People I Know

Rating:
Summary: Politics, drugs and questionable ethics -- at a frantic pace
Review: This 2002 film stars Al Pacino. Yes, that's right, All Pacino. Then how come I never heard about it until I saw a trailer on a DVD I recently rented? How come it didn't last in the theaters? I don't have an answer to that because I believe that if it had the right publicity it might have done better in the box office department.

Talking about publicity, it seems ironic but this is what the film is about. Al Pacino is cast as Eli Wurman, an aging New York publicist who is planning a fundraiser. It's for the kind of cause, however, that has seen its glory in the 1960s, and the cause seems old and tired, as does Eli. With the skill of a good makeup artist, Pacino looks dissipated. He has sagging jowls and dark bags under his eyes. But his voice is strong and, in spite of the fact that the character he portrays is constantly popping tremendous amounts of prescription drugs, his strong personality comes through. There's a frantic pace about this film, which includes politics, drugs and questionable ethics.

Kim Bassinger plays his sister-in-law who gives him a chance at another way of life. Tea Leoni plays a high-priced model who's hooked on every kind of drug imaginable and who's the girlfriend of a politician. Then there are the real life newscasters and personalities who all make their entrance to give the film it's gritty reality, such as former NY City Police chief William Bratton, TV host Regis Philbin, critic Rex Reed and newscaster Pat Kiernan to name just a few.

I liked the New York scene the film portrayed. I thought the acting was wonderful, especially Pacino. The story was fast-paced and held my interest. And I felt some real emotion for Pacino's character. Recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your time or money
Review: When I read all the reviews on Amazon, I hesitated buying this DVD. But since one of my favorite actors such Al Pacino stars in it, I thought I'll give it a shot, especially after I read the positive Ebert & Roeper's quote on the cover.
In few words, acting is good, however, the movie is slow paced and the plot is lame. Save your money and don't waste your time on this one.


Rating:
Summary: Not great, not bad...
Review: Wow... was quite surprised by the low marks for this film that everyone else gave. I'd give it a 3.5, except I rounded down (I usually round up, so I had to eventually balance it out a bit). Besides his variable southern accent, I thought Pacino turned in a fine performance (though appearing to be half asleep throughout the movie, not unlike "Insomnia"). Plot was interesting enough (I know... "what plot?") given the feel of the characters portrayed in the story. Definitely not territory that hasn't been trodden on before (the seedy codependent ménage à trois between politics, wealth, and the media), but I did like the overall appearance and mood of the film.

Yes, it was hokey in places... formulaic in places... but I've surely seen a lot worse flicks that had full studio backing and LOTS of wasted theater time, when this thing was practically a "straight-to-video" release. Not sure of the logic there...

And some of you folks who slammed this probably thought "Sleepless in Seattle" and "City of Angels" were touching, moving, cinematographic pieces of art, eh?