input: This is very nearly a perfect film. The ideas would be repeated by Mamet, but never told so succinctly. This is really about the failure of trust, of the human condition. The film weaves the idea that we are all criminals, no one is innocent. Is there anyone alive today who hasn't seen this play out in our own society, every single day? The film is very much structured like a Hitchcock thriller. Except, there are no more innocent characters. The world is now completely polluted, ruined and everyone is participating in the con. Could anything be more true?

Don't miss the soundtrack. It is wonderful.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Kudos to the writers of this film for creating a supremely engaging drama. The curious character development is indicative of a nuanced and well schooled writing team. The audience member cannot but help but to feel that (s)he must make wrenching emotional decisions pitting the cerebral against the libidinal. The viewer has an opportunity to develop the character herself, though her predictions are rarely validated.

Credit is also due to the filmmakers for breathing life into the setting. The wood-shop is transformed into a unique persona as the film unfolds, with its own traits, faults, a variety of highly charged relationships, and of course a fate inexorably tied to that of the other principals.

Make sure to catch this one at your local art-house.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: As I said, the book was pretty good and this might have been a good movie if Melissa Gilbert hadn't been so horrible and unbelievable in the lead roll. What kind of accent was that suppose to be anyway? It sounded the same as her horrible Russian accent in another movie that I have seen her in. Every time she opened her mouth I cringed. It took 3 tries before I was able to watch the entire movie. Brad Johnson was good as the other lead.

I really liked the beach location scenes. They added some much needed brightness to take your mind off of Melissa Gilberts depressing portrayal. I think they could have used San Francisco views more to their advantage though. It looked like the night scenes were actually SF, but I could be wrong. I don't recall the character in the book being this depressing.

Please keep Melissa Gilbert out of any future movies that require an accent!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: David Arquette is a young and naive home security alarm

salesman taken under the wing of Stanley Tucci. Arquette is a

golden boy, scoring a big sale on his first call- to widow Kate

Capshaw and her dopey son Ryan Reynolds. Things are going

well for Arquette, he is appearing in commercials for the security

firm and he is falling in love with Capshaw.

Then Tucci and his right hand woman Mary McCormack let him in

on a little secret- they sometimes break into the houses of their

clients in order to scare them and to get their neighbors to buy

security systems from the firm. Arquette decides not to get

involved, taking Capshaw to meet his family, and going through life

with a goofy smile on his face. Then, someone breaks into

Capshaw's home and murders her and her son. Arquette suspects Tucci, and sets a series of traps, resulting in a gun to his

boss' head as Tucci pleads his innocence.

Based on a stage play, "The Alarmist" is not opened up well. The

scenes where Arquette takes the Capshaw to meet his parents

are badly played and completely unfunny. They are also out of line

with the character Capshaw is playing, as she gets drunk and tells

sexually explicit stories to Arquette's mom Michael Learned. Other

than these scenes, Capshaw is not given much to do, but she

does a lot with the little she is given.

Stanley Tucci, looking just like Terry O'Quinn, is a riot as the

security firm owner. He is a creep who really does not understand

Arquette's moral revulsion. However, when he turns into a

sniveling whiner after Arquette kidnaps him, he is hilarious. Mary

McCormack seems to have been groomed for a bigger role, but

she mostly stands around and agrees with Tucci. Ryan Reynolds

is too old to play a dumb teenager, but he is funny, especially

telling his own explicit sexual story to Arquette.

The screenplay lurches from romantic comedy to dark comedy too

soon. Capshaw meeting the parents is completely unmotivated,

except to give her a reason to get out of town so someone can

break into her house. Capshaw and Reynolds are in the film just

to give Arquette a reason to take revenge on Tucci.

Arquette, who has proven he is a good actor, is awful here. He

relies on the constipated mugging that got him through those

AT&T ads, and he is not a strong enough presence to build this

weak film around. Actually, Reynolds might have been a better

choice in the role.

Dunsky's direction is good, nothing that will win an Oscar soon.

Christophe Beck's light jazzy score recalls the type of film noir this

film tries to be, and it is really catchy on top of that.

Despite the pluses, Arquette's failure as a lead and the script's

schizophrenic quality sinks the film. I do not recommend it.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, some gore,

strong profanity, brief female nudity, sexual content, strong sexual

references, and adult situations.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative