Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Rachael5248 I was curious what was in the bag. I will turn off a movie after 10 minutes if I'm bored, but not this movie. Had good actors who did a good job. I would watch it again.

evenstar-81856 I'd challenge the other reviews here to a battle of wits, but they seem to be unarmed. :3 (The best lines in this movie sneak in there casually...)All the comments here (both positive and negative) that discuss only the literal dialogue/plot interactions seem to be overlooking that besides being a gritty noir populated with strange individuals, the characters are acting out a moral commentary on original sin.Whether you were able to predict what would be in the bag is not nearly as important as the question represented by the bag itself: Should you open it? Bite the apple? Gain knowledge and take responsibility for the consequences?There is a line about the value of allegiance being more than what John's character is getting for it, and the content of the bag (and the degrading aspect of his blind loyalty) is literally the cost of his greed. In no uncertain terms.Da Costa's character's love for Israel is not a quirky random comment - it's your clue-in to her representation of Eve (which follows shortly after the more pointed comment about "making Adam watch"...). Jack and Rivka are the only two characters here who show any humanity - empathy - so surely they are the parallels for humanity, Adam and Eve, in this dangerous and imperfect world.Meanwhile, what does De Niro represent? "What are you doing in public without your horns?" Da Costa remarks at a later point. This implies the devil, and yet his role in creating the whole environment the story takes place in (and establishing the bag scenario) is more like to that of god, creating the garden and yet including this invitation to "disaster" that is temptation in the form of the tree - the bag. Is opening the bag/biting the apple a sin, or is it means of empowerment?Wouldn't to obey perfectly and choose ignorance be to disappoint the potential of the human model? This is where De Niro's condescending comments about Pavlovian loyalty come in.What one "ought" to do depends on what is wanted by "god" from humanity: if "god" wanted a predictable/trustworthy tool then curiosity is a negative (biting the apple/opening the bag is a sin); if "god" wanted entities competent in handling free will, then the point of the test was, in fact, to break the rules for the sake of overcoming ignorance and avoiding purveying evil negligently. Delivering the bag without opening it causes a kind of "blank check" moral accountability - because you contributed while consciously choosing not to be aware of the content you were propagating. De Niro's "caveat emptor"... not checking the moral goods you're becoming responsible for is on you. You're still responsible, because the ignorance was intentional. To act with intentional ignorance is negligence.Then, there at the end, she is genuinely sorry for her curiosity, knowing it will cost them, and yet Jack's commitment at that particular moment is a confirmation that we *should* be curious. To bite the apple is to learn, to learn is to take responsibility, and to take responsibility is to reach for your humanity.John's character remarks, "you know we're going to die." What else would be the consequence of going against god? And yet I would argue that De Niro was meant to represent a false god (whether the perspective should be that all gods are false - rationalization for avoiding wrestling with responsibility for morality - I won't conclude) but there is a definite "man behind the curtain" feeling that emerges. Without spoiling any specifics, when things get more heated, De Niro's character threatens to destroy the whole world in which the story has turned - the motel. Is this the perceived threat of killing our religious allegiances (or any established power)? The threat of an uncertain outcome that intimidates us away from claiming responsibility. To challenge god and be wrong can cost us more than our own lives - it can implicate the lives of others. But our greed has already cost as much, and with less purpose.The implications can be extended to the viewer him/herself: Choosing to just demand our pay (as Jack does repeatedly) to continue living in our own bubble, for ease/convenience/laziness, can be a form of greed as costly as any other. To think we can live in comfort without moral culpability just by "minding our own business" while others suffer is greed. Almost a greed for peace - we are not willing to disturb the peace of our conventional routines to acknowledge the suffering of others. Which, we have a moral responsibility to do - to learn what is being done in our name by national proxy and deal with the responsibility, though it might cost our convenience and our hollow pride - it might be the death of our plastic bubble lives. Takes courage to open the bag.

Noah Bristol Ezell Church I usually watch movies based on their high IMDb scores, but movies like "The Bag Man" are why I sometimes dip down into the 5's and 6's. At first I was surprised to see so many reviewers call it "boring", "bad" and "nonsensical", but then I realized that this film just isn't for everybody, but for some--like me--it's riveting. Almost the entire movie takes place during one night at a roadside hotel, where our protagonist, a contract killer (Cusack), is meant to go with a package and wait for pickup. Only everything and everyone around him seem to be set against him. The characters he meets and adventures he has there are fascinating, quirky, and surreal. The best way I can describe it is as a mix between "Identity", "Mulholland Dr.", and The Book of Genesis.I think this movie has gotten so many bad reviews because it doesn't fit the mold. It defies expectations, and some people won't like that. But if you're looking for something different, something that can surprise you, watch "The Bag Man". And try to vanquish your expectations.Special props to Crispin Glover for portraying the hilariously strange Ned. My favorite character!

skeptic skeptical I'm not sure what to make of The Bag Man. It all seems rather pointless. Except that it is replete with intertextual film references. Blue Velvet, Red Rock West, Psycho, any and everything made by Quentin Tarantino. Okay, so the writer and director have watched a lot movies. So have I. But that does not mean that I should be making movies. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for intertextuality and allusions to famous films, provided only that they are not utterly gratuitous to the plot. Here they strike me as purely and simply self-indulgent. In truth, there is nothing holding all of the individually creepy elements together--the Eastern European slut in a Wonder Woman suit, the sadistic dwarf, the black pimp with an eye patch, the unbalanced Vietnam vet motel manager (I'm not making any of this up)--beyond of course the familiar refrain, "you're all going to die." The extreme violence of this "story" (which is a stretch) is incredibly Tarantino-esque. In fact, at one point I convinced myself that this must be a Tarantino movie.Then, adding insult to injury, the conclusion is yet another version of the worst of all possible happy Hollywood endings: "girl meets boy and they fall in love". Truly, I cannot recommend this thing. I am sorry that De Niro saw fit to donate his father's paintings to such a production. Seems like a desecration to me.