Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

elshikh4 A thriller, in older time, while having a meaning about the importance of not being lonely. I asked myself why it wasn't made by one of the major studios in Hollywood? At the end, I kind of figured it out. The script didn't get deep with the sex and violence of the story. That's it. But, while that being a good thing, it messed, else publicity, the more artistic side that could distinguish the mainstream production sometimes.While it is good and nicely done, this movie lacked more heat, thrill, and most of all style. It seems to be another movie of the week, yet with some gloss. I don't know why it didn't go through its catchy characters, especially the criminal dual. There is absolutely no satisfactory scene for any of them to talk elaborately about themselves, their history, or complications. With another, more sophisticated, director and writer it could have been more interesting and attractive.Whether (John Travolta) meant to handle his character so romantically, or he just was himself. Both ways he didn't affect much. Obviously he likes to flee from Hollywood to do more different, and no light, specter of humans, instead of the nutty evil men, or familiar good men, that Hollywood uses him for. But sorry dear John, you allowed your charisma and frozen quiet grin lead everything, and that was not enough for me. Why I longed for (Russell Crowe) during the whole time?! (James Gandolfini) was sure better. Look at the way he masters utilizing his big body's language. And he, unlike Travolta, wasn't acting at all, not even a bit. Despite the shortness of his role, this is one of the best performances I have ever seen for him to date. (Laura Dern) made fair efforts, according to fairly written material. On the contrary, (Salma Hayek) and (Jared Leto) had been highly wronged by such a careless script.It kept reminding me of (Hollywoodland), strangely produced in the same year. The resonance of true story, the 2 story lines, America of the 1950's. On the level of being even, (Lonely Hearts) wins. Not the same result on the rest levels though. One of my friends used to call the ordinary art works : plain bread. Well, this one is. Yet while having a potential story, stars, and fair atmosphere. Read my title again to have the whole picture !

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU I here compare this film with its model, Lonely Hearts (1969).The two films go together since the former is a remake of the latter. They have to be watched together, one after the other, no matter in what order. The story is pathetic and pitiful. A man takes advantage of the loneliness of some women to literally "abduct" them from sanity and "infect" them with infatuation, which enables him to clean them up of their possessions. But one really falls in love and she abducts him from sanity and infects him with her jealousy into killing the women on whose backs they live. A killing couple, supposedly brother and sister, who skim and milk the crowd of solitary and lonely middle class women.The older film (1969) in black and white was a small budget thriller and it shows how jealousy is mounting and building up in the woman and how she manipulates the man into becoming a killer, till the moment she discovers he is a liar. Then she will cause his downfall herself and her own at the same time. Pure jealousy confronted to a lying partner in a situation that can only give birth to extreme jealousy. It is not easy to be a female pimp of a male gigolo. But the man and the woman are both perfectly composed and logical till the end. The beginning though seems too slow.The more recent film (2006) shifts the vision of the criminal situation from a more or less objective unidentified abstract observer to a team of two cops following the murderers and the bloody trail they leave behind. And the observer is the partner of the main detective. This film shifts the criminal idea from pure jealousy in the woman to insanity in the man. He is a killer instead of being a manipulated gigolo. He is not lying to the woman but she can't stand what she makes him do, hence she is crazy somewhere too. But she will not cause his downfall. They will be caught up by the cops from New York because he starts enjoying killing simple witnesses or passers-by. But here the beginning is turned into some circus parade.This latter film intensively also shows Old Sparky, the full execution of the man with it and only the first phase for the woman. It becomes a graphic film against death penalty since Old Sparky is positioned both at the beginning and at the end of the film, sandwiching the story between these haunting visions. The technique used in this color film is a lot more dynamic and lively than in the older film. But it does not really add to the subject except the vision of Old Sparky but it is an easy explanation to declare a criminal crazy. He might be deranged and get deranged by his own crimes but he has to be sane and perfectly well balanced to go on with killing and escaping. That's why he is shown as losing his mind when at the end he leaves corpses along the road and does not run away.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

kneiss1 I loved the actor, the atmosphere and especially the music. While the story itself wasn't great, it was told greatly. - The timing was perfect. All in all a great watching experience was created. If only I would have found the murdering couple more convincing. They have been drawn way too likable and "nice". It was simply unbelievable that those two sympathetic people could commit those crimes. (That goes especially for Jared Leto. Salma was able to convince me to be a beast most of the time.)The other problem I had, was the story around the detective Travolta. I didn't find it very interesting, and I believe it barely fit to the main theme of the movie.After checking IMDb I realized that this movie was based on a real story. Knowing that, I believe that the movie should have been more realistic, and more shocking. You didn't see their last and worst crime in the movie, you only heard the officers talking about it. Killing a child is one of the worst horrors you can commit. And it simply didn't seem shocking in this movie. There was no "shock effect". I don't ever want to see a child being killed on the television screen. That is not what I am asking for. - What they should have done, is: Show how they start to kill the child, and then turn back to John Travolta. That should have created the shock effect. I am not exactly a fan of movies telling real life crimes. I will never ever watch "an American Crime" again. - But I will always remember that movie with a shiver. I'll probably forget about Lonely Hearts.

poe426 Talk about flying under the radar... No doubt the strong sexual content has had something to do with this: we may be stupid and ultraviolent in this schizo country of ours, but we're also prudes. Beautifully written and directed, LONELY HEARTS gives John Travolta yet one more golden opportunity to be Golden. Likewsie, Gandolfini, whose performance goes hand-in-hand with Travolta's. Hyek does what she can with her role, but the fact that the character was changed from an overweight wallflower to... well, Selma Hyek... is a detriment. One could've (at least superficially) understood her obsession with holding on to "her man" if she'd been portrayed as the dumpy matron she was in Life: as it stands, Hyek seems shoe-horned into the part. (Kathy Bates would've been a much better choice.) Despite this, the movie resonates. It's hard to believe it wasn't more highly touted (I don't even recall seeing it advertised anywhere)...