Too Late

John Hawkes and Crystal Reed turn in fine performances but the films non linear structure make it hard to follow and even harder to care about when the truth is finally revealed. The structure really hurt this one and created a weird vibe that stopped the film from making sense until the 3rd segment. It was entertaining to say the least but definitely not for everyone.

As others have mentioned, the camera work and John Hawkes are the reason to tune in. While the five uncut scenes may seem like a gimmick, they are impressive to watch. Dennis Hauck is sure to build on this creativity in the future, and hopefully with a more polished script. Hawkes needs no introduction. His presence in a neo-noir is perfect as he spits line after line at his foes. Great banter and great delivery. I will continue to seek out whatever he is in.

This has an extraordinarily soulful John Hawkes performance and Dichen Lachman clad only in skimpy black lingerie and a drive-in theater girl who can't pronounce the name "Genevieve Bujold." And it's got roughly a half-dozen scenes or moments or bits of business or line readings that I've been thinking about nonstop. Also Hawkes says to a bad guy "Make the wrong move, I'll shoot you in the kidney then dig the bullet out with my dirty hands for a souvenir."

AN EXPERIMENTAL NOIR MOVIE THAT WORKS. It is composed from 5 chapters each of which is made to look as a single shot. Each chapter is in a different point in time (not in linear order) in a span of 2 years. Some scenes ask for non-trivial interpretation. Nothing was familiar to me in the cast of production. I found it just a little demanding but it stayed with me for 2 years now.

This is a sad and sometimes relatively gritty film - the plot was annoyingly slow and it didn't feel like it had any real direction at times but it does pick up a bit, a while later. I wasn't convinced it was worth watching for a while but the acting by one or two characters made me stick with it for the most part. This isn't by any means a memorable film and the story is far from original, it isn't a film I'd recommend but it's not quite especially awful, just, also, it's certainly not good.

The ending was hard to believe, otherwise an interesting movie.

Bu zamana kadar birbirinin klonu gibi gelen senaryoların aksine bu film, ilham aldığı tüm fikir ve işlere saygı niteliğinde olmasının yanında, ikonik bir film türünün iddialı şekilde yeniden yorumlanmasının bir örneğiydi. Bu filmin sevmeyeni çok ama ben çok sevdim.

Decent stab at a fresh spin on noir tropes doesn't really work, but there is enough here to make it worth seeking out; gimmick of 5 x 20ish minute unbroken takes is an interesting one, but Hauck struggles making it feel organic to the story, especially during some conversations where the shaky panning makes you long for a cut or a static image! Generally well performed, with Hawkes a stand-out; Hauck's love and enthusiasm for vintage noir shines through, helping the film through its rough spots.

a neo-noir shot in five ostentatious long takes, shamelessly maximalist in a way that's as intoxicating as it is indulgent. comments on the slant review denounce it for misogyny, but hauck has roundly turned against his traditional masculine noir protagonist by the end, revealing the title to be his defining character trait. regardless, hawkes brooding, drinking and even singing his way through strip clubs, luxury apartments and cinema-cum-boxing-ring parking lots is a fine hook for any movie.

2016 was really a bit late in the day for this kind of mid-90's Tarantino imitation. The conceit of shooting each scene in unbroken slabs of real time does lead to some nice small moments of time-killing, the camera lingering on characters as they walk down a street or stand in a parking lot smoking a cigarette or hang out in a bar listening to a band play. The dialogue is OK when aping hard-boiled noirisms, bad when aping Tarantinoid chit-chat.

This film has an original script and some original ideas. The script does seem like it could use one more rewrite. After the film is over it does not feel complete. John Hawkes does a good job here. Overall this film is a little bit disappointing.

WTF did I just watch? This felt like the slew of Tarantino imitations that came out in the second half of the 90's (a la Destiny Turns On the Radio).

"Now, that's certainly ONE way of looking at it..."

An L.A. P.I. (John Hawkes) goes after those responsible for the murder of a young woman (Crystal Reed) with whom he has a complex connection. A script which wants rather desperately to be Tarantino provides a rather shaky foundation for a film which seems mostly to be a reminder of the glories of 35mm; a fine comic-tragic performance by Hawkes and good cinematography don't outweigh the dubious supporting cast, thin story, profoundly irritating dialogue, or questionable treatment of women.

The only thing that consistently works in this unremarkable neo-noir is John Hawkes' performance, which utilizes a Mitchum-esque attitude to carry us through this messy, fragmented narrative. Otherwise, most of Too Late's tricks make it feel like it was conceived by the 14-year-old who really digs Quentin Tarantino - the dialogue is laced with phony slang and leaden references, and the "5 unbroken takes" conceit, while interesting on paper, makes for a pretty ugly and frustrating experience.