the audience applauded

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

10. We know this movie takes place sometime in the past because cigarettes are advertised, and people smoke, in a movie theater. Pauline is a beautiful blonde who is dressed for prom, but she goes to the theater.  Several rows behind her is Leon Redbone (okay, Leon's clothes are white, but the man does look a lot like him), with an attractive woman who doesn't compare to Pauline. The man dressed like Leon Redbone, whose name is Eddie, meets Pauline outside, where she is smoking, and she tells him the woman in the movie should have left the man because the man was a criminal. Eddie disagrees but later in the movie admits he'd like to be like the man in the movie.9. Eddie owes Roy money, and when Roy wants something, he sends big goons to get it. The girl from the theater won't help him any more. Eddie's furniture store is not successful. There is one solution.8. ... Okay, I lost track of what the numbers meant. Just know that by the end of the movie we have counted down to 1. Eddie meets Pauline and starts spending time with her. This means she sits in his '66 Ford LTD while Eddie goes inside with a fake gun and hands the teller a note. The money from one robbery isn't enough to keep Roy's goons away, so Eddie can't stop with just one robbery. He is always quite polite, though not charming like John Stamos, which is the impression various tellers give on the TV news.  He's actually somewhere between socially awkward and mentally ill. The tellers are usually calm. One blonde girl is so pretty and so nice. And then there is the quirky and very friendly Sue, who I immediately recognized as Kate Micucci of "Raising Hope". Later, when one man who says he is a Mormon makes the situation more difficult, and the poor teller with him ends up traumatized, but that's the only really bad incident.The cops seem incapable of stopping these robberies. They don't know just what to do. So they keep happening. Eddie Dodson becomes a legend.One thing I don't understand: the listings with my TiVo said this movie was based on fact, and yet the closing credits include the statement that it is a work of fiction.Occasionally this movie is funny,  and I'm sure it was supposed to be. But it's not quite a comedy. It's also not the wild and wacky adventure I expected from the description. It's still somewhat fun to watch, and Micucci is cute.Jim Sturgess does a good enough job as the lead. If he wasn't supposed to be a John Stamos type, then I would say he succeeded.Several clueless bimbos hang out with Eddie, but they are played by respected, big-name actresses. I guess that's okay. There are other quirky characters in the night clubs and other hangouts where Eddie goes. One of the detectives seems intelligent enough, so I wonder why the cops can't seem to do anything. I don't remember the detective's name and I can't see any clue in the credits. But it was a good performance, whoever it was.I think this was worth seeing.

When I saw the trailer and the cast-list I thought that this looked really promising, when I saw the IMDb rating my hopes of it being great went down a bit but I thought maybe it could still be alright.But it was just incredibly bland and initially extremely confusing to the point where it was barely comprehensible, 30 minutes in or so it gets slightly more focused telling a more linear story.Jim Sturgess in the lead can be great but not in this movie, him speaking as if he's nose is constantly clogged up doesn't do him any favours.Isabel Lucas is the female love (?) interest and I was surprised that she had so many credits on IMDb cause frankly she's like a empty vessel in this movie, I thought she was a model and was gonna write that she should stick to modelling but yeah she's actually a full-time actress.Chloe Sevigny is in it for a couple scenes, she plays someone who had a thing with Jim's character prior to Isabel Lucas entering the picture she barely has any dialogue.Christopher Lambert plays the mob (?) boss with a really fake-looking prosthetic nose Jim's character owes money.Patricia Arqutte is in it for a couple scenes as well as some random milf with a look inspired by Brigitte Nielsen.You don't really get to know any of the characters or given much info on what their relationship to one another is or given a reason why you should care for the fate of any of them for that matter.It makes some half ass attempts at some comedic moments as well.So yeah not terribly impressive.

One could write the entire plot of the movie in here and it wouldn't be a spoiler. Thats because this film is not about Eddie Dodson, it's about who ever the character called Eddie Dodson in this film thinks he's portraying. Dodson was a bit more than a furniture salesman, his shop on Melrose wrote the script for a hundred quirky 20th century/retro/moderne shops that followed in his wake and that includes all the original 70's Hollywood funk and fun. Out and about you might have caught Eddie cruising Melrose in a 1930's convertible with a bevy of gals or run into him at a party in the Hills. Three things one can credit the film with are the Hollywood pretty people which was spot on for that time- probably still is- the excellent soundtrack and the resemblance of Jim Sturgess to Eddie, but there it ends character wise and with the absurd fedora. Eddie was famous not just for the number of bank robberies he pulled but also for the Yankee cap he always wore to a bank giving him name he was known for, the Yankee Bandit. Eddies story is far more Hollywood insane than this film can deal with it seems, his connection to some big Hollywood names, his drug addiction- Its not hard to find with google- is not touched upon. What this movie is however is an effete homage to a time and place that was a lot more brash and impulsive. It's main character may have some interesting aspects but they don't add up to the type of person that drove Eddie to do what he did. Can the movie stand on it's own given the absence of any real motivation on the protagonists part? Maybe but it's point is the people and the period and it barely goes there. If you view it knowing nothing of Dodson it might work for you but if you knew Eddie you are in for a disappointment. And if you find out about Dodson after you watch it you'll be miffed they didn't make the actual Eddie Dodson story. The directors seems to have had the components but not the story. Throwing in John Doe of the LA period punk band X playing a cop only underlines this point.

Dodson owns a furniture store and aspires to a glamorous lifestyle he cannot afford. He borrows money from the bank and then a loan shark. As repayment pressures mount he resorts to bank robbing to fund his debts. He also teams up with a vacant blonde who likes to spout movie dialogue rather than talk with real feeling and their love story is a meaningless sidebar. The problem for me is Dodson is an unlikable man, he steals from friends and wants things without working for them. Sturgess portrays Dodson as ineffectual rather than charismatic which leaves you wondering why the bank tellers he robbed all liked him. I felt no emotional attachment to any of the characters.The score also misses a trick opting to use generic synth music rather than some of the definitive 80s tunes. Its a stylish enough film but has no emotional core. The period is evoked sufficiently to feel like a period set piece. Could have been better with the talent involved.