Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

So much average

Best movie of this year hands down!

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

No movie title has created more tension and anticipation in me more than Before The Devil Knows You're Dead. What a colossal disappointment then that Sidney Lumet's film ended up being a muddled, needlessly convoluted mess that dawdles towards an inevitable conclusion. Too often a film director decides that lurching around a timeline makes for a more compelling story, but this is not such a film that benefits from the structure. Flashbacks rarely act with the game-changing feel that Predestination or the TV show Lost did. During one flashback, all that is revealed is that Albert Finney's character had a driving test and his wife opened a shop (both of which were revealed through exposition before and after the flashback anyway). Rather than creating mystery, it simply creates frustration and confusion. The conclusion leaves a number of plot points unresolved - namely, Ethan Hawke's Hank - which is inconceivable considering the film's length vis a vis simple plot.The acting here is pretty terrific - Hoffman is at his dramatic high, Hawke turns out one of his best, and Finney does wonders with a character whose development beings and ends with "mad, sad, bad dad". Sadly, Marisa Tomei stares blearily into the camera during her entire nothing role. It is surprising that in a film containing three of my favourite actors, the film's highlight is a scene stealing Michael Shannon, who commanded my attention with supreme skill. The film's screenplay is cluttered, self-indulgent and largely boring. Plot points weave in and out of relevance, such as the IRS audit and Tomei's entire plot. Many characters, Hoffman especially, indulge in self-important monologues. It then glosses over important deductions, by having characters make wild assumptions that are conveniently correct. Real people don't talk or act like many of the characters in this film.Sidney Lumet's film didn't deliver on its star cast or eye-catching title, and ends up being a clotted mess around the bottom of the filmographies of those involved.

This film had the potential to be one of the very best of 2007, due to the script, but it was wasted. The direction kinda ruined the film. The non-linear narrative chosen was a mess: there was no need for it. Gratuitous, i must say. Some point of views in the story are pointless and don't add nothing to it, much the opposite. It also killed some twists in it that would be work perfectly fine. Also, i felt that the script lacked a bit of humor and dread. It's too dread in all aspects of filmmaking. The cinematography, or better, the art design, was very bad. The generic and bright gray was all over the place, and this is really a common aspect in the low budget Hollywood films that i strongly dislike. Because after all, it kills the colors of the film. Colors are essential.The soundtrack was as well generic. Just a tongue in the cheek score which plays like thrice in the entire film. Could've done a lot better. The performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman was great tough. He really did well portraying the disturbed predicted future psycho man.Anyways, this film could've done a lot better, but unfortunately it is that way and i don't recommend. 6.1/10

The description of this movie, The perfect crime goes horribly wrong for brothers Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Hank (Ethan Hawke) when they botch a robbery of their parents jewelry store in this wrenching drama from legendary filmmaker Sidney Lumet, who was 82 when he directed the film., is accurate in one sense: something does horribly goes wrong as the viewer is forced to watch, in the opening sequence, Phillip Seymour Hoffman perform in a copulation scene. I couldn't finish the scene, therefore I couldn't finish the movie. Call me a prude if you wish but I think it significantly detracts from the dignity of an otherwise fine actor. Why did he stoop to do it? He has fame, presumably money, and the admiration of the public (now sans myself). So presumably he hasn't yet been photographed straddling, walrus-like, some young woman? Im too dull to figure it out and will contentedly remain so. As far as I can tell from the plot description, the scene was entirely gratuitous perhaps satisfying some, as yet, unclassified lust in the aging Sidney Lumet.

I watched this solely on the basis Then Hawke was in it. I was not disappointed.The 'heist' element of this film plays second fiddle to the character study of two very different, but typical, brothers. The characters are well developed and superbly portrayed by Hawke and Hoffman.The movie is broken down into fragments and fed back to the audience in a way that is both dramatic but also a little distracting.The characters are all pretty self-destructive and the film has a general sour taste to it.Very good highly recommended, but don't expect 'Oceans 11' or too many happy endings.