JOBLO'S MOVIE REVIEWS

SEARCH BY TITLE # A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Domino (2005)
star Printer-Friendly version
Review Date: October 12, 2005
Director: Tony Scott
Writer: Richard Kelly
Producers: Tony Scott, Ridley Scott, Samuel Hadida
Actors:
Keira Knightley as Domino
Mickey Rourke as Ed
Edgar Ramirez as Choco
Plot:
Just in case you haven’t heard this one yet: the girl’s name is Domino and she apparently hunts bounties for a living. Based on the true life of ex-model Domino Harvey (“sort of…” as the film points out), we get to follow this hottie chick around as she goes from prep school beeyatch to ass-kicking gun-toting beeyatch. Unfortunately, the actual story through which we experience her life is a little too confusing for everyone’s good, involving a reality TV show, the mob, some black chicks from the DMV, the FBI, a redneck and his mom, some real-life actors, well…I’ll stop now. My head’s starting to hurt again.
Critique:
I’m not exactly sure what kind of intoxicants director Tony Scott is trippin’ on these days, but whatever it is, I’m sure it’s in the same family as the shit that director Oliver Stone was smokin’ when he made NATURAL BORN KILLERS back in 1994. I say that because this is not a movie for everyone. No matter if you like the storyline or not (I actually had a problem with the plot myself), the film’s style is what will really slap you across the face, with hints of what you will find within provided in Scott’s last movie, MAN ON FIRE (my #2 movie of 2004). Personally, I enjoy that style for certain movies. It’s fine. Not every movie needs to be shot in the same f*ckin’ way! That said, the biggest difference between that flick and this one is that the former movie actually took the time to massage and present its lead characters to us in a mannered first hour, while this one, well…doesn’t really allow you to really get to know anyone, with about a million characters tossed into the mix, and a plotline as convoluted as my last date’s home address (let’s face it, she lied about where she lived). What’s even more surprising is that the screenplay was written by none other than the Boy Wonder who created the very original Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly, but the only weird thing about this script is that they decided to rip off Scott’s own TRUE ROMANCE conclusion to a f*ckin’ tee, without anybody calling them on it. Also, the film makes a big deal out of this line, so I have to point it out, because it’s so dumb: “There are three kinds of people in the world: the rich, the poor and everyone in between.” Is that supposed to be clever or something? Nice nod to POINT BREAK though…now there’s an awesome movie!

But before I make it sound like I hated the flick, allow me to point out that I was still quite entertained by it all, particularly because of the raggedy style of filmmaking that Scott has now taken to a level that is part music video/part movie production/part video game attention span gimmick. I also really enjoyed the lead threesome played by Knightley, Mickey Rourke (continuing his comeback and doing a great job at it!) and newcomer Edgar Ramirez, who I only wish we could have gotten to know even better. Ultimately, I think that was the film’s biggest problem. It simply didn’t spend enough time with its three main leads (at some point in the film, there was about 10-15 minutes without any scenes featuring the three…I mean, c’mon!!), and spends way too much on extraneous characters including a bunch of black chicks led by Mo’Nique (she actually does a good job) and Macy Gray, and the mob. They could have cut these characters out altogether (as well as all that stuff with Lucy Lui and the flashbacks) and the film would have played much better with a greater emphasis on the leads and a lot less confusion in the film’s overly convoluted plotline. The film also runs a little too long at 130 minutes. That said, the style rocks, the music is a big bag o’ fun, Christopher Walken swings by and plays it up as per his usual kooky style, the whole Beverly Hills 90210 angle was pretty funny (kudos to the two actors for being game enough to make fun of themselves), and the film’s pacing (despite being too long) was always moving at a clip, so you’re never really bored, even though things get too confusing and too many characters are cashing checks.

Oh, and even though Knightley apparently employed the use of an “ass-double” for her lap-dance scene (why would you admit to that?), she pulls a JACKET on us and shows us her boobies in the end anyway. What’s up with that?!? Very odd, and yet oddly enough…greatly appreciated! A decent flick that should have been amazing, but doesn’t make it all the way with a lack of focus on its main characters, a story that goes through too many puzzles and a runtime that outlasts itself. Also, the Tom Waits “cameo” in the end was idiotic and out of place. That said, some good times can still be had inside, so play it by ear and make your own decision on this one. I would definitely recommend you see TRUE ROMANCE over this one though. “Did you just say Blacktino?”
(c) 2014 Berge Garabedian
Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

6:16PM on 06/08/2006
I wish the keiera knightley sex scene would have been earlier in the film. That way i could of stopped watching it sooner. Kiera Knightley looks good and Edgar Ramirez being a complete phycho was pretty coo. The movie was boring and made little sense. It tried to be funny, it wasnt. It lacked action and was filled with moments that made me say "are you serious!? Thats stupid." Its no "Man on fire" thats for sure.
I wish the keiera knightley sex scene would have been earlier in the film. That way i could of stopped watching it sooner. Kiera Knightley looks good and Edgar Ramirez being a complete phycho was pretty coo. The movie was boring and made little sense. It tried to be funny, it wasnt. It lacked action and was filled with moments that made me say "are you serious!? Thats stupid." Its no "Man on fire" thats for sure.
Your Reply:



8:49AM on 05/20/2006

bleh with a little yippie

Its a interesting movie due to the fact of the way it was filmed, but sadly Man on Fire did it much better. Its a descent action movie, but better if your a chick and like the whole woman power, chicks beating up guys thing. Other than that Mickey Rourke entertained me, and Kierra Knightley me some eye candy, but offers not much else. REnt if you need to see it, but you wont miss any sleep missing it.
Its a interesting movie due to the fact of the way it was filmed, but sadly Man on Fire did it much better. Its a descent action movie, but better if your a chick and like the whole woman power, chicks beating up guys thing. Other than that Mickey Rourke entertained me, and Kierra Knightley me some eye candy, but offers not much else. REnt if you need to see it, but you wont miss any sleep missing it.
Your Reply:



2:17AM on 02/24/2006

NOT BAD

Domino is not bad. I didn't like the acid trip look of the film (i don't care if it's different, that doesn't mean it's good) and the directing and editing got on my nerves sometimes. But the Cast is great and there are some cool moments that kept me entertained. Not bad at all.
Domino is not bad. I didn't like the acid trip look of the film (i don't care if it's different, that doesn't mean it's good) and the directing and editing got on my nerves sometimes. But the Cast is great and there are some cool moments that kept me entertained. Not bad at all.
Your Reply:



8:04AM on 12/05/2005
So it looks cool. And Keira is hot. And Mickey Rourke is back. And..? Well, NOTHING! it's boring, predictable and felt like it lasted for 3 days or something. What a shame this should be Tony Scott's follow-up to the amazing MAN ON FIRE. Oh, and Keira is way overrated (as an actress)..
So it looks cool. And Keira is hot. And Mickey Rourke is back. And..? Well, NOTHING! it's boring, predictable and felt like it lasted for 3 days or something. What a shame this should be Tony Scott's follow-up to the amazing MAN ON FIRE. Oh, and Keira is way overrated (as an actress)..
Your Reply:



7:43PM on 10/26/2005

Borrrrrrrrring...

Tony Scott's work on "Domino" firmly places him smack in the middle of a cinematic line between Oliver Stone and Michael Bay. That might be right up somebody's alley, but I mean that he draws from the stylistic cliches of both. This movie is half baked and spends a REALLY LONG TIME going over very little plot. Even the action sequences themselves get boring by the final climax. I think Kiera Knightly has nothing to work with in this script, and just sort of poses and flounders. Mickey
Tony Scott's work on "Domino" firmly places him smack in the middle of a cinematic line between Oliver Stone and Michael Bay. That might be right up somebody's alley, but I mean that he draws from the stylistic cliches of both. This movie is half baked and spends a REALLY LONG TIME going over very little plot. Even the action sequences themselves get boring by the final climax. I think Kiera Knightly has nothing to work with in this script, and just sort of poses and flounders. Mickey Rourke is the only one able to have fun with his underwritten part, but he unfortunately fades away from the script as it progresses. This movie does earn comparisons to "True Romance", except without the strong plot, well-written characters, and style that serves the story well.
Your Reply:



4:00PM on 10/17/2005
truly a disapointment, i had great hope for the movie when it was originally supposed to premire this summer.
truly a disapointment, i had great hope for the movie when it was originally supposed to premire this summer.
Your Reply:



3:08AM on 10/13/2005
scott is the only director out there who knows about cinema style. and although i love scott "true romance" isn't thaaat good, probably because it doesnt has this unique style.
scott is the only director out there who knows about cinema style. and although i love scott "true romance" isn't thaaat good, probably because it doesnt has this unique style.
Your Reply:



JoBlo's T-Shirt Shoppe | support our site... Wear Our Gear!