This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

My cable blurb for this film listed Juliette Lewis first, then Camille, then described the story in just One sentence. I've enjoyed Lewis a lot in the past, so I viewed the film. But that one sentence blurb was about the right length! I don't want to blame the actors, but the director and writer? Probably. The characters' "character" were mostly hidden: by flashbacks out of context, or by brief sentences or silence in response to direct questions. The dialogue itself may well have been too cryptic to even give the actors insights into their part. Seemed they still had little to show us about their characters in non-verbal ways. When actors don't "get" their character, certainly the director must fill in gaps left by the writer. The feeling I got (& this isn't a verdict, just a description of what scenes "felt like") was that some actors' insights here, maybe weren't heard, or were passed over, by the director. I kept my ears and eyes open for gut level insights, 'cuz the dialogue was empty. When people try to hide something, they may fib but even those untruths can offer viewers some insight into what the character is feeling. Not here, only that they didn't want to talk, or they felt uncomfortable (about good things or bad). Lewis' late scene with Egglesfield's "David" was a bit different, but when everything "Jill" said was nasty, David's verbal response was in disgust, but his behavior wasn't. His character seemed vacuous for not just leaving the cafe - the table seemed empty, and Jill was not "helping". Visually too, like in the cloaked flashbacks, viewers were given little help in several (many?) scenes, like Angie & David sitting inside the trailer, the camera is bouncing around. I'm listening to them talk, and the bouncing is just a distraction. It's almost like the photographer saw too little evidence of the tension in the actor's behavior, or in their words; and so decided to move the camera, at least to supply evidence of some inner struggles in these two friends. If the trailer had at least been in motion, I could have stayed in tune to the dialogue, having seen that the road was bumpy (literally and figuratively). Most of us (the viewers and the makers of the film) know more about the feelings prompted by some situations in this plot, but a better review here, may be implying a reviewer has inserted his/her own experiences into this story; filled it out. I think that viewers can plant more insights into this film, than the film can drop into the viewer.

This movie sucks. I liked it for maybe the first 25 minutes and then it just became one of the worst movies I have ever watched. The character Chuck was okay he and Camilla Belle had the only interesting interactions during the first twenty minutes of the movie. After she went back on the road, I felt like I was watching a porno. The cop looked and acted like f***** creepy dude right off the bat and smiled straight through his first half hour on screen. They didn't have a single meaningful dialogue but this was somehow enough to make someone who has decided to live their life on the road to give her search for her long lost father and live in some random town where she hates the people at her work. (Also why do they never discuss any actual price specifics on the car, I feel like someone who live own the road for that long would be money conscious and where the f*** did she get money to afford that other house she bought). The whole art gala scene and Chuck becoming her father were the dumbest movie twists I've seen in years. At least Camilla Belle was cute only thing that kept me watch. Honestly it became comical how horrible the script was. Thank god this atrocity only cost 3 million to make.Also Juliette Lewis should never get another acting job ever again.

Okay, first of all, it's not a bad little movie, very much like Francis Coppola's 2nd movie The Rain People, acting is fine, Juliette Lewis is as good as always, at least for what she's got to do with. Script is lean and it ponders along but with nice touches. It's very 60's in some way so I guess it brings back some memories being a boomer. Definitely not for everyone, much more for those who have a whimsical bent to their personalities, just a little drive in the country, so to speak. I don't know what the negative reviews go on about, it's clearly not for them so they should go watch Juno a few more times. Performances are fine for everyone here, not an earth-shaker but a nice bit of time spent. I give it a 7 not for my best-of films, but for this particular genre of what one might call drift movies.

This movie feels (at best) like a 1980's after-school special, with lower production values and dialog that would embarrass a 1940's comic book writer. When it feels like it breaks the after-school special mode, it is merely because it slips into feeling like an old VHS tape shared by all the local xian churches.Juliette Lewis was the selling point for me and she failed to deliver, I can blame her on some levels but the writing was just so atrocious that I am shocked she took the part. Andy Garcia must have been bored, and the lead actress basically derps from scene to scene without actually acting.