Let's be realistic.

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Well, this movie was poorly made. It really was, which is probably why we didn't see it anywhere and I had to actively track it down.But, a big part of it is likely the budget. It stinks of low budget and you can't really make an ultra low budget period flick and have actually turn out well.But, 7 of 10 stars because it is unique. The story is original, and that is probably why it had such a low budget feel to it, but that doesn't really matter at all.You still have an Elmore Leonard movie, which means you still have characters you haven't really encountered in stories before and a plot that you haven't really seen before all in a genre--crime--that is over done and paint-by-numbers.So, watch it, if nothing more than you are getting a real story, a fresh story, an Elmore Leonard story and he is always worth it...because without him you get more of the same old crap on repeat.It's a story you probably haven't encountered before and that is always worth a watching.

I really liked this movie, but I would be hesitant to recommend it without some qualifiers. First, you are much more likely to enjoy this movie if you grew up in the 1970s, since the cars and fashions are a blast from the past. Being a car guy, I especially loved the cars, and there were a lot of really nice and interesting ones in this film. While others don't seem to feel that it captured the '70s well, I strongly disagree--guess it depends what you were exposed to then. Second, I've never read whatever book this is supposed to be based on (or any other works by the author for that matter), but as far as this film goes, it is understated and will seem a bit slow to some; however, it never drags and has a number of laugh out loud bits, and, just generally, a lot of wit in the script. I am personally tired of "Wham, Bam, Thank You Mam!" film-making, so if a film takes time to build as this one does, it's fine by me. This movie would never play well in a movie theater, but it was perfect for me kicking back late at night.

. . . one expects a little more than FREAKY DEAKY delivers. Apparently this was exhibited theatrically somewhere for at least 15 minutes, but it plays like a second-rate made-for-cable-TV flick. Since it does not have any nudity, Showtime and Cinemax definitely did not underwrite FREAKY DEAKY's bills. If there is a Speed Junior channel available somewhere (or better yet, a Jackass Channel aimed at the Amish market), FREAKY DEAKY would be a good fit, since the producers idea of fun is to blow up everyone but the bomb squad cop with explosions spaced about 15 minutes apart. Nothing too graphic, since FREAKY DEAKY (unlike, say, PULP FICTION) is film that pulls all of its punches. The characterizations are thin and unbelievable, and the actors do not look like they're having much fun--two things one would NOT say about PULP FICTION. According to recent comments from the mayor of Boston, Detroit should not have a bomb squad, anyway (in FREAKY DEAKY, Billy Burke plays Motor City demolitions Defuser Sgt. Chris Mankowski). Bean Town's boss says the first thing he would do in the Mitten State is blow up its biggest city.

I wanted to like this film. I love Elmore Leonard novels, and loved Get Shorty, 52 Pickup, Get Straight and Jackie Brown (Rum Punch). In the hands of a master like Tarantino, Elmore Leonard's complex and fast-paced plots, with numerous characters throwing witty street banter around, really shine.Unfortunately, Charles Mattheau isn't up to the task, and characters are miscast, pacing is awful, even the score is wrong in so many places. This film often comes off as a bad TV tongue-in-cheek crime show, complete with dramatic musical flourishes when the camera zooms in on the sexy legs of actresses Sabina Gadeki and Breanne Racano. (Their legs and other beautiful body parts are the best things about these mediocre actresses, in my opinion). The explosion scenes are evidence of a severe shortage in the sfx budget as well as the actor budget.Even the usually outstanding Crispin Glover as the spacey drunken rich guy Woody Ricks is tepid, either overacting scenes or underacting them. Everything seems out of sync in this film.Perhaps I'm holding it up to too high of a standard with the aforementioned Leonard film adaptations. But it is what it is...and cool 70's sets and apparel (the novel was set in the 60s), witty Leonard dialog and clever plot apparently weren't enough for director Mattheau to pull this off. I have to believe Elmore Leonard is supremely disappointed in this effort, since as I recall he labeled this his favorite novel. One can only hope that someday a director like Tarantino remakes this film the right way, and captures the crazy 60's vibe from the novel.