Criminal Minds (1998) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
You've probably never heard of anybody in this movie, but it's definitely worth a look (if you have nothing better to do)
BigHardcoreRed25 June 2004
The box cover compares itself to Quentin Tarantino. I assume this movie is trying to be similar to Reservoir Dogs. That, I can tell you, it's definitely not. The only real comparison that can be made is the fact the movie is about a bunch of criminals involved in a heist-gone-wrong. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Although, I do have to say the first scene made the movie pretty predictable, even if you're not looking too hard. It has it's own style, which it should be proud of. It really was better than I thought it would be, and I didn't catch myself watching the clock throughout. Thomas Baumann both directed and wrote the film so I guess I should give him credit, even though I've never heard of him or any of his other movies.

The movie itself starts off slow but it really does get witty and picks up the pace once it gets through the clichéd beginning. There are two notable scenes I will always remember (I won't spoil it here for you, but when you see the "Duncan Proof Knot", that's one of them).

The best actor in the movie is Kelvin Webb, who has no other credits but has an uncanny resemblance to Laurence Fishburne. On the opposite end of that is Kip Ellwood who played the "Head Hillbilly In Charge", so to speak. I really didn't like his performance as it seemed as if he's trying to hard to be a mean hillbilly. The rest of the cast is just mediocre. All the hillbilly family reminded me of the family from House Of 1000 Corpses. Could be just me, but I liked these hillbillies better than Zombie's version and thought they were a bit more humorous (if Zombie's were meant to be humorous at all).

Overall, it's worth a look, bad acting from Kip Ellwood aside.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Practically Unwatchable
thewritegoddess14 April 2007
This film reminded me strongly of all of the student films I was forced to watch and participate in during college. The dialogue is inane, the acting more wooden than Charlie McCarthy, and the cinematography and editing reminiscent of that done by young men in their twenties who want to be Steven Spielberg when they grow up. The editing often cuts too late or too quickly. The cinematography tries way too hard to be avante garde, and instead looks like something Sam Raimi would have done in the 1970s. Dropping in on this film makes me feel like Ed Wood is still alive, or at least was in 1997 to make this picture. This is bad, people...very bad.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed