What a waste of my time!!!

Dreadfully Boring

Brilliant and touching

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

The movie is good, with nice odd pacing that builds the suspense well, It's the casting that keeps it from being great. Still worth a one eyed viewing , though. Eisenberg does good as the brooding weirdo, and Fanning is't too bad- but a bit blank, even for her. .That vacuous stare comes in handy as the amenable go along ( a little TOO convincing though). You almost want to paint pupils in her eyes. Problem is, Peter "Sashgaard" cast as an "X con X marine" (thats not a typo,Saashgard and X marine in the same sentence) didn't work. It was like casting Betty White as a Hell's Angel. His costume said "hood" but , no offense , his accent screamed VASSAR ! ( Vassar BEFORE they went co ed). Basic group of not too bright semi hippy dippy types decide to blow up a dam, and damned if they don't make all kinda mistakes. I like the way it moves slowly to build up the suspense. It's also realistic where the chick starts spazing out, a nice break from the ubiquitous cool calm ass kicker Jolieesque" portrayal which is the flavor of the day. The ending is also a nice twist, different, nice for a change.

For anyone familiar with famed indie director Kelly Reichardt's work you know what you're in for with Night Moves. Reichardt specializes in a sort of pondering, slow paced narrative that has seen her reach some great heights (Wendy and Lucy) and some real lowlights (Meeks Cutoff) that now with Night Moves has seen her move into an interesting new direction without losing the style that has gained her a steady stream of critical praise over her years in the industry.This new direction we speak of is that of the eco/environmental thriller, a new sub-genre that has sprung up in recent years as the continued focus on the earth's natural demise has been more prevalent. Reichardt's slow burn pacing and nearly non-existent background work actually works incredibly well in setting up Moves central plot devise, that of an act of eco-terrorism in the blowing up of an energy dam.For the first hour or so here Reichardt ratchets up the tension to an incredible level and it's not through scripting or clever edits, merely through a methodical pacing that almost feels as if it's playing out in real time, making the audience feel a part of whatever is about to go down. Once the films central act becomes old news the film takes on a less effective yet in the end scenes, tension riddled aspect that sees Reichardt's cast come to the forefront.Everyone's favourite bundle of nervous edginess Jesse Eisenberg is front and centre here in Moves and his natural persona fits perfectly for the characters of Josh, a young man clearly dedicated yet not overly ready for the repercussions of his actions, even if they are in theory, for good. Eisenberg is ably supported by another grown up turn by Dakota Fanning who can still deliver dialogue in a unique way and Peter Sarsgaard in another one of his somewhat creepy loner roles. The lead cast of three produce an uneasy and well played out chemistry that fits this tale well and along with Jeff Grace's moody score and Christopher Blauvelt's stoic cinematography, creates a real unique feel to this non-conventional thriller.Night Moves is a film too ponderous for the mass market of movie lovers yet it has a humble and effective feel to it that allows those that go along with it to be invested and on edge with what is taking place. With a cast of solid leads and with a lovely visual feel, Night Moves has a groove all to its own and while never reaching grand heights, it's certainly a sight bit better than many of its more explosive yet idiotic thriller counterparts and a breath of fresh air for those that like their movies tinged with a slower pacing.3 1/2 bags of fertilizer out of 5

To appreciate this film, you have to be prepared for the work of Kelly Reichart, whose films tend to be slow-moving and thought-provoking. You have to be in the mood for that type of experience. For this particular film you also have to be prepared for an emotional reaction to the story of several people who take political action, violent action, and suffer its human costs. Anyone who was young during the 1960's and 1970's will remember what it was like to debate those political issues. We all had to decide whether we were willing to take action in which someone might get hurt. Or in the jargon of Star Trek, does the life of one outweigh the life of many? It's a question we still grapple with today. If you are willing to confront those questions, and your own answers, this film will interest you. If you don't like to think about such things, skip this film and watch something more superficial.

First let me tell you that I was going to give it a 6 or 7 rating because the story was good and the actors also did their job perfectly. But after thinking it over there are too much things that bothered me. First of all the ending, that was the major point for me to drop the ratings. It's not the first time that I watch a movie that isn't unpleasant but that has no decent ending. Why do some directors do that? Can you just not end a movie with a simple explanation or with a real end were you actually know what will happen? I hate movies that just end in the middle of nowhere without an explanation. And that's the main reason why I gave it a lower score. Also the movie is extremely slow. It's not necessarily bad sometimes but in this case I had more then once the feeling that they had to move on a little bit faster. Slightly disappointed in this movie.