User reviews

This is a movie with different story lines and different characters. You know where this is going ... or do you? What is really nice to watch, is how it all unfolds and while it seems that the last story might be the one that is the least intriguing, it might surprise you. There is a reason for some things happening and there is a reason for some looks/camera angles/scenes/inserts.

We have some really good actors at hand here and you might enjoy watching Daffoe doing his thing, being philosophical and all that. But every story has some point to it, even though you may think that in the end, there might not have been a point at all. But the movie is trying to tell us something ... and the clue is right there in the title! Nicely done then

I have to admit the title along with the super short description of the story here on IMDb had me fooled big time, but on the other hand, what to Think when you add Christian Slater to the Word "crime"? Usually it means not so good, but watchable.

Plot: Well, there is no plot. This Movie is a Grand Canyon (1991) kind of Movie or why not say Pulp Fiction which has no real storyline either. However, you might say the Movie is ABOUT moral, ethics, good versus evil set in a run down neighborhood with cops searching for terrorists, kids trying to do what is right and normal folks going about their Daily business. all done in Tarantino, Rodriguez and Mcdonagh style.

The best part is the scene with the girl talking about biting the inside of your cheek, it reminds me of the Jake Gyllenhaal character talking about smurfs in Donnie Darko - although not as good. And it is Always a pleasure watching Anthony Anderson and Christpoher Walken. Last Words: like I said, the title fooled me, but it is a good and clever one, you'll see!!

I'll give 6 out of 10, it is good but it lacks that real cleverness, intrigue, good casting and a deeper story.

This has just become one of my favorite all-time movies, and I have seen almost ALL of them.

I may not opt to repeat-watch this the way I do, say, "Gravity", but I highly recommend this to people who appreciate a story that examines the moments in real life under a microscope, with a bit of romantic license thrown in to keep it interesting.

After all, what is this life all about, if not a series of decisive moments, with lessons learned, replays of how it might have been, and the deep regret that we didn't always learn the lessons quite soon enough.

This movie poses the question of what an alternative life could be like if we simply practiced personal "Acts of Random Kindness" ("ARK", ala "Evan Almighty"), in the humanistic sense. In other words, should we react to situations with our brain stems (sense) or our higher intelligence (sensibility).

Wikipedia Definition: SENSIBILITY - Sensibility refers to an acute perception of or responsiveness toward something, such as the emotions of another.

BStabile

Why would a talented and seasoned actor such as the 70 year old Christopher Walken agree to star in a movie directed and written by someone like Leone Marucci who has not had any proved body of work and/or track record to speak of? Why would a first rate action star such as Christian Slater also be convinced to join the cast? I can only surmise that they read the script and shared a common vision that with the writer/director Leone Marucci they could somehow recreate the powerful cinema experience of 2004's Crash.

Unfortunately this movie was a mad scramble of vignettes that I found to be boring and lacking any significant artistic value. From my own point of view, it would appear that the movie was originally filmed in the proper sequence of events, then spliced in to 3-5 minute intervals, thrown in to a covered box, shaken thoroughly, then re-spliced, in an effort to add some artistic value(?) and then additional alternating scenes of the "what if the power of few intervened" were filmed, and also thrown in to the covered box, re-spliced in to the film, and the revealing final scenes were then completed to somehow magically complete the writer/directors tapestry (Leone Marucci would probably say tapestry, and I would say travesty).

I am a big fan of Christopher Walken's work and a seasonal fan of Christian Slater. Both were disappointing in the roles they were asked to play, and I am sure that even they would agree that the final result was not what they were expecting.

Don't waste your time with this director's attempt to copy the 2006 Best Picture Oscar success of the 2004 movie Crash (starring Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton 'et al), instead pick up the movie Crash, and even if you have already seen it, it is a much better watch a second time around, than "The Power Of Few" was for me to watch the first time (and last time) I watched it.

In New Orleans, several dramatic and weird situations are entwined with a surprising conclusion.

The intriguing "The Power of Few" is a pretentious and pointless mess. The viewer sees deaths and accidents originated from multiple stories, most of them absolutely boring. Christopher Walken and Christian Slater, for example, are completely wasted with awful segments. When all the stories are finished, with a fatal ending, a girl named Few changes all the lives in a senseless and pointless conclusion. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "O Poder de Alguns" ("The Power of Few")

This, by now, could be Called a Genre or at Least a Format. The Telling of an Incident Revealed from Different Perspectives all Occurring at the Same Time. It is a sort of a Pulp Fiction (1994) way of Blending Different Characters Experiences Culminating in a Single Event All having Significance to the Event and Themselves.

It's an Ambitious and Complicated way to Make a Movie and Requires More Thought than a Standard Indie Film Might Want to Take On. But Newbie Director Leone Marucci gives it a Shot and by Darn the Thing Turns Out to be an Above Average Experiment.

The Intertwining Story of the Shroud of Turin is Different and the Reason for the Theft is Even More Audacious. There is some Cleverness Here and Artistic Talent Behind the Camera and while the Movie does Look Amateurish at Times, it Looks Equally Highly Professional at Others.

It Takes about a Third of the Movie to Find its Intriguing Legs and the Beginning is so Slow and Uninteresting You Might Want to Give Up, but the Wait is Well Worth the Stick-To-It-Ness. The Acting Ranges from Pretty Bad (Christian Slater's sidekick and the Bag Woman) to Mediocre (the Snitch, the Pharmacy Owners, and the Scooter Lady), to Very Good (Everyone Else).

Overall, it is a Story that's Worth a Watch. There is a bit of Clunk and Things aren't Ultra-Smooth, but it is a Good Try with a Good-Heart.

The movie takes the story of an eventful New Orleans afternoon from five different point of views. The first is a robbery at a small drug store. The second has Dom (Jesse Bradford) on the run and Alexa (Q'orianka Kilcher) rescues him with her moped. The third has agents Marti (Nicky Whelan) and Clyde (Christian Slater) hunting down a mark who may be transporting lethal material. The fourth is two homeless guys Doke (Christopher Walken) and Brown (Jordan Prentice). The fifth is a black girl named Few (Tione Johnson). She rides along with Junkshow (Anthony Anderson) and Shamu (Juvenile) as they hunt down Dom.

The first 2 stories are a slow start to the movie. The third story with Whelan and Slater takes a turn into the ridiculous. The tone is completely different. It left me scratching my head. The fourth one has Walken trying hard to be quirky especially with a midget sidekick. It's more stupid than funny. The fifth story is much more connected to the second story. It's the best one of the lot.

I was intrigue about the talented actors in this movie. Writer/director Leone Marucci is a relative novice. This movie is maybe too ambitious for this guy. The message in the end is effective, but most of the rest of the movie isn't up to snuff.

Its funny and can get confusing if u don't pay attention but its a good view

Here's another one of these Netflix bombs that has a slew of decent reviews so I find myself going back 3 times to try to find out what I'm missing-- but the bad acting causes a Pavlovian stab at the back button in less than five minutes every time. Scooter girl's attempt at being coyly sexual is so tedious I find myself rolling my hand in a circular motion trying to speed up the scene. The clichéd jump cuts in the beginning do little more than induce seasickness, and the long, long exposition of the girl's walking legs--ho long are they going to beat that poor dead nag? But the colossal sacrilege is the waste of the cast--Peter Dinkledge, Walken? That's a travesty. Give me a cast like this please! To see what I did with the far less heralded just google And Now For The Tricky Part.

Before I start; this is one of the most unfairly rated movies ever. If you are looking for something different from Hollywood rubbish, then this movie is a must see. PROS:Great video and camera use. great script with some smart or eccentric conversations. actors all are talented. background music and songs well chosen. story plot is genius. The director is one of a kind, a talent that makes Hollywood directors look incompetent and stupid. Costumes are sniper picked to suit the movie. Camera focus is just amazing. CONS:I did not find any cons on this movie. Judgement: It is funny, mysterious, and intriguing. The way events are scrambled is superior to many other movies that adopted this technique. And a cherry on the cake:It is the genuinely crazy but talented star Christopher Walken playing in this movie.

Considering the cast, I expected a much more traditional movie with Christopher Walken and Christian Slater as what I thought were to be the title characters. Well that was not the case and actually these two actors really had roles that were quite irregular for their stature. The entire film was quite unique in that I have only seen one other movie that has a similar format, Vantage Point. The entire movie shows the intersecting experiences of a group of strangers who have varying impacts on each others lives during the day. They are followed to the climax of their individual events and we see how those events and their players affect the outcome of each others life's path. The overall pace and impact of the characters based on individual performances was really a bit of a disappointment until "Fueisha" or "Few" makes her appearance. This young lady is destined for great things as her performance was without question the standout performance and character of this film. I can only say that I wish we had been introduced to her earlier on in the film and that she had considerably more screen time as there is something quite endearing and almost mystical about her. This was a film I was almost ready to give up on and then it captured my attention and then my heart. It really is well worth watching.

This movie builds up a story via multiple vignettes that are boring an uninspired.

The only highlight is the Walken piece that runs about 15 to 20 minutes.

Without spoiling the ending, they build a story and then for the ending decide the whole story didn't matter.

At the end I felt ripped off and wished I could get my 90 minutes back.

Its not as deep as some people might like you to think.

Never got the point of this but what I did get was crap

TPOF is an attempt in its cinematography, editing, sound, characterization and overall direction to be different - and it partially succeeds - you come away remembering the images and characterizations - the real problem though is the script has words but lacks the same rhythm the same bebop sensibilities, and so jars constantly with the multi-layered multifaceted story lines as they interweave.

For this reviewer the Macguffin of what has being stolen should have been a kicking off point for lots of great banter or ideas and instead seems to just be wasted; in addition, both Christian Slater and Christoffer Walken are given their parts and then woefully under directed.

All in all, this is sub-Tarantino, with some interesting ideas about multistory lines and some film school ideas on use of angles, grading of film etc; that are designed to make it look sloppy and cheap - which are the positives - the negatives are a script that needed editing for its sound - it's just too prosaic for this piece - and performances that though OK could have been workshopped more: I would say that Leone Marucci has a ton of good ideas, but needs to allow his actors less freedom, and needs the script to zing in rhythm with the camera.

A good idea executed in a bad, bad way... With the exception of 3 actors the whole cast seriously need to go back (or just go for the fist time) to the acting school - bad, fake, forced emotions, just terrible. The basis of the story is there, but told in a really bad way. Mistakes, things that make no sense.. Just a bad movie. You keep on watching hoping it gets better, but it doesn't. Clichés. Predictable. And very poor casting skills. It just makes no sense, just like the fact of this site forcing you to write at least 10 lines about a bad movie, that it is just that - a bad movie. There are no 10 lines to be written about this, it is a waste of ciber ink and this movie is not worth it.

"Have you ever bit the inside of your cheek?" A stolen religious artifact, a baby who needs medicine, a delivery driver who meets a man on the run from a gang, two agents looking for someone and two homeless men all become connected in one tragic event. This is the kind of movie where a series of events connect groups of people that otherwise have nothing in common. This one event is shown from everyone's point of view and how one person can change everything. I love movies like this. Movies that show the same event from many different perspectives. No movie has done it better then Rashomon but there have been many attempts since then. Most recently movies like Crash, 11:14 and Vantage Point have all used this style of filmmaking. I have enjoyed all those movies and I enjoyed this one as well. The only problem I had with this one is that some of the stories went on a little long and started to slow the movie down, but overall the movie was enjoyable and really keeps you watching and sucked in. Overall, a fun movie done in a type of style that I really love, which may skew my opinion but I think it's very much worth watching. I give it a B.

Review: What the hell was going on in this film. The different stories that intertwine together, are quite appalling and I didn't see the point of Christopher Walken's character. The whole look and feel of the movie seemed pretty cheap and none of the different stories actually end up going anywhere. As I hadn't heard of this movie before, I wasn't expecting that much, but they could have made some use of Walken, who seems to be chatting rubbish throughout the movie. The whole Christian Slater storyline went nowhere fast and the little black girl seemed to be the only one who made any sense, even though she was just wondering around doing nothing. In the end of the day, it was a total waste of time and money, if they spent that much.

Round-Up: Man, what has happened to Christian Slater. He seems to have a phobia against making good movies. His role in this film was a bit sketchy and all over the place, which was the fault of the directors. It was good to see Anthony Anderson back on the big screen, but this movie didn't do his career any justice. As for Walken, this is definitely one of his bad performances which didn't make that much sense. The only person that understood what he was going on about throughout the movie was his midget sidekick who just seemed hungry all of the time. You don't have to be a genius to know that I didn't really think that much of this movie and that I wasn't impressed with the performances.

I recommend this movie to people who are into there movies that have intertwining storyline's that join together in the end, but don't expect much. 2/10

This is one of those films that is 'a little bit different'.

It has plot and feel aspects of 'Run Lola Run', 'Vantage Point' and 'Donnie Darko' but doesn't manage to inspire anywhere near the same excitement as the other titles.

The plot is non-lineal with the same scene being repeated multiple times from a different view point or dimension. The writing is excellent, most of the characters are interesting and engaging. There is some great casting too - especially the girl on the moped who is both incredibly beautiful, and a bit odd looking.

Great camera work, settings, lighting and performances all around, etc. etc.

On paper this should be an easy '9' but I can't bring myself to go higher than a '7'. With so many films now that are 'a little bit different' they are in danger of becoming all exactly the same. Maybe I have just watched too many, but by the time the end credits rolled I realised my mind was somewhere else. The punch line was weak and a bit pretentious and I had spotted the ending from about twenty minutes in.

A movie that is magnificently crafted, but fails to be magnificent.

'Bound' is an 'ensemble piece' which basically means that it's a film made up with multiple stories, containing multiple characters, all of which sort of cross paths within a twenty minute (on screen) time scale.

If you've seen Crash, Crossing Over or 11:14 then you'll sort of know what to expect.

However, 'Bound' isn't really as good as any of those. If you don't mind many narratives intercutting with each other, then it's not a bad film, but it does have a feeling of being a little amateurish and uneven.

As with all films with so many principle cast members, you'll love some and hate others.

But, despite being a little choppy, it is well shot and quite stylish to look at. So, if you like this sort of film and know what you're getting, then you might like to give it a go. Just don't go expecting Christian Slater or Christopher Walken to be in it all the way through – they're just two small pieces in a bigger jumbled-up puzzle.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

Excellent film. Didn't know what I was getting into but this ended up being a refreshingly original story told in an unexpected way. This film really demonstrates what a wide range of skill Anthony Anderson has. He can transform into any character he wants and I hope he continues to find roles to showcase his abilities. He rarely puts on his hard side anymore but everything he does in this film seems so natural. It says even more about his that he embraces a unique role and story like this. And his counterpart in the film the seldom seen Juvenile also delivers a stirring performance. These two are a great pair and really bring this film home.

My expectations for this movie was pretty high because I had been checking in on the progress for nearly 2 years. I was a fan of Q'orianka Kilcher's from her movie The New World and wanted to see her progress made as an actress. Unfortunately, I was not crazy about this movie - though it did have some redeeming qualities.

First: the bad. Many of the shots were gimmicky and served no real purpose other than trying to appear artistic - which didn't quite work. The dialogue was extremely poor for 50% of the movie, and regardless of whether Q'orianka is a talented actress or not - it's impossible to tell when she is forced to deliver cliché lines and behave as a character whose archetype is so obvious that it's nearly painful to watch. Of the 4 different story arches, 2 were unbelievable and agonizingly forced. Technology is exaggerated and some circumstances are so one in a million that it makes you suddenly aware that you are watching a movie. Lastly, the multiple stories in a non-linear fashion is not original - so to truly go above and beyond in this format you need to have a coherent ultimate story which has an ending profound enough to make the journey worth-while. I'm not sure this movie delivered on this last point.

The positives: There are several shots and scenes that are truly beautifully shot. Some are so clever that you are willing to forgive the poor ones. Secondly, the acting from Christian Slater and Christopher Walken are so brilliant and believable that it sucks you back into the movie that some of the story arches destroy. Truthfully, at the half-way point I was extremely disappointed, but the movie's final act really improved my overall experience. When the movie focused less on creative angles and focused more on story-telling and acting, the movie was enjoyable - it's just a shame it took 45 minutes to get there.

To sum this movie up, I can say for sure this movie, which I don't expect to get much attention, will have a torn audience over the genius or folly of this film. As a viewer reasonably aware of story telling, acting, and the aesthetic aspect of film - I believe there are both positive and negative aspects of the film and I believe it's judgment relies on how much the message of the film affects you.

The idea of the movie is very interesting; the worlds of oblivious individuals unsuspectingly intersecting. It featured some big name actors, so I had some, what I felt were reasonable expectations. However, I was a little suspicious after seeing Christian slater; and rightfully so. The dialog was pretty pathetic, especially between Christian Slater and Nicky Whelan. They were a couple of CIA type characters and their flamboyant use of code words made the movie hard to watch. Chris Walken provided the only entertainment through the movie. Antony Anderson's portrayal of an "angry black-man" was a complete joke. Remember that movie Malibu's Most Wanted, where he was "acting" like a black guy? Yeah, just like that, but worst. His use of "white mother****er" and "cracker" is pretty comical through. This movie is a complete was of time. Do something more entertaining, like watch grass grow. Oh, and the ending that people are saying is good... Well, I don't have any idea what they are talking about. I was just thankful that it ended. Maybe that is what they were talking about?...

Thanks to playing in the movie Funny Games, I don't know if anyone understands why he took a gun to kill people like that?