Somebody Please Exorcise Saint John of Las Vegas

January 31, 2010 by Bilal Mian  
Filed under Movies, feature overlay

I firmly believe that there are always two reasons behind a journey to find an elusive item.  For example, treasure is buried away or hoarded into vaults for safekeeping. Unearthing such a claim would change one’s life for the better. In such a case taking upon a journey to find buried treasure is a good thing. However, just because something is buried away does not mean it’s meant to be found. This was how I felt after watching director Hue Rhodes debut film, Saint John of Las Vegas.

After being assigned this movie to review I scratched my head failing to recall any information on this film. Like all people who need information on a topic, I quickly did a search on the Internet and found it playing only at one theater in a 25-mile radius. Deep within New York City I journeyed, not to find a hidden indie gem, but a film so terrible I can’t help but ward others from seeing it. So much for buried treasure.

Saint John of Las Vegas tells the story of John, a compulsive gambler played by Steve Buscemi, who has nothing going for him, but his job. Self described as “a man with a lot of luck, mostly bad luck,” John left Vegas and ended up where his car ran out of gas, New Mexico. John’s new life has him working in a cubicle for an insurance company. On this particular day John seeks a raise from his boss, but ends up getting sent out on fraud investigation with Romany Maclo’s character, Virgil. The case? Find out if stripper Tasty D Lite, played by the gorgeous Emmanuelle Chriqui, is faking her injuries from the car accident. Unlucky for John, the case brings him back to Vegas, the city he once ran from.

The major problem with Saint John of Las Vegas is the story. Jumping from point to point Rhodes’ pace with the film does not give characters time to develop causing everything to feel rushed. Sarah Silverman’s character Jill, a co-worker of John’s, randomly calls him on his trip and tells him she wants them to be “boyfriend-girlfriend.” The request comes out of left field making me scratch my head on what Rhodes was thinking. Due to rushed character development I found it extremely hard to care about any of the characters. Along with character problems, the films comedy barely had a pulse. Out of many comedic sequences the film had, I only found myself chuckling at one or two. Luckily this film had a ray of light amongst the pile of negativity.

Steve Buscemi’s portrayal of John was the greatest achievement the film had to offer. The acting was spot on down to the motions of what I’d expect from a character like John. There is a scene where Buscemi’s character returns to Vegas and visits a small casino. He takes his daily earnings received from Virgil and bets it on a game of Blackjack. Sadly for John the dealer has an ace queen. John plays two more games, which end with the dealer getting blackjack. Buscemi’s facial expression and body language throughout the scene had me chuckling to myself at how truly unlucky John actually is.

In the end I feel bad for Steve Buscemi. Like John, he was dealt an amazing hand, but what came after turned out to be bad luck. I really can’t recommend Saint John of Las Vegas to anyone. The movie’s vast issues plague the experience causing the moments where Saint John does shine to be overshadowed by novice direction.

Share/Save/Bookmark Entertainment

Comments

5 Responses to “Somebody Please Exorcise Saint John of Las Vegas”
  1. Ashan says:

    Very Disappointing movie! Not sure if I would buy the DVD either!!!

  2. Darren says:

    Hello, Doug!

    I think the 13% user rating holds a bit more credibility than a bunch of idiots posting on RT for a movie they likely haven’t seen. Be happy you get a solid explanation from somebody here.

    Besides, your source’s counterpart on At the Movies destroyed this flick. I’ll take the point of view that this movie blows, based on everything else I’m reading.

    Oh, and it’s Phillips, you idiot. Learn to read before you write.

  3. bilal.mian says:

    Doug,

    I appreciate the feedback, but I do not find myself smarter than anyone else. This was my personal opinion of the film just as any other review is for any writer. Also Michael Phillips is quoted from his review on Rotten Tomatoes saying, “This one’s not for everyone for sure, but I was amused by it.” Clearly he admits not everyone will enjoy this film as was the case with me.

    His co-partner of “At The Movies” had very opposite feelings about the film. A.O. Scott said the following about the film. “I don’t think that this movie has a coherent sense of what it’s about, what its characters are doing, what kind of tone of comedy or drama or quirkiness it’s trying to strike.”

    If you believe I am wrong with my review then by all means go watch it. I’d be happy to see your take on it afterwards.

  4. Doug says:

    I guess you are smarter than the 91% rating on rotten tomatoes and Michael Phelps of “At the Movies” that said this movie is a “See it”… I’ll bet its good!

  5. Ralph Bell says:

    Wow, I really wanted to see this movie. So disappointed. Glad it came out in limited release so I couldn’t make that mistake.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!