15 minutes

This a rough, edgy film but the interesting characters make it entertaining for the full two hours. For some reason, I don't believe this film got a lot of publicity.

Karol Roder doesn't get any billing but he's as much a star in this movie as big-names Robert Redford and Edward Burns. Another actor who also has a key role, Oleg Taktarov, has no billing! Wow, they really hosed the Eastern European actors in here.

The film is partially another indictment against the tabloid press. Playing the villain in that regard is good 'ole "Frasier" from TV: Kelsey Grammar. He plays a foul-mouthed tabloid television sleazoid "Robert Hawkins.

Sometimes this got a bit too edgy for me, nor did I appreciate Burns' verbal blasphemy, but I also enjoyed some of the black humor in here. Overall, it's not a film that, frankly, was that memorable yet I would watch it again.

This movie took a severe beating in the press and most reviews, so I wasn't expecting much when I went to see it. However, I was pleasantly surprised, and reassured that my distrust of what the newspaper reviewers think is not misplaced.

This movie has a cast that includes the supremely talented Robert de Niro, Kelsey Grammar, and Edward Burns. It has some excellent writing and some top-notch acting performances. But its real accomplishment is how it makes you think.

The increasing relationship between crime and the media is not linear, and the movie does tend to oversimplify at times. In many respects, it suffers horribly from being predictable, although there were instances where it strayed sharply from the "rules" of formulaic movies. (Saying any more on that score would give away important aspects of the plot, so I'll refrain from elaborating.) Furthermore, in true Hollywood tradition, the main villains are dumb, completely amoral, and oh, did I mention foreign? The idea might have been to give an outsider perspective on the abuse of American culture, but that angle ultimately just plays into outdated audience prejudices against people who speak with an Eastern European accent.

Too, the movie has very graphic violence - but not as bad as I'd expected, and not as bad as what is shown in many other movies. Through creative camera angles, many of the bloodiest scenes are only obscurely hinted at, leaving the audience to fill in the pieces.

Not surprisingly, many entertainment reviewers disliked the movie, because it has the effect of exposing some of the more negative effects of the media. "15 Minutes" does not claim that the media causes violence; rather, it explains that the interplay between the two is ingrained in American culture. This movie may not be saying anything original, but it is sufficiently entertaining and thought-provoking to make it worth seeing.

(59%) A real piece of all over the place Hollywood that shuffles itself around like a deck of cards every other scene. The main focus is not on DeNiro, or even Edward Burns, but on two eastern European maniacs who feature heavily throughout. What makes this so uneven is the tone. It starts as a crime thriller, then there's some breaking news exploitation satire with Kelsey Grammar, then DeNiro comes in turning it more into a cop action movie, then there's a series of quite sweet romantic scenes that come in between footage of the two bad guys filming themselves murdering someone making everything feel more than a little slapdash. Yet it sort of works mainly because everything happens so fast, and there's so much of it to get through. The fact that the cast is more than capable doesn't hurt much either, and it is quite well made too so you just sort of except the flaws as they arrive. It's just action cop movie thrillers, romance, a playful sense of humour, and snuff movies all mixed together doesn't create a great recipe for success.

15 Minutes is a thriller one needs to think about for a while, maybe even sleep on it, especially before writing any comments. I got the movie on DVD two days ago and I hardly couldn't wait to watch it, because I had already read quite a few comments, mostly negative one's, on it over the past few months. At first I was kind of disappointed. I was not the kind of movie I had expected. I was hoping to see a movie as great as `Heat' or `Ronin'. But one cannot compare these three movies. They are completely different. So I let my first impressions rest for a while and watched the movie the next day a second time. 15 Minutes is not as bad a movie after all. It has its good parts, though I would prefer some things to be different.

The movie clearly shows how greedy and immoral the media can be if it comes to win ratings and get some money, even though it appears to be overdone in some parts. `Bad news is good news!' That is how it has always been and that is how it will always be, as long as there is an audience. Who would watch a news channel with only good news? People want sensation, even though they don't want to admit it. But there is certainly a limit to what the media should broadcast. In this movie the media exceeds this limit by far. Furthermore the film quite well points out the problem with the insanity plea. Some critics say the film glorifies violence, which is not right. The two bad guys in this movie are so ugly and their crimes are so heinous, one cannot but loathe their deeds. I also want to mention how well chosen the cast is. Robert DeNiro is, as always, brilliant is his role. His performance is definitely the highlight in this movie. The action scenes are very well done too.

What I didn't like is the way the story goes in some parts. For example how the two criminals get access to Eddy's (Robert DeNiro) apartment. A famous detective just doesn't make a stupid mistake like this. Then the bad guy Oleg with the digital camcorder acts just way too silly, which lets him appear rather unrealistic to me. Even though he is meant to be crazy, his stupid behavior goes way too far. His character can not be taken seriously. Edward Burns as the arson investigator also has to act a little too unprofessional at times, which doesn't add anything positive to his character's credibility. All this gives the whole story an unrealistic touch from time to time, which is very sad. In general I don't like a movie to be cut down just to get it to an 2-hour length. Most of the time I prefer to have the deleted scenes put back in again, but this movie is really better off without them. The final scene has an interesting twist, but the coincidence with Nicolette is just too farfetched. Oleg's final appearance looks ridiculous and doesn't fit into the whole tragic, unless it were supposed to be a comedy. It is a tense thriller, with some suspense, though only two scenes really kept me on the edge of my seat. I also missed scenes introducing some more the characters played by Robert DeNiro and Edward Burns.

Nevertheless I rank it a 7 out of 10.

This movie seems to divide opinions a lot and I think I understand why. It's a bit strange comnbination of different "moods" and styles which might make you feel uneasy. On the other hand it's a rather serious and violent crime thriller but then again there's playful humor in an "action comedy" style. The funniest are the villains who are also the wickedest. But I don't fully understand why some viewers give it bottom rating and some the opposite. I think it's a decent action thriller but I wouldn't call it either super good or super bad.

Robert De Niro is always good, and even though this might not be of his strongest films, he does good performance. I must admit I picked this dvd up just for De Niro's sake. He gives more quality to this movie that would otherwise be more forgettable. On the other hand the movie suffers a bit of being "De Niro movie" because he has such a great filmography and this kind of average movies easily pale in comparison to some of his masterpieces.

The story is interesting. Two criminals start to video tape their misadventures and want to become famous by filming their violent acts. I think the buildup of the story was the best but towards the end momentum slowed down a bit and did not reach up to all the potential. But the script was mostly quite good and creative. But I would have changed the mood a little bit. Maybe toned down the violence and increase the comedy aspect. I think the best part was one of the villains who is obsessed with filming everything even when chased by the cops! If there was more of that, it might have ended more in the Beverly Hills Cop genre. But instead we have this hybrid thriller that has maybe a little bit Tarantono feel.

Even though I was left a bit conflicted about how much I liked the movie, I think it has clever themes, asking how far would you go to become famous. I think I'm going to watch it again at least once sometime because I want to hear the director's commentary. Since he is also the writer, I can see he had a vision of some kind. I mildly recommend this movie to fans of Tarantino style humor and stuff like Lethal Weapon that is more about action but there's a little bit of comedy too.