User reviews

Since seeing Edward James Olmos in 'Stand and Deliver' way back I was impressed, so looked forward to seeing him in a movie which he co-produced/directed, and performed. To add to the interest it was claimed to be based on an actual event - the contamination of farmland by an Oil giant. Played straight this would have had promise but it seems green activist politics got involved and dragged it down a somewhat over baked, foolish path. Yes, giant multinationals have been guilty of irresponsible short-cuts, often brought about through greed and they must be held to account ensuring more ecological responsibility. The writer added another downer by including a vicious gangster whose repugnant over-the-top actions are the equivalent of a hideously brutal Gestapo Mafioso type - this pushes the story way out of reasonable acceptability and degrades much of the initial interest being offered.

I'm not sure Kate Bosworth was fully convincing as she should have been playing the slimy Oil company representative and the company's headman was made to look like a caricature. If this was intended as black comedy it did not work whatsoever. As the downtrodden farmer, David Strathairn was good as always, as was Olmos as his co-worker - production values were overall OK but even though the moral situations were well-intended, the overly forced agenda-pushing script weakens any worthwhile message. Pity, as we need movies that bring important messages to the screen but in a more honest manner, this is no 'Dark Waters'.

Parental Note; Heavy vulgar dialogue, violence and grotty sexual situation. Foxtel Aust ran this American R certificate as an M, when will they get it right?

Interesting but ultimately over the top; "The Devil Has A Name" has a decent approach but fails to deliver a film worthy of its talent in front and behind the camera.

In this drama inspired by true events, a psychotic oil matriarch leaves the whole industry exposed when she attempts to outfight a farmer whose water has been poisoned.

The exaggerated approach is what really kills "The Devil Has A Name". There is no fine line and honestly the story gets lost in its antics. The casting is good and Kate Bosworth is bad-ass but even she can't save this film. David Strathairn is also delivers a good performance, but then again when is he ever bad? Overall unfortunate that a film like this directed by the legendary Edward James Olmos, couldn't get better treated.

Follow @snobmedia for all reviews!

Bosworth is supposedly a brilliant oil goddess that outsmarts a farmer who has had his ground water poisoned. She navigates the farmer, the illegals, and the oil company to end up sitting head of the table at the end. The storyline is fractured and the stabs at dark comedy don't really work.

It is an engaging and interesting story, with an unexpected twist at the end.

"The Devil Has A Name" (1029 release; 97 min.) brings the story of a Central California farmer's fight against big oil. As the movie opens, we are reminded this is "Inspired by True Events" and we get to know Fred, whose farmland has been in his family for decades. But Shore Oil & Gas realizes that the underground contains valuable resources and desperately wants to buy Fred's land, and it will not stop at anything... At this point we are 10 min. into the film, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this movie not only stars Edward James Olmos (among many other big names), but he also directed and produced. Edward James Olmos has always been known for his eco and social activism, and this movie is no exception. You can easily feel the good intentions in this "little guy vs. big oil" eco-drama, and this could've made for riveting viewing similar to, say, last year's "Dark Waters". Alas I regret to inform you that this film is anything but riveting. In fact, the film is dreadfully boring, plain and simple, and the reason is obvious very quickly: a terribly weak script is what dooms this movie, with an eco-message that is as subtle as a bull in a china shop. In addition to Edward James Olmos, this also stars David Strathairn (as Fred), Kate Bosworth (as GiGi, a Shore Oil executive), and last but not least Martin Sheen, looking good as the "lawyer who killed the Pinto" who takes on Fred's case.

"The Devil Has a Name" premiered over a year ago at the 2019 LA Latino Film Festival to so-so acclaim, and now is getting a short run in selected theaters. It opened this weekend at my local art house theater here in Cincinnati, which strictly adheres to all COVID-19 protocols. Not that it mattered, as the Friday early evening screening where I saw this at was a private screening: I was the only person in the theater. I can't see this playing n the theater for more than a week, to be honest. If you have any interest in eco-dramas or simply are a fan of Edward James Olmos, Martin Sheen or Kate Bosworth, I'd suggest you check this out, be it in the theater (if you still can), on VOD, eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

Had more good moments that not so good ones, and the old guys still add some texture to the movie. Too many movies nowadays are way over the top drama and shallow phony bad-asses. Sit back and just enjoy the movie.

1. The Devil Has A Name is not an politico-eco-activism dramatization of actual events, and does not compare with Dark Waters, or Erin Brockovich, or Green Zone, or Barry Seal, or Flags of Our Fathers, or Cry Freedom, or The Big Short, or Hotel Rwanda. The Devil Has A Name is a sham, and a shame. 2. The Devil Has A Name leaves scars in the viewer's soul. One of the villains is so psychotically evil in his betrayal of his victims' humanity that the scars he makes land in you, the viewer. This is not the kind of movie you can tell someone, "Watch it and see for yourself!" That would be like saying, "Cut your wrists and see for yourself!" You will be left with scars. That is why I say not to watch this film. 3. The Devil Has A Name is not a dark comedy. It is a distastefully overacted, imbecilic, insult to human intelligence. The world is in the shape it is now due to the best group decisions humans have so far been able to make. Yes, so far we have failed to live up to the name Homo Sapiens, but at least our bad guys pretend to have dignity as we fumble into the consequences of our actions and inactions. The bad guys in The Devil Has A Name are just stupid. 4. The trailer for The Devil Has A Name fundamentally misrepresents the film. The trailer is 100 times better than the film is. Watching the film is a total let down from the trailer's created expectations. This is an unforgivable deception. There are very few films I have not watched to the end. This is one of them. I suggest you don't even start it.

Had all the makings of a great movie, great cast, great true story, but whomever directed this was too full of themself. It's like every single scene came within an inch of ACTUALLY telling a story or making a point, and then pulled back, leaving the viewer feeling like they just watched a 2 hour preview... You have no idea of what actually happened.

It's a shame to see Haley's return in a movie so diluted.

I can not understand why this movie has such a low rating. This movie was actually really enjoyable. I usually can't stay engaged in legal drama, I get bored and start playing on my phone, but the comedic moments in the movie kept me engaged in this one. The actors do a great job. Haley Joel Osment plays a really good narcissistic dirt bag, Kate Bosworth plays a really good b*tch, Edward James Olmos plays a good loveable character, and Pablo Schreiber plays a really great sociopath. The fact that it was based on true events actually makes this story that more interested. I would recommend this movie to anyone.

An evocative film based on a true story of an everyday farmer battling the injustices of the judicial system as well as corporate oil money. Strong performances from a well known cast.

Its a drama and action infested dark mysterious, version of many things, also the 10 great plauges of egypt has some equivallence, to what i felt like a slowplottet multifasceted choice of the golden age of actors, that doesnt have that much punch left, and a devil youll learn the name of if you hang on to the bitter end. there are quite a lot mediocre story development and telling, so if your an somniacic humanyou might feel the silent urge to take a nap there in the dark

its a film that if youre binging films one night, do start with this one so you spare the best till the end,no suggestions from me though what that should be, the grumpy old man didnt find it outstanding at all, so a 6 and a small recommend

I started watching this movie with the expectation of something along the lines of "Erin Brockovich" or even the oil well spill in the gulf "documentary". This isn't on that level, but it does bring to the table a tale about a similar event of massive corporations knowingly abusing "the little guy" for their own gain via loopholes and court proceedings to get what they want, even if it's destroying the environment while they simultaneously announce through propaganda to the public they are all about saving the environment.

When it started off showing the green glowing "nodules" in the water, then the farmer realizing the oil industry was poisoning his land, and then trying to buy him out after his wife died of cancer, I had hope on where this movie would go.

I was pretty disappointed that it took a turn away from that direction and instead focused on "movie theatrics" instead of continuing with this original plot. It was rather disappointing. (Almost like the plot of the movie was bought out by "someone" and the narrative was changed.)

Overall, I gave it a 5, downgraded from an original rating of an 8 or 9. As the movie kept going, the plot that was initially established was degraded, becoming silly, almost. Perhaps if this was a 2.5-3 hour long movie, they could've gotten to this point, but they didn't. It feels like they cut it short, added silly music and an unrealistic plot twist, like it was rewritten after filming had nearly wrapped up, and called it quits abruptly.

I'm not telling you what happened here, just the very basics of WHY I gave the rating I did. I'm a bit disappointed with it. It's not what I expected after such a strong first half of this movie.

This is set mostly (and filmed) in California where there is apparently some history of oil companies allowing their polluted water to reside in large ponds without pond liners. As a result some of the toxic chemicals infiltrate into the groundwater causing both health problems and agricultural problems.

In this fictional story a farmer's wife has died, now he has fruit trees starting to die, is approached to sell rights for a few thousand dollars as an attempt to cover up what is really happening. Eventually the farmer hires a top lawyer to fight for his rights. Meanwhile the big boss in Houston has his goon threaten the farmer and promises to take everything he has if he doesn't settle out of court.

All that could have the makings of an interesting movie, and much of it is interesting, but overall I was disappointed. The movie is too uneven and many things that happen just don't make sense within the arc of the story. My wife abandoned it after about 30 minutes. There are a couple of twists of sorts at the end but overall not a particularly good movie.

I see that the writer has no prior experience as a script writer and that seems to be part of the problem. It is relatively easy to come up with a good concept, however not so easy to write a superior script to support it.

On DVD from my public library.

Firstly and possibly most importantly, Kate Bosworth is unwatchable as she tries to make each seen an important,integral part of the movie even if she's ordering a sandwich! Everything she says or does is sooo overstated!

The attempts at humour fall completely flat and again, there's so much melodrama in all scenes that it all feels boring and drawn out.

I'm going to look up the true story and the characters involved to see if this is again Hollywood at it's worse by casting wrong genders just to make it current and politically correct at the expense of being in any way realistic and true to the truth.

Oil executive Gigi Cutler (Kate Bosworth) is called in by her CEO (Alfred Molina) expecting her resignation for failure in California. She recounts how farmer Fred Stern (David Strathairn) took them down. They had been polluting the ground water for at least the last ten years. Cutler recruits local Alex Gardner (Haley Joel Osment) to buy Stern's water rights without informing him of the secret pollution. Stern hires lawyer Ralph Wegis (Martin Sheen) who once upon a time took down the Pinto. Santiago (Edward James Olmos) is Stern's close friend and the farm foreman. Ezekiel (Pablo Schreiber) is the fixer sent in by "Houston". Olive Gore (Katie Aselton) is the lawyer hired by the company.

Everybody is going over the top. It gives off a strange satirical quality. Edward James Olmos is the director and he seems to be shooting for Adam McKay. It doesn't feel right. They need to restrain some of these characters so that the big moments can feel big. Molina is really chewing his scenes for all it's worth and Bosworth is over her head. Quite frankly, I would switch her with Aselton. As for Schreiber, he might as well carry around an air tank since he's already pretending that he's in a Coen brothers movie. Generally, everybody is trying way too hard.

This was late night viewing for me. I didn't really see this as an eco-drama. If anything, I saw it as "greed" by too many characters to count. The ending was somewhat of a surprise.

About half way thru i thought about not finishing the movie. Then it got very good. Nice to see kate Bosworth again.

In a time of heightened personal opinion about oil and agriculture industries, this film helps shed light on some hard truths about both. Olmos uses apparently true events to create a narrative of an aging farmer from a dusty town struggling with the problem of the groundwater he uses for irrigation being polluted by a negligent oil company - a company, with any probability, that holds the farmer hostage as he relies on big corporate oil to fuel his day-to-day operations.

This show is worth seeing!! Frustrating that pollution like this is allowed in California, hope this movie can draw attention to it.

.

Olmos like Eastwood knows precisely how to cast himself to make the most of his star power. Ditto for the rest of the players. In terms of sheer competence, head and shoulders above most of Hollywood's recent offerings. And Bosworth proves again that she is more than capable of being the only female in a film and still holding attention. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

Shocking and eye Opening. It gives You something to think about.

When a production is promoted to be "inspired by true events", a viewer expects actual facts. I watched this Olmos "inspired by true events" production for an hour and could only find one true event. Yes, indeed, JFK was assassinated in Dallas. Other than that, I cannot find one actual fact.

It seems the screenwriter is portraying the contamination of ground water in the Imperial Valley is a result of oil production and lax oversight by California's oil production oversight boards and laws. That is not a fact but imagination.

The contamination is factually based in the overuse of surface water for irrigation and being transported hundreds of miles to the overcrowded and under educated California population centers. The transport away from source never allows aquifers to recharge. This fact is never addressed, as it intersect's with Olmos' political views of the source of California's overgrowth, illegal immigration.

Olmos' work here is not factual in any degree, and blazes a trail into a growing movie genre, Non-science Fiction.