Interesting premise, disappointing result. The realism is as convincing as it is boring. There's no excuse for the flat, texture- and colorless images either. Realistic movies don't need to be visually uninventive. Watch "Ballast" instead.

Very slow and very unnerving. I'm amazed that people can call it boring; nothing happens at all, really, but I was still gripped. A great experiment from Soderbergh, who is fast becoming one of my most admired directors, if not a firm favourite.

How to explain this without it sounding like the lamest idea ever? Here goes:three lower class Ohioans eat fast food and talk about their plans to save up some money to do, well, something with it. Sometimes they smoke, and oh, there's a murder. I'm convinced that most people would give up after 10 minutes, but I'm glad I stuck with it. There was something almost hypnotic about the non-professional, mostly improvised acting and slow-burning pace of the film that kept me on its hook throughout.

I may revise my score later, but I thought this was so great. I love love loved the non-actors and the slow-paced slice of life vibe. It's definitely not for everyone and I could see a lot of people hating it, but this is definitely my type of movie. I was completely invested in the characters and coming from a rural, working class town, I found them to be 100% convincing and authentic. I just read the alternate ending on wikipedia and think I would have preferred that, but this one worked too.

The non-acting really works in its favour. It's so minor and undramatic that it probably requires a great amount of patience, but I was gripped throughout, especially since it's a pretty beautiful film.

"Oozes an anonymous contempt sadly appropriate to director Steven Soderbergh's post-Limey artistic downward spiral." - Keith Uhlich

Using non-professional actors, without set dialogue, shot in sequence, and, from what I can tell, very cleverly deciding what information to give the actors and how to direct them, this was an experiment that definitely worked, resulting in a very convincing milieu and a very interesting film. The actors were all excellent, and this is the best Soderbergh I have seen. Perhaps the smaller the budget, the better he directs.

Soderbergh's realism drew me in but there's no payoff.

I know these are non-actors, but this main guy here gives the most monotone deliveries I have ever heard.

Low-key account, using non-professional actors, of a murder among disconnected people in which everything important remains unspoken; it exerts an odd fascination, akin to eavesdropping.

67.250

A great experiment with real people who improvised dialog from stories from their own lives. The story isn't all that amazing and they aren't professional actors, but there's heart and soul to the movie that can't be replicated with real actors on sets.

Unique and small, the film is hypnotically realistic. You forget you're watching a movie. Really got caught up in the story.

A Jarmuschian exercise in banality. Not bad!

What the hell?

interesting experiment, but not very entertaining

I'm not really a big fan of using non-actors but in this case it worked beautifully: the performances (largely improvised) are absolutely authentic. These are working-class characters who win your empathy by being genuine, not by being quirky or having simple down-home values. The film may seem pointlessly drawn out to some, but it should definitely appeal to fans of Aki Kaurismaki. It's got the same dry, dry humor and observational pacing.

"...an astonishingly unnerving piece of humanist cinema."