. Action is well executee. Granted some things were quite obvious but its hard to not be in a genre like this. I enjoyed it.

Mann wannabe

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 7 September 2017]

In Las Vegas, Vincent Downs (Jamie Foxx) and partner Sean Cass (T.I.) steal a shipment of cocaine. They turn out to be police detectives and Vincent volunteers to investigate the battle in the street. Jennifer Bryant (Michelle Monaghan) and Doug Dennison (David Harbour) from Internal Affairs are brought in on the case. Vincent is estranged from his son and his ex Dena Smith (Gabrielle Union) is newly engaged. He is surprised to find out that Stanley Rubino (Dermot Mulroney) and mob-related Rob Novak (Scoot McNairy) are the owners of the drug shipment. Then his son is kidnapped by them.

This is a crime action thriller in the vein of a Michael Mann movie. There are some good action with one particularly fun fight scene. The cast is good enough and it has the potential to be a solid crime thriller. The problem is that the movie never makes me care about Vincent and I never do. There are also some logic problems although logic may not be a big sticking point. This has all the parts but fails to put them together.

trouble in vegas

[ksf-2 · 6/10 · 23 July 2020]

Jamie Foxx is Vincent, a cop in las vegas. involved in a drug deal gone wrong, with two dead bodies and lots of cop casings all over the scene. good thing Vince and his partner are chosen to investigate it. but here comes Bryant (Michelle Minaghan), internal affairs to check it out. and vegas bigshot Rubino (Dermot Mulroney) wants his cocaine back. so Rubino grabs Vincent's son. now it's on! oh, and it turns out Bryant likes to take short cuts. probably not good for an internal affairs officer. you'd think they would know better. This one has so much violence. and some silliness. there's no way someone with all those injuries (stab wound!) would be able to fight that hard. so many times! we finally figure out who the good guys and the bad guys are , but now we've lost track of the drugs. more fights. so many fights. it's okay. this one must hold the record for the most fistfights and gunfights in 95 minutes. directed by Swiss Baran bo Odar.

Incompetent direction ruins a promising B-picture

[John-564-342449 · 4/10 · 29 March 2017]

Let me start by saying that I like gritty neo-noir thrillers, Jamie Foxx and dramas that are set in a compressed time frame. The trailer to "Sleepless" promised all of this and I was sold. I didn't expect anything outstanding, but something a little bit like Mann's "Miami Vice" or "Collateral".

The digital cinematography by the talented Mihai Malaimare Jr. ("The Master", "A Walk Among The Tombstones", "Tetro") is better than this kind of movie deserves and creates a moody, but still realistic Las Vegas setting using grey, black, blue, green and purple color tones. No color is there only by coincidence. The frame is always beautifully composed. Some of the action footage looks spectacular.

So, why doesn't it work?

The screenplay by the Oscar-nominated Andrea Berloff is very conventional and full of cliché, but so are other good B-pictures with a less stellar cast. It's surprisingly flat and without any originality at all. You've seen every twist before in better movies. But it's not as bad, that it needs a Razzie nomination. It might have worked if directed by some talented guy, but...

The direction is a mess. It's not only weak directing, but incompetent directing, because Baran bo Odar makes mistakes you usually only see in student films, where the filmmakers don't really care about realism too much. Some of the actions of the characters don't make any sense and are staged in an unbelievable manner. My favorite example is the moment when one of the bad guys aims with his gun at Jamie Foxx. He could easily kill him now, but what does he do? He walks a few steps back. Then suddenly Foxx' son in the movie drives into him with his car, without making any noise first, so the bad guy is surprised by his death. Another big thing that bothered me was the son: Why didn't he leave the building after his unrealistic-escape-by-coincidence ? No, he prefers to stay in the disco. Really? These things would not happen in real-life, only in movies, where the director is not able to block and stage a scene in a believable manner. Or he simply doesn't care for realism or logical actions by motivated characters. The whole showdown is ridiculous and unintentionally funny because of the bad direction and the mediocre writing. Maybe good editing could have fixed some errors and save the movie from its ridiculousness, but even then it would still be only an uninspired B-picture.

What we have here is proof of disregard for the audience and intelligent storytelling. Maybe Baran bo Odar once showed some promise at the beginning of his career, but based on "Sleepless" I would never hire this guy for anything except maybe a car commercial.

I only give it 4/10 because of stylish cinematography. A waste of talent.

They got T

[jstrohm-58359 · 10/10 · 10 May 2019]

The camera shakes for every second that it is focused 10/10

Not sleepy indeed

[searchanddestroy-1 · 15 August 2017]

That's not the worst remake ever I have seen in my movie life. That's not exactly a copycat of NUIT BLANCHE, the French film released six years ago, starring Tomer Sisley. Some lines are the same but not every, some have been added. Especially the very last seconds of the movie that look like a horror film ending, suggesting something else...I did not expect this in a crime movie, or a thriller. As in the French film, I like the Internal Affairs rotten cop scheme, and the lead character cop trying to nail the IA heat...This was the same in the 2011 film. Besides, Jamie Fox is stabbed on the right side when his son is abducted and later in the film, when he fights in the casino kitchen he seems to have knife wound on the left side. And the drug shipment doesn't look like cocaine to me, but "brown sugar"instead. Not a bad movie, saved by the last seconds.

A night of twist and turn events.

[Reno-Rangan · 6/10 · 14 June 2017]

Maybe if you haven't seen the original, you will enjoy it, particularly if you like a thrilling clash between the cops and gangsters. For me this is the third version from the last three consecutive years. After the original French film based on the same name of the book, followed by the Kollywood remake 'Thoongavanam'. The second film was not bad, considering the way it was made to the Indian standards. They did not change much, but in this one the initial parts were almost the same and the following developments were too much. I mean literally they turned it into twice thriller with tight action sequences. Their main idea was to leave the open conclusion for a possible sequel. Which was really too intentional that not everybody would be happy with, for like those who liked the previous versions.

The actors were good, but Michelle Monaghan was the best among. Unlike the same characters from other versions, I don't know how they turned Monaghan's role so powerful. That's the negative, as the film Jamie Foxx in the lead. Otherwise, as a neutral, this is not a bad remake. The Immigrant joke was trimmed off, since today's US is not in favour of such comedies in films. And many events, especially film scenes were accelerated. So the camera moves one place to another in a quick succession unlike other versions. Yeah, these changes were needed, since the film was not a fresh piece of work or even first remake. But like I said too muchness spoiled the party. Even though one time watchable film.

6/10

Ah, movies that make me laugh so hard!

[alshwenbear1 · 4/10 · 4 April 2017]

This is I what I call "a comedy of errors" Ridiculous, hilarious effort from Hollywood on a remake of "Nuit Blanche" (Sleepless Night), (2011). The original was truthful to its name. but this? if it hasn't been so loud I would have caught a nap.

What can I say? predictable, terrible directing acting, editing, and so on and so forth.

Repetitive but definitely not boring, because it is more of comedy than an action thriller,... what? anyone here was acting, my bad I thought they were joking!

"Saddest part"Jamie Foxx will never catch up with Denzel Washington!