When I read the back of this movie I thought of movies like 11:14 and Go. You know the type of movie that has multiple story lines that all connect is some way. To be honest this really isn't that kind of movie. I dose have a lot of characters but they are all pretty much the same story, everyone looking for a bag of money.This movie really tried to be a "cool" movie like Snatch but fails in almost every way. It also looks like there was no budget for this movie. Just looking at what passed for an Indian casino shows that. The story itself ends up being kinda dull. There really isn't anyone you can root for and some of the characters are just annoying. The camera work was nicely done.Overall, this wasn't the worst movie I have scene it just really wasn't good either.

Extremely disappointing story, completely lacking originality and creative flair.Wasted cast, no development, too much reliance on coincidence, not funny, not interesting to look at... put you off yet? Story is the old hackneyed idea of a misplaced bag of money. Seen it done before? Probably. Each introduced character wants to get their hands on the stash of cash and we're given Jeremy Davies' character to cheer on, and others to jeer on.What follows lacks any freshness or interest, which is really disappointing. Probably what could've saved this, if anything, would be a dash of Coen perspective and dark humour. A sudden attempt at inventive editing in the last twenty minutes does little to pick up the pace (if you're still awake) and even a turn by Bill Pullman can't do much to save it. Rachel Leigh Cook is pretty, though...

I watched this movie the way some people watch a traffic accident. You can't believe your mind can assimilate such an awful visual image, but something in your macabre inner self can not stop watching the carnage. Yes, I watched this to the end.Usually movies have some redeeming value. Maybe it's the soundtrack or the costumes, you know, something. Well, not this one. The acting was horrible. I like Chris O'Donnell and Michael Rapaport, but they completely fail to execute their craft successfully on this flick. Rachel Leigh Cook does an OK job, but nothing that moves beyond mediocre. That takes us to direction. Nobody ever heard of Leonardo Ricagni and I suspect no one ever will. There was some weak attempt to be Tarantino, but, WOW, was it not even close.The editing was more annoying than your neighbor's home movie. There were jumps in the scene, with the same segment repeated from different camera angles with a voice-over. Huh? Didn't these guys figure out that was a bad idea when they were a sophomore in film school.There were several times the same flashback was repeated. It got quite annoying. What was the point of that? The only way they could have made a worse movie was to have cast Jennifer Tilly as a blind African-American. Wait a minute, I have an idea...

the friend i first watched this with hated the movie when he rented it. of course, this friend also bought XXX, having not ever seen it. so i guess that speaks for that.*spoiler(s)*the script is phenomenal. i really enjoyed the touches of humor, especially since they were so off the wall most of the time. i get a kick out of the chief trying to talk like a movie Indian. the whole bit with the guy not being able to "sire" is insanely funny, and i love it when he pretends to die with the other patient's heart monitor. any of the scenes with the sheriff are great. my favorite punchline of the movie is: "son, you don't need a lawyer, you need a library card." but how about that chase sequence at the end? a limo trying to ram a bus? now that's just absolutely hilarious.otherwise, i like how this is a post-post-western. it's still got guns and a sheriff and bad guys going after money and indians. and even though the drifter says it's really about trying to find someone you can trust, i know better. it's really about our country screwing the indians, all over again. the chief's final bit about white people taking their land, and then giving them whiskey, and then pitying them as drunks, and then giving them gambling, and then making them beg for their money... well... it's a bit preachy... but then all westerns (and post-westerns and post-post-westerns) are supposed to be about the dying frontier. the frontier is dead, but the Indian has cancer. i think the opening shot of the pro-Indian-casino billboard and the interpretive shot of the chief's rage (as he's running at the camera, towards the bus) towards the end of the film perfectly underscore this tribute to the dying survivors of the frontier.in addition, i thought the camera work was well done. although the director recycled his few obvious uses of technique, namely the flashback montages and the 360-degree pan shots, i thought they were decently spaced and efficient. i also really appreciated the tastefulness that was used in filming the sex scene. panning away, and letting the imagination do the work is what really makes an intimate scene sexy. lubitsch knew that, and apparently so does ricagni.