Robert J. Maxwell It opens with four or five guys silently having a game of poker in a big office. A revolver sits in the middle of the table. The guy with the lowest hand must pick up the pistol, spin the cylinder, cock the pistol, hold it against the back of his hand and pull the trigger, hoping the hammer falls on an empty chamber.In the same room, Philip Seymour Hoffman sits slyly behind a big desk, quietly threatening a whore who has tried to run away again and been caught.An Asian man with a bloodied face is shackled to the radiator. He has his ribs kicked in by a humiliated youth who has bragged about his Glock and its silencer. The Asian is brought into another room where he is told his testicles will be removed with a pair of pruning shears but he has his brains blown out before this horror can descend on him.Well, I like Stanley Tucci, Robbie Coltrane, and Philip Seymour Hoffman a lot. I think they're terribly underrated and underused. Well, not Hoffman, but his parts are limited because he looks semi-ordinary, not at all like Cary Grant.On the other hand, I've had about enough torture porn and imitations of Quentin Tarantino. I couldn't sit through more than a few minutes of it before I knew with some certainty what to expect. Sorry. I found it revolting.

fordhim It seems nobody could make a crime movie between 1994 and 2000 without being accused of copying Quentin Tarantino. Granted, his movies are great, but scoffing at any movie that has an ensemble cast of decent actors in a story that involves guns and money is just robbing yourself of entertainment. I admit there are a lot of copycat movies out there and some are really crappy, but you have to judge each one on it's own merit. I consider Montana and Things to do in Denver when you're dead to be two great exceptions. They're just too damn fun to watch for me to be so critical of them. Maybe that's just me though. I try to find things that mean something to me in every movie I watch.I love Tarantino as much as the next guy, but how can you not enjoy Kyra Sedgewick beating and shooting people. You just don't see that everyday.

djexplorer Montana is worth seeing, but flawed. It is indeed in the style of Pulp Fiction, without being so tight or erotic. It's at least as casually violent. But that alone doesn't carry it. There's no Uma Thurman here in a leading role.The basic plot is fine, but not directed quite tightly enough. Sections in the middle drag considerably. Stanley Tucci does carry this film -- but so in a way does Robbin Tunney as Kitty, the gangster's moll. She does a fabulous job with her role -- and adds all the female sex appeal to the film, which is considerable. Tunney's role though is most unfashionable for the 90's -- a seductively submissive gangster's mistress. It becomes clear that the submissiveness is mostly an act, though her "role in life" cannot but remain 90's unfashionable. She proves herself plenty tough and resourceful when taking control is useful or essential to her (i.e. she blows away, and causes to be blown away, at least her share of bad guys.) One of the movie's big problems though is that there's nothing going on between her and the main male character, played by Tucci -- or anyone else on screen. (Actually, if there was between her and anyone, and it got any face time, she'd probably steal the movie completely away from Kyra Sedgwick. As it is, she actually almost does.) As others here have noted, Tucci's performance is wonderful, but he isn't on screen enough to carry the whole film. He's tough, cool, intense and utterly competent -- and edgily sexually compelling. Tucci's got a signature magnetism, despite his bald, average at best static looks. There's something about his intensity.The film's key problem is Kyra Sedgwick. She plays a tough as steel hit woman. But she's all business. But she's also about as emotional as steel. There's no erotic thrill to her. She's a cardboard character, without any real emotional vulnerabilities. But for her long curly hair, she's a thoroughly mannish character. I really haven't seen (or anyway remember) her in much else, but here she's thoroughly wooden. Of course because as-tough-as-any-man women are very much the 90's (and late 80's) fashion, this will tend to be overlooked by many. Men who are the same, and don't show a convincing vulnerable side to a woman they are attracted to, generally aren't very likeable protagonists either (though they can make good villains). If we didn't see the even colder hitman Jean Reno's intense (though initially guarded) affection for the 12 year old Natalie Portman in The Professional (Leon) for example, we wouldn't much care about him and the movie wouldn't have been nearly as powerful. Sedgwick goes through the motions of affection and caring for Tucci, but it doesn't remotely ring emotionally true. There's zero chemistry coming from her. It's actually rather weird, since chemistry DOES seem to be coming off of Tucci towards her big time, just not the other way around. (Makes me suppose she's strictly gay in addition to not being very good. Or was it the direction?) Anyway, for whatever reason, she simply doesn't work. I could care less what happens to her in this film, much less feel any sexual attraction whatsoever. Which is a big problem, since she's really the central character of the film, who stitches the various other characters together, and gets the most face time.I sure would like to see Robbin Tunney as the lead character in a good and intelligently erotic movie. She's sizzling hot here, without any nudity (but a lot of lingere). Unfortunately she was given only a limited screen time supporting role, with no one to really erotically interact with. She nonetheless simply exuded sexual chemistry. Unfortunately, that will be overlooked or dismissed by many because of her unfashionable role.

Armando-4 Montana is not a hit, but is a good example of how to make an excellent movie. The plot is 'tantalizer', the actors/tress are level one pro, and the director (Jennifer) is brilliant. I kept glued to the screen all the time, and my dinner went cold...I'd like to see more of Jennifer's work, but it seems this is the only film she did. At least I didn't find more titles at the IMDb. I'll appreciate any hint.