rsubber Contains spoiler. This Johnny Depp/Christopher Walken film is unremarkable in quite a few ways: at least, cinematography, script, acting are on the list . . . But I was drawn to the central theme—the paralyzing horror of Depp's predicament. I think Johnny pretty well covers the range of emotions you'd think everyone would feel in his situation. His desperation seems real. Realistic. Lost. Enervated. Enraged. Galvanized. The unremitting adrenaline, pushing him to act, or run . . . or kill. I was on his side, but I did not want to be him. Almost too dreadful to say it in words: kill, or see his child killed. I waited and watched for his escape, his release, his salvation. I fiercely wonder how I would act in such a raging, tormented dilemma. My salvation, right at the moment, is that I don't have to make the choice. Read more on my blogs: Barley Literate History: Bottom Lines

jv-181-346883 Everything in that movie is phony. The basic thing if you want to make a good suspense film is that the situation is believable and you can identify with the protagonist and think: "Oh my Gosh that could happen to me" "If it does, I would react exactly like this"... In this film a very strong and professional outfit (Christopher Walken) wants to kill the governor of California (we'll never know why) during a political meeting (so corny, already in 1995).This outfit include almost everybody except the governor herself, including all the security crew (!??). And in order to do that they kidnap some guy (Johnny Depp) and his daughter randomly at the train station, give a gun to this guy (who has never used a gun before in his life) and tell him that if he doesn't kill the governor at 1:30 pm they will execute his daughter. Off course the guy doesn't want to do it and try to escape them but Christopher Walken keeps popping up from everywhere to keep the pressure on Johnny Depp. So the question is: "Why didn't they hire some hit-man to do the job????"Because there would have been no film? Yes, it's true but it would have made more sense.

david-sarkies This movie is a simple action movie with a little twist. The twist is that it is filmed in real time. That is the time that passes in the movie is exactly the same time that passes in the real world. Thus the movie plays out over about an hour and forty minutes, and the same amount of time passes in the world of the movie.An accountant comes into Los Angeles with his beautiful little daughter after going to his ex-wife's funeral. At the railway station, two people, claiming to be police officers (and I do not doubt that they are police officers) approach him and ask him to come with them. Once they are in the van, they hold his daughter hostage and tell him that unless his kills a specific woman within one and a half hours, his daughter will die. It turns out that this woman is the governess of California.The plot is interesting as it turns out that a lot of people have conspired to kill the governor. The reason is that she broke a number of promises when she was elected, and these promises were to her sponsors. She got into office on a business platform, and once she was there, she took a social justice platform, and her one time allies did not like this. This seems to be central in American politics. This I will look at after I look at the plot itself.Everybody was involved in this, but the accountant was simply a scape goat. This becomes even more evident in the closing scenes where at least three people draw guns. What happens though is that there is an Asian guy with a video camera who keeps his eye on the accountant. This is because the accountant is a scape goat and will take the brunt of the public anger while the real conspirators escape. Yet the accountant is very willing to go through with the deed, but only if he does not get caught - this is seen when he is alone in the room with the sleeping governor - but once she awakens his attitude changes. He will do it to save his daughter, but he knows that if he does it, he will go to gaol - or be executed, which is more likely, and his daughter will probably die anyway.This is interesting that the movie also deals with the battle between the left and the right. The right has always been for less state intervention and the free market economy, while the left has been for social justice. Social justice infringes on the free market and as such the right does not like it. LBJ, one of my favourite presidents, was very much for social justice. This movie represents, in a more violent way, the struggle between the right and the left in America - and the right is very much stronger, as we see here. In 1968, when Nixon was elected, it is said that the left and the New Deal, which is represented by the governor, was finally defeated and that the Americans went for a free market economy. It is interesting that the ones who have the power in the movie are those behind the scenes, while everybody seems to be supporting the governor.This movie was alright, and it is that real-time aspect of it that makes it interesting. It is also a decent action movie, and Johnny Depp is a pretty cool actor - especially how he seems to devote himself to independent movies. He actually seems to play the innocent accountant much better than the punk cop.

thesar-2 Previously, when initially released in 1995 and in years following, I was a huge fan of Nick of Time. I had loved Johnny Depp's straight man performance, even though in 1995, he hadn't gone all crazy-role just yet.It's been probably well over a decade since I've last seen this movie and back in the 1990s, I had seen it multiple times. Today, it somewhat holds up.I still like Johnny in a non-looney role – ironically, I think he's trying too over-the-top for his past decade roles in order to be original, and yet, it might actually be original for him to return to this kind of character. I also appreciate Christopher Walken in pretty much anything, including this and always have liked Roma Maffia. I dig that chick.The movie cannot be taken seriously and you might enjoy it a little more. I don't think they were trying for anything too heavy and as a short and tight thriller with actual decent performances (not mentioned above, but still good, was shoe-shinning Charles S. Dutton,) it's entertaining.Pre-24 days, everyday man, Gene (Depp,) travels via train with his daughter when they're approached and coerced into assassinating the Governor at a nearby hotel and rally. Basically, and the plot is basic, two parties, Walken's Mr. Smith and Maffia's Mrs. Smith are watching Gene and his daughter, respectively and separately. Gene can't go to the police because bad man Mr. Smith's got eyes everywhere and his daughter is unaware she's in danger.Oh, and he's got 90 minutes to get close to and kill the Governor, or his daughter dies. Probably him, too.On the surface – or from a distance, the premise seems exciting and thrilling. And for the most part, the ingeniousness of Gene to handle something, including a gun, that he's never had to before, was pretty entertaining. But, once watched, it does show a little bit of B-movie qualities that reminds us again: don't take this seriously.Sure, I recommend it, but if I watched it for the first time today, I probably wouldn't have seen it the many times I did back in the 1990s.