All I have to say about philip seymour hoffman and ethan hawke's acting is they should of won an oscar. I mean this movie had me at the very edge of my seat. hoffman's and hawke's acting made the situation of the movie all the more real. as the movie goes on from the first scene, it just gets more and more shocking. you wouldn't think that the movie would unravel like it does, but it was superb. this movie made me feel extreme emotions. in some instances i had to pause the movie and take five minutes because how real and all the other things i said previously. if you haven't seen, i highly recommend it, it's a must see!

This movie had a major effect on me as the story makes you think about what the average person would do in the same dire circumstances. The writing, direction, and the acting by all make this an amazing movie to watch. Ethan Hawke reveals himself as a great actor -- I could identify most with him and what he was going through. Albert Finney is also great as usual. It goes without saying that the late Philip Seymour Hoffman is great in this too. This is an amazing final feat of Sydney Lumet, who will be sorely missed -- as Sean Connery said, he had that "vision thing". I find it very sad when movies this good go unrecognized and unwatched -- please watch this and give your opinion!!

The main problems of this movie are (at least): Unbelievable story, depressing, pointless.I love Lumet's "Network" and I like Ethan Hawke, but in this movie his character is unbearably annoying. He is such a loser and by the middle of the movie he had already got so much on my nerves with his whining that I hoped he would get killed.BTW, not one single character is likable, so there is no one to sympathize with, not even with the father, who at the end kills his own son. I mean, how probable is that? Possible, yes, but extremely improbable, in my opinion! Especially when the son would anyway go to prison for the rest of his life, which would be a much worse punishment.Some of the improbable points: 1. Brothers are desperately in need of money, nobody knows why and yet they have good jobs.2. They work at the same company, but when they first meet in the movie, it seems they haven't seen each other in ages.3. Parents live too modestly for jewelry shop owners and don't help out (at least a bit) their sons, who need some money.4. Sons decide to rob their own parent's shop. (Being their own parents, couldn't they try to scam their jewelry?) 5. Mother is alone in the shop with all the jewelry and leaves door unlocked.6. Robber is a complete moron and acts like a teenager. Instead of avoiding getting heard by someone, he is all the time screaming on the top of his lungs.7. Son visits a pawnbroker before (!) the coup and gives his card to him, leaving a trace.8. Drug dealer leaves safe door always open with a lot of money in it.9. Wife practically hates her husband for having no money, yet she sleeps frequently with his brother, who has even less money (and is a loser).10. Wife leaves her husband, but has not a single penny, not even to buy a mere bus ticket or pay a taxi.11. Brother of the widow meets the guy he is blackmailing at his own sister's apartment, where she is with her child, exposing them to a dangerous situation.12. Hoffman goes with Hawke to the blackmailer to kill him, instead of keeping all the money for himself and fleeing the country, since he didn't care much for his brother and was very angry with him anyway.13. Father tells the nurse, there is a problem with the heart machine and she doesn't come to check, telling him to switch the machine off and on again, like this happens all the time.14. Son is killed by the father (who just hours before asked him for forgiveness) and can be seeing leaving the room, yet nobody runs after him.And many more.Still watchable (for being a Lumet and because of Hoffman), but bad nevertheless.

I was reading a review of another film recently that referred to this film and decided to give the IMDb page a look. I was surprised to see it got such high reviews. I'm no sloucher when it comes to appreciating obtuse, crafted films so I don't think I'm being hard on it here.This is a film about a robbery gone wrong, the messed up lives of the people involved, and the miserable aftermath. We've seen this type of film a hundred times before and I didn't see anything new. OK, I saw Marisa Tomei in a nude cameo but that was it (and she's getting old so that kind of ruined it for me after seeing her at her best in My Cousin Vinny). Of COURSE criminals are sad mess ups. I can tune to COPS to see losers get busted without their shirt on. I may have missed something, but the characters were one dimensional: The weak brother, the successful psycho brother, the uncaring working class father, and the pretty, aging girlfriend. Great. Held my interest for about 10 seconds.This film reminds me of Sideways which was far better at developing depth for their stereotypical characters: The pretty boy on a fling, the likable loser, the aspiring divorcée, the struggling single mother. Those characters had depth and you remembered them long after the film ended and they were mostly character actors. This film had big names and I knew what would happen about 5 minutes in. In case you don't, don't worry, they'll throw you the same obvious hints about 3 times in flashbacks.Doing a gangster film takes skill, creativity, and daring because the genre has been so well covered. Tarantino did this masterfully by portraying criminals as something they rarely are: thoughtful, tasteful, and articulate (most are losers which is why they are criminals.) This gangster film failed (for me) perhaps because it featured seemingly actual criminals who, apart from a few seconds getting shoved into a police car without a shirt on, are not that interesting.