johnny-08
John Mackenzie's "Quicksand" is a solid thriller with well known actors. Michael Keaton could done more in his career, obviously he's not capable of doing that. Michael Caine is great actor but in this movie he's just here for the poster, so people can see that great Caine is in this movie. Like trick to draw viewers. Judith Godrèche is beautiful French actress but when will you Americans start to notice other actors, especially supporting ones. I'm aiming at Rade Serbedzija, one of the best Croatian actors. Serbedzija acts in theaters and in the movies and with Caine he's the only man in this crew who's doing that. Serbedzija is far better actor then Keaton and you have to believe me on this one because you haven't watched most of the movies where Serbedzija plays main character. What really bothers me is one comment about this movie. Author of that comment says that in this movie stars are Kaeton, Caine and that professor from "Mission Immposible 2". That actor has a name and that is Rade Serbedzija. Remember him cause he is better then Visnjic, star from "ER".
ca26
OK, the plot is clear enough - a compliance officer for a bank travels to Monaco to verify the sources of investor funding on a suspicious movie production. The production turns out to be a front used by the Russian mafia (in conjunction with local police) to launder money. When Michael Keaton's character (the compliance officer) starts sniffing around, the bad guys decide to frame him for murder. And, because the local cops are involved in the scheme, they plan to catch and kill him. So, he's on the run in Europe and gets aid from a couple of other characters who get drawn in as well.Anyways... the point of this review is not to tell you about the movie, but to save you money. This movie is not even mildly entertaining. It's worse than most 'made for TV' flicks you've seen. It's actually even worse than some pornos I've seen. It was obviously a "C"-level movie that got bumped up to "B" level because it has actors like Caine and Keaton in it. However, even though they are, as always, good actors, they still can't save this train wreck of a film. Bad writing and bad production meet head-on in what turns out to be an embarrassingly bad movie. I think the only entertainment value is as a "what NOT to do" lesson in film school. It's actually kinda funny (in a sad way), because it's so bad.There are goofs in almost every scene, aside from the cheesy lines and plot holes. I'm not angry or being vindictive. It's simply the truth. I actually went into this movie with high hopes because I love Keaton. But this is just such a waste of time, I'm trying to save anyone else from accidentally renting it. Anyone who gave this movie a good review is actually working for the distributor or production company. It's not even debatable, it's soooo bad, and the goofs are so glaring.I honestly assume that the reason Keaton and Caine signed on was because they owed someone a favor, or because it was a slow time for them & they got to take their families on vacation in the South of France for free.Goofs and plot holes from beginning to end. Look for the blinking corpse at the beginning, and look for Caine's ventriloquism near the end.
manuel-pestalozzi
This is a well crafted albeit formulaic movie. I don't find much fault with it - a blinking corpse can't distract me (contrary to other reviewers, as it seems). Incidentally, irritation is a major factor in the story, the main character, an ultra pedantic controller from a global consultancy enterprise (frankly a great, contemporary creation and a good, convincing performance by Michael Keaton) represents just a little, irritating grain of sand in the international machinery of crime.The plot is the 39 steps, Saboteur, North by Northwest etc. all over. A wrongly accused and framed man on the run gets help from a beautiful woman and succeeds in turning the table on his pursuers. The grace, elegance and beauty of actress Judith Godrèche is a major asset of Quicksand. As far as the crime and the front for it are concerned, I found the movie credible. I assume in this aspect it relates to actuality more accurately than one might feel comfortable with. White slave trade from Eastern Europe is a new and unpleasant reality in Western Europe and probably in America as well. It happens in front of our doorsteps, so to speak. If Quicksand helps to bring this to mind, all the better.They had some excellent location scouts working on this movie. Almost the whole story evolves in and around the town of Nice and I found they caught the feel of this picture postcard place with its not so nice underbelly perfectly. There is a great assassination scene in the central district - and one will find references to Hitchcock's Nice-movie To Catch a Thief here and there. My favorite location is the small open air cinema high up above the coastline in the hills which serves as meeting place between Keaton and Godrèche. Who wouldn't like to be there when the projector starts rolling?
ianharvey777
Really, this movie is trash.The plot has more holes than Swiss cheese and the storyline is so lame I found myself laughing hysterically. I'm sorry, I could not suspend my disbelief for this one.My girlfriend rented it because she likes the two Mikes....I like 'em too but I swear they must have done this one for a tax write off or as a favour or to get out of some other contractual obligation.It was so bad I was looking at the credits to try and find out who funded it....it was so bad I thought it had to be a telefim Canada project or some other government body somewhere...which would explain the multi shooting units, Canada, US, Monaco and England.But no...someone put up good money for this bad display of cinematography. How it ended up like this is beyond me.I mean, there are some okay moments but it's like it was shot in another language and then translated....it just doesn't work.I got lost so many times as to what the story line was I gave up...and some of the linkages are so weak a six-year-old could have done better at show and tell.I'm not going to spoil it for anyone because I honestly can't bring myself to parrot the story line....with it's predictable ending.At one point though, I did think it was art imitating life imitating art, or was that life imitating art...never mind..the premise has something to do the illusion of movie making and how things aren't always as they appear to be, but it's done with such heavy handed direction and editing, it's a complete yawner.My advice? Unless you are a student of the form, stay away. If you are a student of the form, watch and learn what not to do.
AD
