Steineded How sad is this?

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

bstengel-05194 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.

subxerogravity 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

Susan Bayre 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.

artrouble21 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.