Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

The worst thing I can say about this movie is that the plot reminded me of the story that Chevy Chase's character was writing in FUNNY FARM (a very funny film for those who like Chevy Chase humor). That is, there's not much original to the plot, and it's delivered in a rather clumsy way.That said, I could see what the writer/director was trying for, and appreciated the attempt. This appreciation was bolstered by the great acting, which really carried the film. I was not familiar with more than two of the actors who made cameos (Garner and the old guy, who's name escapes me), so I wasn't distracted by knowing where they are today (doing fairly well on television, it seems).I won't go into details of the plot, as there are several reviewers that have already covered the main beats, and the subsequent problems. However, the dialog and direction was decent enough, the cinematography and camera movement excellent, and the acting superb. I was expecting a train wreck, but was pleasantly surprised, and even though a portion of the ending left me a bit let down (the reveal is not handled as well as it could have been...and degrades the story up until that point), the overall tenor and message was something that many of today's films don't succeed at, if they even try.I am a person who will turn off a DVD, or walk out of a film, if I don't enjoy it. I watched this through to the end, because I found the actors enthralling, and their characters well developed. And as far as story and the rest, it's certainly on a par with most everything else released by major studios.

This movie is a waste of time. Though it has actors who have the potential to do something decent, the acting in the movie is sub-par, and has a cliché point. "You never know what's going to happen tomorrow, so live your life to the fullest and do what makes you happy." That sentence saves you from wasting hours of your life on this movie. People who like this movie are the same people who would enjoy sitting for two hours before finding that the entire movie was a dream sequence. If the most important part of the movie isn't even going to happen, at least make it enjoyable to watch and captivating. There's a reason this project didn't make a theatrical release, and though indy films can turn out very good, this one does not even come close.

"Stealing Time" actually dates back to 2001 when it was mysteriously titled "Rennie's Landing". Which explains how director Marc Fusco was able to afford this cast of now established television/movie actors in what is obviously an extremely low budget production. About ten minutes into the film you understand why this thing never got a theatrical release after it made the film festival rounds several years ago. Its recent distribution by Franchise Pictures probably reflects a perception that the rising popularity of certain cast members can be milked to recover some of the modest production costs. Although not a great addition to anyone's resume, young actors have done worse things when they were desperately seeking acting work of any kind.Peter Facinelli, Ethan Embry, Scott Foley and Charlotte Ayanna play college friends who do an early "Big Chill" reunion and compare war stories about the failure of reality to measure up to their dreams. Unfortunately nothing else happens, absolutely nothing. Yes Alec (Facinelli) dreams about a liquor store holdup and a bank robbery, which are then "cheaply and lamely" staged to completely inappropriate music. It is the least suspenseful bank job since W.C. Fields was the guard in "The Bank Dick". If anyone can point to any moment in "Stealing Time" where something "actually" happens I would like to know about it, because as far as I can tell, not a thing happens in the whole film. Perhaps Fusco, through incessant visual reflections, is trying to say something profound about taking control of one's life before it is too late. Like "St. Elmo's Fire" the movie is littered with every profound thought ever uttered by a young adult who has left the ivory tower to experience the real world for the first time.I felt Fusco was going for a kind of Howard Hawks Young Professionals in Action "Only Angels Have Wings" motif. Then again, I'm sure I was reading much too much into the film. After all, things actually happen Howard Hawks films.Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

This movie has a great Gen Y ensemble cast, including Peter Facinelli (Riding in Cars With Boys), Ethan Embry (Can't Hardly Wait), Scott Foley (Felicity), and a cameo by Jennifer Garner (Alias). The clever script has its ups and downs, but is generally carried well throughout the movie. Marc Fusco's (Steven Spielberg's personal assistant) direction is stylized and stimulating, thoroughly disguising the use of digital video. Although it starts out as a millennial update to Saint Elmo's Fire, the unique spirit of this film saves it from tedium, and the twisty ending elevates it far above the ordinary. Rennie's Landing sucks you in from the first frames, and doesn't let go until long after the credits have rolled.