Overrated and overhyped

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

I read the Elmore Leonard novel "Get Shorty" about a year ago and recall that keeping track of the players as the story went on tended to be a bit difficult. The movie, which seemed to follow the book pretty closely, made the character identification a bit easier since most of the main ones were handled by a well known actor or actress. Still, it's easy to get confused once the action gets going because people move in and out of scenes fairly quickly, and some that you expect to have a major role wind up being ancillary characters.Like Leo Devoe (David Paymer) for instance. Since it was his three hundred thousand dollar swindle that opened the story, you would think he'd be the main focus, but he really wasn't on screen that much, while his bundle wound up trading hands more than once. There's also a neat red herring thrown into the picture when Bear's (James Gandolfini) little daughter picked up Yayo's (Jacob Vargas) discarded envelope from the top of the trash bin at the airport. If you were concentrating on that minor development expecting it to mean something, you'd have been wrong. Nothing ever came of that situation.Which is to say, you better be prepared to pay attention to this flick or you could wind up in left field pretty quickly. I thought Travolta did a nice job as the mob strong arm Chili Palmer, attempting to trade up to the movie business. Always thinking ahead, that was a pretty slick move with the C-17 locker to divert the FBI's attention away from him. It turns out he really was a lot smarter than Barboni (Dennis Farina); gee, Bones should have saw the pinch coming ahead of time but I guess greed does that to a wise guy.Anyway, this was a creative caper flick coming from the mind of Elmore Leonard, better known for his Western stories and novels, so this excursion into gangland was a nifty diversion. Since I picked this flick up at my local library, what I think I'll do now is put in a request for Karen Flores' (Russo) two starring roles - 'I Married a Ghoul' and 'The Atomic Mummy'.Say, did anybody wind up getting the money?

Through the course of the movie, parallels are drawn that depict the Hollywood work ethic as being similar to the type of mob work Chili is involved with. These amusing comparisons play themselves throughout the film, with classically stereotyped roles by an outstanding cast that range from the slimy director/producer to the Colombian drug-lord. In fact, it is the characters and the dialogue between these characters that make the movie outstanding. There is Chili Palmer (John Travolta), arguably one of the last true gangsters in the old tradition, whose speech and actions are undeniably cool and cutting. As a contrast to Chili, there is his boss, Ray Bones (Dennis Farina), who is a curt, abrasive character that is always looking for a way to one-up whoever he is dealing with. He is the type of person that wields more power than he actually possesses, creating several memorable scenes between his laughable character and Chili's perpetual coolness. Then there is the slimy director, Harry Zimm (Gene Hackman), a second rate director of B horror movies, whose interactions with Chili show us a less professional view of Hollywood. There is also the pompous, egocentric actor Martin Weir (Danny De Vito), who makes us laugh at the lifestyle of the Hollywood star. All of the characters in Get Shorty show us an amusing side of Hollywood that is simultaneously paying homage to and poking fun at movies.There are two problems with this movie. While I did find the storyline entertaining, I did find it extremely confusing to keep up with the specific "details" of the story - namely who is who and who did what. Perhaps this traces back to the original Elmore Leonard novel for which this book is based on. I usually prefer my films at a "simpler" level - and I think that would have helped this story. The other problem is that I found the ending to be weak. While I think this movie does a very good job at not "dragging out" the ending, I ultimately found the ending a bit anti-climatic. It was an ultimate let-down to a movie that despite the confusing "details" of the plot, does provide an entertaining edge. All in all, this is a very well made movie. The actors are wonderful, the homage paid to prior films of it's ilk are subtle, yet, crafted skillfully, and the cinematography and music perfectly compliment the film flow and style.Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

One of the great mysteries of all time, right up there with Area 51 and the Da Vinci Code, is why the film industry, now into its second century and -- as you read this -- consuming on a relative basis more bandwidth than any other form of media, cannot produce consistently decent product? Now don't misunderstand. This is not to say that most movies are inherently bad, for that is not true either. However one of the dirty little secrets of the industry is that the "breakout" ratio is around 20:1. That is, for every 19 forgettable products that are churned out -- products that keep the cable and streaming media pipelines full, and keep food on the table for all the electricians, caterers, and Best Boys -- about one actually is memorable enough to attract a permanent audience or become near-iconic. Not a very efficient ratio! The late Marshall McLuhan tried in his lifetime to develop the notion of "media ecology," essentially the premise that the cultural output of a society was no less important than any other industry output, and therefore an effort should be made NOT TO WASTE THE RESOURCES or (simply put) produce junk. Like the infamous joke about about the "Nietzsche graffiti" (first line: "God is dead - Nietzsche." Second line: "Nietzsche is dead. God") that attempt did not turn out so well. McLuhan is gone, and the ratio has arguably gotten worse, because there are now many more pipelines to fill. Which brings us, belatedly, to GET SHORTY, not only a great film (one of Travolta's best performances, so effortless you wonder if he phoned it in, and Pixar just added a body) but one of Hollywood's most "inside" scripts ever. (Comedians have "inside jokes." Hollywood has "inside scripts.") The premise here is that the making of a movie has little to do with the movie, and everything to do with egos and business capabilities of the people making it. The idea that a professional mobster could stumble into Hollywood and suddenly realize that making a film is no different than planning a hit, or a robbery, is sheer brilliance. And very close to home. In the history of the medium, it is one of the only movies to deal with the delicate (and unpopular) issue of ... why so many bad films have to be made, simply to produce one good one...?

A Miami loan shark ends up in Hollywood, hobnobbing with B movie personalities. Leonard, who has had a prolific and varied career, provides a script that is generally entertaining, but there are too many plot threads and it doesn't all come together as well as it does in the best comedies. The cast is terrific: Travolta is believable as a tough goon, Hackman is smooth as a producer of schlocky movies, Russo is sexy as an actress past her bimbo prime, and DeVito is a shallow movie star (and title supplier). However, it is Farina who steals the film in a hilarious performance as an insecure mobster who's always left holding the wrong end of the stick.