Dudes, where's that Barbie guy who's Tong Gang boss in Chinatown ? Why he ain't credited in Titles ? Maybe I've missed something;

No doubt it's catchy, incisive and coming to the point as no-nonsense movie. I loved the cast. (Famke Janssen)'s performance and beauty (her hair was exceptional !), (Harvey Keitel)'s silent mountainous anger, and (Stephen Dorff)'s attitude; they did the job finely. And I loved some scenes as well; like (Keitel) exploding with pain in a closed room, or getting out with the laptop debonairly, (Dorff) screaming devilishly (Rooooyyyy).. but as a whole it wasn't all flawless.Firstly, there are no depths, if you would think that that was a shortcoming. I mean the relationship between the lead and the woman was poor. Surely it doesn't need to develop into a romance, but with another treatment it could have been more memorable or touchy. However according to the movie's character as "another violent crime movie" it's the small shortcoming.Now medium shortcoming : the title. (City of Industry) fits a documentary more than a crime movie; especially this crime movie. The time that we have watched got nothing to do with a title of that kind. It's just a way to describe the background of the events with no serious shadows. I hate when they allege a meaning or a singularity by only a strange, outwardly profound, title !Then the X Large shortcoming : the theft. This is unquestionably the stupidest heist in the history of mankind. How they went to steal a bank in the high noon with no masks, no gloves, and no disguise or whatsoever ??!! If there were no cameras recording them, what about the people themselves ??! Shame on this movie makers and cast as well. This is, sorrowfully, pure nonsense ! It's half heist, half revenge movie. Great ? No. Average ? Yes. Watchable and satisfying ? Of course.

John Irvin's "City of Industry" has the grit and pessimism of another crime classic, "52 Pick-Up". Although it's not as stylish as Frankenheimer's film, it is just as violent and just as radiant (in a sleazy way). Like "52...", there are several splendid performances, not the least being that of Harvey Keitel, a vengeance-seeking career crim, and Stephen Dorff, an incredibly savage villain. Set in parts of LA you'd only want to visit on the screen, this Ken Solarz-scripted underworld drama is constantly engaging and vicious while remembering to be intelligent, too. Timothy Hutton turns in a stellar performance, as does the always-watchable Famke Janssen as a woman recently widowed by the fall-out from Dorff's betrayal of friends. Irvin is not an ostentatious director, so when his source material is weak (as it was in "Raw Deal"), he can't dress it in pretty clothes. But when his material is strong, as it is here, he stands back just far enough to let the story take its rightful turn. This is a seriously underrated classic.

Keitel IS the film. That is about the only real positive I can say. It is a warmed-over "Reservoir Dogs" (insert double-cross flick name here). Dorff does his typical bad boy. Oh, and Lucy Liu topless, and pun intended by "top-less". The cinematography was lit well for being naturally brooding. A few different camera angles were thrown in just so the viewer realizes this was a film and not some cheesy TV crime show. But not much better...except for Harvey K. and a nice turn by Elliot Gould. Famke does a nice job too, but seems to be trying too hard to show her "legit" acting after her Bond girl coming out party. I tried to like it, but this film seems too familiar and not "oh wow" enough to be highly recommended.