User Reviews

The only reason I watched this film was I'd read Michael Wincott had a leading role in it. Wincott is a superb character actor and always delivers in his villainous roles, proving the devil really does have the best tunes. This is another villain, on the surface, a brutal enforcer for the Irish mob in Atlantic city but Wincott, gives us something else as well, a sweetness and vulnerability that makes a interesting paradox for this type of movie and character. The other leads are filled out by the always watchable Diane Lane and William Petersen, whom, with Wincott form the menage a trois at the heart of the story. Director Jeff Celentano has also assembled an intriguing supporting cast of name actors; R Lee Ermey (Wasted in a bit part right at the beginning of the film), Michael Byrne, who is chillingly sinister despite the broadest Irish accent heard on cellulloid, Meat Loaf in a cameo that kickstarts the plot and Kevin Gage (Best known as Waingro in Heat) as an intense detective involved in a plot twist that comes out of leftfield and sort of works. So far, so good but where the film falls down, is a sometimes woeful script that at times makes you want to laugh in disbelief, the most ridiculous moment being Petersen singing "What shall we do with the drunken sailor", at length, whilst waiting as the getaway driver during a heist! Petersen was yet to star in C.S.I but had already been a very capable leading man in the likes of Michael Mann's "Manhunter" amongst others. Here, he is one note and irritating for much of the film, though he does improve, and it is hard to see why Lane's character would fall for him over the more charismatic Wincott. The plot, too seems somewhat contrived in bringing together Petersen and Wincott as friends but somehow the whole is better than the sum of it's parts. Once Wincott enters it is an engaging though flawed piece with good action sequences. With more care in the scripting this could have been a really good film but as it is, well worth a watch.

This movie was good overall with great cinematography and the the special effects were well done. The actors did a great job in their roles despite a script that could have been better written as it had some unbelievable scenes.

Here is an example far beyond what you can expect from a budget so small you could hold it in your hand, a filmed impression of a story familiar to us even before we could pronounce "Charles Dickens" and "A Tale of Two Cities" that stirs us from a sleep not unlike the one which characterizes Michael Wincott in his most popular roles as we struggle with a dream like the one in which William L. Peterson finds himself in the least popular of his, finally awakened as are these two actors by the voices of two men of literature, Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton. Wincott and Peterson hear and obey. They do a far far better thing than they have done before, for Lucie Manette, for us all. The director's vision replaces for our modern minds the awkward spray that is the guillotine's historic signature with the ebbing undertow of grateful friendship, and honest sweat on a tropical beach. At last.

William Petersen plays Jake, a down-on-his luck writer who has lost his muse and crawled into a bottle. One night, he drunkenly takes on an obnoxious bar tough, Lew (played by Meat Loaf), who takes him outside and begins to hand him a serious beating. The beating is interrupted by a low-level Irish mob enforcer, Frankie (Wincott), who had an appointment with Lew for a collection. Frankie puts a hurting on Lew and takes Jake home where Frankie's girlfriend, Melissa (Diane Lane), who happens to be a nurse, provides medical attention for Jake.

Though Jake is obnoxiously resistant at first, Frankie wants to be his friend and help him out of the hole he's dug himself into. In exchange, Frankie wants Jake to help him become more educated and erudite.

While this could turn into a sappy story on the level of Danny DeVito in Renaissance Man, instead it's a cool, dark tale of conflicting loyalties and desires with a little redemption thrown in to boot. Well acted and with solid dialogue, the film has a few cliche moments, but they are ultimately forgivable in the end.

Here is an example perfect beyond what could be expected from a budget small enough to hold in your hand, a filmed impression of a story made familiar to us all before we could even pronounce "Charles Dickens" and "A Tale of Two Cities." Sometimes we are as sleepy as Michael Wincott appears to be in his most popular movie roles, trying to wake -- involuntarily -- from one of those dreams in which William L. Peterson seems to be forever lost in the least popular of his, and yet viewing this film we suddenly hear those two men of literature so far away, Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton, compelling these two unlikely colleagues to do a far better thing than they have done before, for Lucie, for us all. Wincott and Peterson hear and obey.

W. T. Benda Austin, Texas

Everything about this movie is unconvincing, from the acting and dialogue to the action, direction and camera work. The characters are stereotyped and shallow and the story flimsy. The action goes from one predictable event to another without relief from start to finish.

The actors are all competent in other films but in this sorry movie their talents are not utilized and dormant. The camera work is only one baby step above home movies and bores to tears.

The action is illogical and unmotivated. For example, when Jake, played by William Peterson of CSI fame finds his woman in bed with another man, he barely bats an eye but nonetheless decides to drink himself to death. Scenes occasionally move one to another without rhyme or reason. Time moves unnaturally as one moment someone is unclothed and in the next dressed and in the wrong position based on movement of time.

This movie wasn't worth he effort needed to wait through the credits.

Some Good Acting Chops are On Display in this B-Movie and the Story is OK but the Thing Lacks Style. It is Remarkable to Add an Intellectual Subplot to the Usual Gangster Clichés like Drugs, Slang, and Swagger. A Gangster Thug who Knows that there is More than just Beatings and Intimidation but hasn't a Clue, is Attracted to a Formerly Successful Writer Suffering the Block and is Hitting the Bottle and Befriends Him for a Cultural Tradeoff.

It is All Mediocre and the Dialog is Middle of the Road and the Action is Restrained, but Again there is No Style Awarded to the Characters or the Script. It just sort of Lies there a Good Idea Unfulfilled. The Love Triangle goes No Where and is Contrived and not Thought Out Very Well.

Worth a Watch but the Sparks Never Ignite and the Middle Reveal is so Sudden and Unbelievable that the Film Suffers for the Remainder, Never Managing to Recover from that Ill Advised bit of Double-Cross.

This is a fairly average movie about a writer wasting his life, and writing skills away on alcohol. Well, not actually wasting; It's just that he has lost his inspiration to write, and drinking seems to give some sence to his life. Then he bumps into Frankie, a poor man working for a gangster who Frankie claims he owes his life to. Frankie is very violent, and while not kills, he always gets the job done. The writer on the other hand is fairly well off on his own world, because he hasn't known of any other world for quite some time. Untill of course the day that brains (the writer) meet fists (Frankie) and this is where the core behind the whole plot of the movie lies. As a little extra, Frankies girlfriend, loves both men, and soon has to choose between the two very different two men.

The main character, and Frankies girlfriend, play fairly average, but Micheal Wincott as Frankie really surprises me. His acting is awesome, his furious expression from The Crow in the fight scenes, from the new innocent look when listening to Jake Bridges (the writer) read Moby Dick out loud to him. I never saw him in any serious movie, so this role he truly deserved.

The movie has a lot going for it because of the unexpected ending, and Micheal Wincott. The movie also has some quite good scenes which deserve some audience from other directors. Brill. See this movie.

Ably directed by Jeff Calentano, and with a well judged script by veteran writer Larry Gross this is one low budgeter than delivers far better than expected.

However where Gunshy impresses most is in it's performances, with William Petersen, Diane Lane and especially Michael Byrne all very good in their roles, and an excellent turn by the under rated Michael Wincott. Eric Schaeffer and Kevin Gage are both pretty good in support, while the rest of the cast is solidly fleshed out by the likes of Badja Djola, Meat Loaf, Musetta Vander and (in little more than a cameo) R. Lee Ermey.

While not original by any means, 'Gunshy' still manages to be an entertaining, well structured thriller that delivers the goods far better than most of it's low budget brethren, due in no small part to a batch of very good performances and solid writing and direction, and as such is well worth catching.

First is this movie worth renting or taking the time to see it? The answer is yes. Michael Wincott is very good in this role and as an actor in general and his presence between his character and that of his woman and his "friend" gives this movie a believability that other movies lack. Of course the plot has a minor dip when William Peterson betrays Michael and sleeps with Diane Lane. But overall the story line is solid... the major upside to this movie though is that Michael finally plays a character who has some morals and who doesn't die at the end. So if you love Michael Wincott go see this movie.

Blew me away. Very impressed. This f-----ing movie GUNSHY has what movies today have totally missed and left behind, GOOD STORY TELLING and GOOD ACTING. It reminded me of the great movies I used to look forward to watching when I was growing up. Great characters and a story that pulls you in and ends with a twist. It's like the filmmakers must have used Casablanca or Mean Streets or something for their ideas, because of the cool film noir feel it had. Story was so involving and you felt like you were in it right there with the characters. I just ordered it the other day from Amazon and the only reason I did was because I love Gangster films.

I watched it with my brother and we no idea what to expect and suddenly half way through, I realized I was into it and hooked. Michael Wincott tore it up, he should have gotten some kind of an award or something. All I've ever seen that guy do was play bad guys and they were always interesting but here he was kind of a modern day Humpfrey Bogart here. His performance is flawless, so believable. Diane Lane was so sexier than I've ever seen her and portrayed her character exactly like she lived in Atlantic City and was that girl. Bill Petersen I didn't know very well. I know he;s on that TV show CSI but I don't watch TV.Matter of fact I hate it.

Petersen was really good though and right on the money as a guy you love to hate. The writing, the style, the Direction, the whole thing was something to cheer about. Check it out. That is, if you want to watch something that's different and way above the crap we're expected to pay eleven bucks to walk out of.

Nothing not to love about this movie. Everything, acting, soundtrack and plot of Gunshy is a treasure, especially to those of us who grew up on loving film noir. The tough guy Frankie (Michael Wincott) is wonderful! He is tough as nails with a heart of gold. He feels the need to rescue people in return for someone who had helped him in his past, and feels the need to grow intellectually for the woman he loves, another he has rescued. He feels the need for a tutor to educate him. Enter Jake (William Petersen) a has-been writer who lives in a whiskey bottle in the underbelly of Atlantic City. Jake has lost his job and catches his lover with another man. He tells her he knows a place where a loser like him will fit right in.. So he checks in to a seedy hotel in Atlantic City. He becomes so down and out he becomes self-destructive, picking a fight in a bar and getting his butt kicked. Frankie sees something in him worth using and saving. This is movie-lovers TREASURE!

Let me start off with the one sole minor point of the movie, the story is pathetic, it's standard and I saw it a hundred times before. The ending repaired it a bit, but it can't take away the damage. The rest... VERY VERY nice, the acting exceeds my most optimistic expectations, these actors (especially Michael Wincott) show they really can do more than low-budget movies. Michael Wincott even proofs to be a more than average cinema worth actor, his acting is really one of the strongest points this movie has to offer, but it has way more, well-directed, very well matching scenery (even better when you consider that this movie is low-budget, something it most certainly doesn't show) and a dialogue that makes you feel warm.

If you like gangster movies this is your thing. I didn't mind the familiar story and actually regret this movie skipping cinema and the movie has more than average qualities which will most certainly appeal to most movie viewers.

Okay, it's one of the oldest plot lines in the gangster film genre, but if done well, the "man infiltrates vicious gang and finds himself loyal to the friend who got him in.". The cast is good, William Peterson has the downtrodden man character down pat these days, Diane Lane is serviceable, but the real surprises come by the way of Micheal Wincott finally playing a sympathetic almost good-guy, and Eric Schaeffer for the first time in his life not being annoying on screen as the creepy hitman. Good dialogue, an abscence of bad acting, and dark look that hides its low budget origins. Definitely worth picking up from the video shop.

Acting was pretty incredible, I didn't realize Diane Lane had that much talent. Great scenery of Atlantic City, movie wasn't predictable or boring at all, great chemistry between lead three.

Most of the other comments here are right on the money so I will try not to repeat them. Michael Wincott's performance here is the chief reason to rent or buy this low budget indie flick -- he's amazing in what apparently is his only full length role after years of doing small supporting parts mostly playing psycho serial killers. Here he is very moving in a complex role as a soft-hearted Mafia wiseguy with a penchant for saving people. It's a neat idea that takes your initial stereotyped reaction to his appearance and deep gravelly voice -- that he is going to be yet another psychotic killer -- and spins it in the other direction. By the end of the movie, it's his character you are concerned about and not the "hero". While the film is otherwise pretty forgettable, I couldn't get this performance out of my mind after seeing it this summer. Prior to this, I had never noticed this actor before (but then I had never seen The Crow or any of his other notable films).

Unfortunately, the film is otherwise badly flawed, suffering from a genuinely awful script fillled with lines that are absolute howlers, corny situations and the other leads (William Petersen of CSI and Diane Lane from Unfaithful) are just unbelievably bad in this. They are otherwise respected performers, so I am not sure if the bad script or bad direction threw them off or what. Petersen in particular is actually embarrassing. He is very badly miscast, at least a decade too old for the character of Jake (the down and out writer) and his performance is full of annoying mannerisms. He makes us dislike Jake, who is the protagonist and narrator, and that throws the whole dramatic structure of the film off-kilter. Diane Lane is so affectless and flat that she is barely engaged with the story at all. (Needless to say, when either of them has a scene with Wincott, they are simply blown off the screen by his intensity and professionalism.)

The script feels like it was written by a Hollywood type who has never himself A.) visited Atlantic City or even the east coast, and B.) never known anyone in the "underworld". But who is definitely a "writer" and has a sentimental and glamourized vision of how important THAT is. For example, the idea that a woman would automatically find an unemployed writer more attractive and stable than her wiseguy boyfriend, i.e., that it would be NO CONTEST and she would immediately cheat on the boyfriend. No one I know of holds unemployed writers in this kind of esteem (with good reason). I might add that there is NO particular reason to believe that a writer would make any more money, or offer a woman any more opportunities, or even be more trustworthy, than a wiseguy either.

Another good laugh and complete absence from reality is the idea that a nurse (Diane Lane)...an RN in a hospital...would be poor and uneducated and without any chances in life. The reality: RNs have to have 4 yr college degrees, it's a serious and meaningful profession. RNs earn at least $45,000 right out school, more with experience, and the long nationwide nursing shortage means they can pretty much pick and choose working anywhere they WANT. I might add, no nurse I have ever known goes to work with her uniform unbuttoned down to "there" and wearing HIGH HEELS. It would have worked way better for the script if Ms. Lane's character were a part-time waitress or casino worker.

The absolute worst and most embarassing part of the movie is the idea that Frankie (Wincott) wants Jake (Petersen) to educate him about literature...starting with Melville's Moby Dick. It's an unfortunate choice of book...you'd think the screenwriter would have chosen a book that somehow relates to the story or characters (another reviewer here mentions Dicken's Tale of Two Cities, which would have worked much better). Why does Frankie want or need this anyhow?

Doesn't Atlantic City have a public library? Hasn't he heard of bookstores, the Internet, Amazon.com or Cliff's Notes? At any rate, the characters never progress beyond Moby Dick, kind of like being stuck in the first week of freshman literature in the Twilight Zone. Worst of all, re-reading the book with Frankie compells Jake to SING a sea chanty, probably the most grating moment in the film.

At the time this film was made (1998), all three actors were pretty much minor leaguers despite long resumes. Today (2003) Petersen has the lead in the No.1 TV series CSI, and Diane Lane is a major film star with an Academy Award nomination for Unfaithful and new film Under the Tuscan Sun...while Michael Wincott is still basically doing cameos as psycho killers. If this isn't total injustice, than I don't know what is. Anyways, rent this video for his performance and fast forward through the bad parts.

This is an enjoyable movie. A supposedly down-and-out writer (Jake, played by William Peterson) who is actually working undercover in order to get some material for a novel gets more than he bargains for. The cops he works for turn out to be as bad as the gangsters he's supposedly trying to get arrested. He gradually befriends one of the gangsters (Frankie, played by Michael Wincott) and much of the plot turns on issues of betrayal, love and friendship. Beautifully shot, well acted...Wincott is particularly fine...and a plot that keeps you wondering what's going to happen. Some pretty violent scenes, so those who don't like violence, keep away.

Even though the movie is shot in color, the lighting reminds you of the great noir genre films of the 50's. Diane Lane plays Melissa, the love interest for both men. The ending is a surprise.

True art, a great film, in league with the best. I disagree with the pretentious criticisms herein written about GUNSHY. The story comes through time and technique to move the theater-goer as only great stories do, starting with Wm Shakespeare's works, down through the dramas of the great British and Russian writers, from Ernest Hemingway and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, through all the other great journalists of the 20th century, and to the few damned fine movies that Spain, France England, Chile, Mexico and the United States have brought to us.

With films such as Gunshy, reviewers should rise above what they deem imperfect, to simply evaluate the human impact of a story? Taking a line from Gunshy, which borrowed it from Melville, "Look not too long upon the fire." . . . Read the reviews of real people below the Youtube screen of this film. We are the public, we are the final word in any review.

Very well done film noir set in present-day Atlantic City, which uses the rather depressing boardwalk locations (off-season) to good effect. The story is rather twice-told but the direction and acting are solid, particularly in the case of William Petersen, Michael Wincott, and Eric Schaeffer.

This was a very interesting movie. It was done on a very small budget and unfortunately it shows. There are no special effects or expensive action scenes. However, the acting takes you deep inside. Michael Wincott and Michael Byrne are especially good. Wincott is able to be scary, likable and vulnerable all at the same time. Byrne is an especially good smiling psycho. William Peterson is as dull and you have to wonder why anyone cares what happens to him. Diane Lane is pretty much wasted here. She is torn between the two main characters but you have to wonder what in the world she sees in Peterson. They could have added some minutes in the movie to see what Wincott and Lane are up to as they were the most interesting characters.

It is amazing to me that Michael Wincott never became an A-list star. He can play good guys and bad guys but is always interesting and believable.

I found this direct-to-video disaster on the "bargain bin" table at my local video shop, used former rental for $3.00...and it wasn't worth it. I was attracted to the cover because I am a huge William Petersen fan, not only because of " CSI ", but because I saw him in person on stage in NYC a few years and he was fantastic ! But his talent is wasted here....the acting, not only his, but everyone's, is so bad, so corny, so melodramatic, so over-the-top, that it looked and sounded like the " Saturday Night Live " cast doing a spoof of 50's gangster movies ! And I couldn't believe Diane Lane's character....she was a NURSE....it is extremely unbelievabe and unrealistic that a NURSE, trained to heal the sick and care for people, would be in love with and live with a gangster who beats people and cuts off their toes with hedgeclippers...I certainly would not want her nursing me...I thought of selling this on Ebay, but I 'd feel guilty ...I 'll just throw it out.

A different love story... but a real love story. Hooray for Frankie (Michael Wincott), Melissa (Diane Lane) and Jake (William Petersen). The film may seem dated at the beginning, but follow the story and you'll be surprised, and pleased. The editing is clearly 1998; if it were shot and edited today, it would probably be smoother, and a bit more coherent. There are pieces of the soundtrack that are very pleasing, but mostly too 90's in style. The movie probably would be a terrific re-make; a perfect Ryan Gosling thing; greater style and chemistry... so Ryan Gosling as Frankie, yes - Jennifer Lawrence as Melissa, and Chris O'Donnell or Jake Gyllenhaal as Jake Bridges. Any producers out there???