Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Sintz49 My cable blurb for this film listed Juliette Lewis first, then Camille, then described the story in just One sentence. I've enjoyed Lewis a lot in the past, so I viewed the film. But that one sentence blurb was about the right length! I don't want to blame the actors, but the director and writer? Probably. The characters' "character" were mostly hidden: by flashbacks out of context, or by brief sentences or silence in response to direct questions. The dialogue itself may well have been too cryptic to even give the actors insights into their part. Seemed they still had little to show us about their characters in non-verbal ways. When actors don't "get" their character, certainly the director must fill in gaps left by the writer. The feeling I got (& this isn't a verdict, just a description of what scenes "felt like") was that some actors' insights here, maybe weren't heard, or were passed over, by the director. I kept my ears and eyes open for gut level insights, 'cuz the dialogue was empty. When people try to hide something, they may fib but even those untruths can offer viewers some insight into what the character is feeling. Not here, only that they didn't want to talk, or they felt uncomfortable (about good things or bad). Lewis' late scene with Egglesfield's "David" was a bit different, but when everything "Jill" said was nasty, David's verbal response was in disgust, but his behavior wasn't. His character seemed vacuous for not just leaving the cafe - the table seemed empty, and Jill was not "helping". Visually too, like in the cloaked flashbacks, viewers were given little help in several (many?) scenes, like Angie & David sitting inside the trailer, the camera is bouncing around. I'm listening to them talk, and the bouncing is just a distraction. It's almost like the photographer saw too little evidence of the tension in the actor's behavior, or in their words; and so decided to move the camera, at least to supply evidence of some inner struggles in these two friends. If the trailer had at least been in motion, I could have stayed in tune to the dialogue, having seen that the road was bumpy (literally and figuratively). Most of us (the viewers and the makers of the film) know more about the feelings prompted by some situations in this plot, but a better review here, may be implying a reviewer has inserted his/her own experiences into this story; filled it out. I think that viewers can plant more insights into this film, than the film can drop into the viewer.

max-eisenberg94 This movie sucks. I liked it for maybe the first 25 minutes and then it just became one of the worst movies I have ever watched. The character Chuck was okay he and Camilla Belle had the only interesting interactions during the first twenty minutes of the movie. After she went back on the road, I felt like I was watching a porno. The cop looked and acted like f***** creepy dude right off the bat and smiled straight through his first half hour on screen. They didn't have a single meaningful dialogue but this was somehow enough to make someone who has decided to live their life on the road to give her search for her long lost father and live in some random town where she hates the people at her work. (Also why do they never discuss any actual price specifics on the car, I feel like someone who live own the road for that long would be money conscious and where the f*** did she get money to afford that other house she bought). The whole art gala scene and Chuck becoming her father were the dumbest movie twists I've seen in years. At least Camilla Belle was cute only thing that kept me watch. Honestly it became comical how horrible the script was. Thank god this atrocity only cost 3 million to make.Also Juliette Lewis should never get another acting job ever again.

QuirkyCat ...could have been really good. The acting seemed a little stiff and almost like the actors were a bit bored. I have seen all the main actors in other movies and in those, they were great. This movie brought up some good ideas but they were either never developed further (so, why raise them in the first place) or they were not resolved. And, there were a few instances where I was a bit confused as to how that situation came about, although, I figured it out fairly quickly. There are much worse movies showing on "mainstream" circuit. It was also pleasant to watch a movie with no violence, gore, swearing etc. With a bit more story development and more convincing acting, wow, what a wonderful movie this could have been. So, overall, not bad.

kylere This movie feels (at best) like a 1980's after-school special, with lower production values and dialog that would embarrass a 1940's comic book writer. When it feels like it breaks the after-school special mode, it is merely because it slips into feeling like an old VHS tape shared by all the local xian churches.Juliette Lewis was the selling point for me and she failed to deliver, I can blame her on some levels but the writing was just so atrocious that I am shocked she took the part. Andy Garcia must have been bored, and the lead actress basically derps from scene to scene without actually acting.