This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Purely Joyful Movie!

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Brilliant and touching

I was curious what was in the bag. I will turn off a movie after 10 minutes if I'm bored, but not this movie. Had good actors who did a good job. I would watch it again.

Recorded on the DVR, I've probably watched it six times already. The Bag Man quite obviously isn't for everybody. Maybe expectations. Maybe there's just something missing with some who "didn't get it", or don't have that *something* inside them that finds the allure.Analysis is tough on this one. It's not a sophisticated storyline. The script only has moments of clever dialogue. Mostly, it's the overall mood, I suppose. It's in directing, the soundtrack, cinematography, etc. that gives it its appeal for me. I gave it a "7" rating, because I don't abuse and overreact. An 8 has to be exceptional. A 9...genuinely phenomenal. I've never yet given a film a 10. Conversely, a 6 still has some merit. A 5 is so-so, but some definite cringe-worthy moments. And so forth. Point being, I saw quite a few 1s in the reviews (and 2s and 3s). A 1 is virtual static on the screen in my mind, or something that looks like a 2nd Grade movie project that somehow made it to the big screen. IMDb raters...sigh. Well, a rating is in the eye of the rater. For those of us who "get it", I bet we'd agree that those who didn't just don't have the receptors to pick up on the Director's vision.Cusack's as an actor was my initial attraction. His roles in Identity and others drew me in. His performance in TBM was as intriguing as any of his other best films. Sorry, but Cell was a bummer. His acting was lackluster and the film was just weird (the ending was just funky, as hard as I tried to play along). But in TBM, he was at the top of his game. I didn't "see" acting. I saw what I love about him most; a natural born actor who takes me into the life of the character. Can't ask for more.De Niro: Another reviewer is correct to an extent - that he can play a gangster in his sleep. Agreed, but ol' Bob is also in major cruise mode in his career, being his Golden Years. I've seen the passion receding over the last 15 years. Even in more significant roles like Silver Linings Playbook, I've detected less than 100% from him like in his most impacting historical roles. That wasn't the objective here, to play a character like Leonard in Awakenings, or Rupert Pupkin in the King of Comedy. However, there was only a fleeting moment or two at best when I felt he wasn't fully immersed in the smaller role of Dragna. I got the impression he really liked this role. Interestingly, he looked physically better than I've seen him in years. He was tan, had super cool hair, slick and hip glasses, and he slipped right in to the image of that character. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he accepted the part. I'm not convinced it was the script that captivated him. Even his opening lines are relatively straightforward. Yes, some of his later banter was medium-witty, but nothing that will leave one changed forever. Regardless, he was cooler looking than I've seen him in years. But don't get me wrong. I'm not interested in seeing De Niro look cool. His character's cool worked perfectly with the mood of the film.Crispin Glover was captivating. So smooth and believable as Ned, the motel clerk. If one thinks of the non-event checking into a hotel can be, Ned makes it the polar opposite of that. In short, the character of Ned is loaded with character. And while other reviewers speak for you and me, "...you can't help but think...", I'll speak for myself: I love Crispin in this role. I haven't seen him in a while, but I still remember his impact on me in his role in the movie Teachers. He was powerful then, and hasn't lost anything in his dedication to his roles.Rebecca Da Costa: A very intriguing choice in casting. An odd voice (accent), and at first, wondered if her acting was up to par. In the end, I believe her acting was fine. It was just her odd personality, which added to the unusual chapter of Jack's (Cusack) life. It augmented the realism of finding oneself amidst a troubled, yet fascinating person. Some people aren't attracted to those types. Maybe that makes the difference...the secret desire to live a chapter of Jack's life. That's what a film should do - take us inside it and live that life for a couple hours; have us wonder whether Rivka (Da Costa) was a cheap hooker, or someone we could fall in love with; a caring, smart and compassionate person. A foreigner who just so happens to be uniquely beautiful, awkwardly trying to seduce, yet too often showing her genuine self and sincerity as a human being.On the surface, if I didn't get "immersed", I'd probably give it a 5. But I got sucked in. I got it. A solid 7 for me. Bravo to those who made this film. I'll be watching it again.

OK so I read the horrible reviews this film received, so when it was playing on TV I wasn't that excited. And then I just started to watch it, and it turned out to be not so horrible after all.In the first few minutes it looked like some cheap Tarantino-ripoff, only without the good dialogue and style, and it was painful I have to admit. The interactions between the characters aren't as witty as funny as in a QT movie, while obviously the makers were aiming at capturing the same atmosphere, but it just comes off painfully unfunny and forced.But, after 20 minutes the movie starts to become slightly different, like somehow the makers just decided to 'OK we can't copy Tarantino so let's just make our own movie'. There are actually a few good jokes and even a really minor portion of style as well. In the second act the movie almost catches up, there are a few moments of actual tension, while also some good jokes. I also liked the kind of mystery surrounding the main character, as his motives and whole persona isn't quite clear in the first part of the movie. It is too bad that in the third act the movie turns from 'kind of funny-weird but OK' to 'completely ridiculous' in about a few minutes. Characters just start to make idiotic decisions (which wasn't usual before), motivations make no sense and even change from one extent to another, and all in all the whole stuff doesn't make sense anymore. Maybe the creators just realized that they were at the end of the movie, and something like 'hey this is the end of our Tarantino lookalike movie, so let's just make a you-didn't-expected- everyone-shoots-at-everyone ending because that makes Tarantino movies good, right?' went down, what completely ruined the movie in my opinion.There is also a huuuuuge plot hole as well, where one character's motives are just doesn't make ANY sense, although you will only realize that after the last 'reveal' scene of the movie. BTW, the whole mystery of the bag is a bit (OK, way too) forced, they tried to build up this huge anticipation and mystery about it, but you can easily guess by the end, what is in the bag after all.A bit waste of good talent as well, Cusack is always likable and he delivers his standards here too, DeNiro clearly does not take things too seriously (in fact, a bit over the top, especially at the end, which just further emphasizes the awfulness of the whole scene). I haven't heard about the female lead before, but I found her OK in this movie.All in all it's a 6.5/10 for me, it is a perfectly disposable, one- watch thriller that's actually not bad when it's not trying to be some other movie. It could be quite fun if you have the right mindset for it.

Wow I've seen a lot of bad reviews on this film but for a rental I really enjoyed it. Fine neither Cusack or De Niro are exactly breaking any moulds and they role out a couple of fairly typical characters. But what are you expecting. It's a crime thriller and it does what it says on the tin. I suppose it's pretty formulaic stuff but I got what I was looking for. And thankfully for once it's not a straight forward role for the love interest in the piece, which makes it more entertaining. If you are looking for something to kill a couple of hours with a bit of suspense, a few twists and a satisfying finale then I'd say give it a go.The film doesn't hang around and gets straight in to the the plot without delay, which is always a relief. There's nothing worse than a film trying to be too clever to massage the ego of the director or big stars. It's pretty basic - deliver this bag and don't look in it. An easy job so nothing could go wrong. Right? Well perhaps not. What ensues is a nicely timed, dark, journey with our main protagonist trying to survive long enough to earn his pay.