LouHomey From my favorite movies..

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

lpersons-2 I have trouble sitting through some movies. Many of the movies I see are the same as other movies....They keep doing the same thing over and over and change the peoples names and a few details and call it new.... This movie Jerry and Tom was a breath of fresh air, something different. It was well done and well cast and it was fresh with a different way of changing scenes, more like a carousel effect with sets blending into the next... BRAVO!!... I couldn't have a cast a better crew of characters, each one brought just what the needed to their role.The movie develops as a new hit man starts his training under the watchful eye of his teacher. We watch him grow through the years, from a young long haired hippie to a well groomed hit man.The humor throughout the movie by itself makes this movie worth watching, very subtle at times, and outrageously funny at other times.

innocuous Worth renting, but not buying.The plot is absolutely, 100%, stone-cold predictable simply from the premise. Still, Rubinek does an excellent job with his main gimmick for the film...smooth, seamless scene transitions between different time periods and geographic locations. They are worth waiting for.The movie is a black comedy, but I didn't really find much humor in the wry situations. I'm not sure if they were not-enough or a little-too-much.Mantegna goes a bit overboard in playing the laid-back "button man" as part-philosopher and part-salesman, but he does an adequate job. Sam Rockwell fares better as the kid who grows into the profession, enjoying it a bit more than he probably should. His desire to do something in a way that's "different" reminds me of a newly-wed couple looking for that new sexual position.Durning is wasted in his role, as we never take him seriously as a threat to anyone, much less as a stone-cold killer. Chaykin fares better as a basically inscrutable "boss" who pulls the strings through some sort of managerial fog.The cameos by Macy and Danson are good, but a bit strained. We're so busy watching them as victims in inescapable circumstances that we don't keep them in the proper perspective. The bit parts they play are overwhelmed by our expectations.I enjoyed the movie, but, if you really want an interesting take on the "old hit-man bringing along a younger guy", try ,"Cohen & Tate" (1989), which I find has much more interesting dynamics between the protagonists.

ratsky Great cast, even good performances, could not save this film. It's like the director tried to emulate Mamet and Tarantino at the same time, and failed at both. The dialogue was good, but the pace dragged and the timing was awkward. To emulate Mamet, it needed denser dialogue. Danson and Macy were at their best, and Durning's performance was great, but all were wasted. The technique used to transition from one scene/time to the next was clever the first few times, but became tiresome. The Rockwell character lost credibility after a few years of his boss still saying he was a good kid. He was a loser from the start, and anyone could see that he could never be a professional at anything, even that profession. I love the genre, and I genuinely tried to like this film, but I felt like I wasted my time.

TimeForLime You know who you are.This has the approximate flavor of WELCOME TO COLLINWOOD (2002). Only less.William H. Macy can do his thing even if he's on screen for less than five minutes. Not his STATE AND MAIN THING (2000) thing. No, his other thing, where you just know he was born with one chromosome too few. He's the best in the business at this.Ten Danson is a surprise addition to the cast. I think I've never, EVER, seen him so fine. Thespian fine, not foxy fine. In the grand style of Jeremy Davies (THE MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL-2000; SECRETARY-2002) or Todd Field (BROKEN VESSELS-1998). Like he finally woke up and decided to do one great thing before it was all over.Maury Chaykin did his usual disappearing act. In fact, except for UNSTRUNG HEROES (1995), when has he not?Sam Rockwell. I could give away a lot to those in the know by saying that this should have been his movie. (They used to write Broadway musicals just for one person -- KISMET for example.) I don't know how he blew it. Maybe being in the company of Charles Durning and Joe Mantegna had something to do with it. Rockwell stumbled -- slightly. It's STILL "a Sam Rockwell flick".There wasn't enough of Sarah Polley or Peter Riegert. However, it was comforting to know that they were in PLAN B if the plot or director needed to call upon them. You see what I'm saying -- great casting.I'd be curious to know if this was filmed in "digital". (I'm not up on technical.) Some scenes on my screen seemed over-perfect.That leaves director Saul Rubinek. By me? I love this sub-genre, so I'm giving him a "5" for general audiences and a "7" for fanciers of this breed. (Actually that's an oxymoron because this breed of losers-at-work comedy CAN'T breed.)Jimmy Breslin started it all, I think, with THE GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT (1971). And, as another reviewer correctly points out, a failing of this film is that it isn't clear enough about it's own identity. Is this another Breslin offspring or not? I'm side-stepping that because there is so much to enjoy either way.I've always been a fan of Rubinek's character work. Even when he had to take the heavy fall as ADA Jed Kramer in the film abomination BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES (1990), that sell-out of Tom Wolfe's Great American Novel of Manhattan Americana.I'd like to see Rubinek get some coaching before his next outing: he has some great ideas, but as a late-comer -- and already 55 years old -- he's understandably anxious to show off all his tricks at once. His made-for-TV BLEACHER BUMS (2002) is much better because it aspires to so little (a/k/a CHEAP SEATS (2002) in some markets).Prowlers of used book stores, please catch BLEACHER BUMS: you will know what to look for despite its feeble showing (only 57 votes as of 5/21/2003). And no coincidence: it also casts Riegert, Durning, and Chaykin. Lo and Behold.There are at least two other films I've seen recently portraying mentor and novice hit man. And that doesn't count TRAINING DAY (2001) which is mainstream and mega-star. I think this one will stick with me the longest because Mantegna and Rockwell make such an odd combination. And "odd" ..... That's the point, isn't it?