Don't listen to the negative reviews

Absolutely Fantastic

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Jonas Ackerlund's SPUN leaves you feeling dirty, breathless, scuzzy, and like you've just watched a parade of every single facet of Chrystal meth addiction unfold in front of you like a horrible carnival of lost souls and ruined lives. It's a hard flick to sit through, but there's a brutal poetry and gutter stained beauty to the characters lives, and the events that unfold are a nonsensical, dizzying merry go around of calamity, confusion and speed addled insanity. It's my personal favourite film of about drug addiction ever made. Jason Schwartzman plays Ross, whose mission in life is to score the next hit. After a delirious opening sequence set to a calming rendition of Number Of The Beast, he arrives at the home of Spider Mike. John Leguizamo has never had a shortage of energy, and here he lets the ripcord fly off the handle, handling his role like a squirrel stuck in a vat of distiller caffeine, bouncing off every wall in sight and chewing the scenery like a plastic straw. Mena Suvari plays his equally addicted girlfriend Cookie. Brittney Murphy bring surprising depth to her role as a girl who Ross strikes a friendship with. The two of them eventually find their way to the house of The Cook, played by Mickey Rourke. From there the film heads down a scum encrusted rabbit hole of nonsensical run ins, hapless failures and an eventual rock bottom inevitability where every character finds themselves at a place where if they go any further with their lifestyle, there's no return. Rourke finds the emotional anchor in an otherwise manic roster, and even though he's off the wall for much of the film, he has a monologue in the eleventh hour that grounds his role in tragic regret. Very underrated performance from him. Murphy balances the ditsy slut aspects with a maternal yearning for something better than the road she went down. There's a whole rats nest of other assorted characters and cameos running around, from Peter Stormare's aggressive, hilarious narc, to Patrick Fugit's grotesque Frisbee, to Debbie Harry is from Blondie fame as a nosy feminazi. Even Eric Roberts shows up for a brief reunion with Rourke. The film has a heavily stylized, go for broke attitude that pushes the boundaries of what movies have been able to do, in the best way possible. It shows you not from an outsiders perspective what it might be like to observe people on this drug, but gives you a very intimate, non judgmental day in the lives of these manic, lost soul pixies, ghosts of their former selves, enslaved in the mania and constant need for a fix that is their own design. If you can handle this sort of stuff and like the sub genre (Trainspotting, Requiem For A Dream, The Salton Sea etc) then this is a heavy hitting visual and auditory blast of pure experimental cinema, and a total joy to watch. Just bring a barf bag.

I'm pretty happy to admit that I probably didn't get the most out of Spun. Reading through reviews and IMDb message boards I've found people praising it over and over again for being the most realistic presentation of meth-addicts' life-style ever put on film. That's quite possibly the case; never having taken meth I have no idea. Indeed, it seems that every glaring review comes from someone who has a history with the drug, so I assume the portrayal is accurate. As it is, I can only review Spun based on what I got out of it - which is an interesting film, but definitely not a masterpiece.By itself, Spun has its merits. It's an atmospheric piece, with excellent cinematography and editing; Although it relies too heavily on editing tricks, and almost everything it does was done before in similar ways in more memorable drug-films like Requiem for a Dream, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas and Dazed & Confused. It managed to bring in an impressive collection of actors, both for the leads and for cameos - Jason Schwartzman, Patrick Fugit, Mena Suvari, John Leguizamo and Peter Stormare in one film are a indie-loving hipster's wet dream - and they all do an excellent job, but their characters aren't very interesting. The film manages to convey the idea that methheads are real people with real emotions, but it hammers that idea into the viewer's head over and over again without saying much else.To explain - what Spun lacks, for me, isn't plot per se. Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas or Trainspotting didn't have much of a plot either. But Spun has no depth or heart either. It puts the viewer into the meth experience, it shocks and unnerves - as it should - but it's not enough to make us care. The regular explanation that it's a film for methheads that only methheads will enjoy may have truth to it, but if so its value as a film is questionable. If it's meant to convey an anti-drug message, it's preaching to the choir - because only former meth addicts will know how realistic and thus how tragic it is, while to the rest of us it looks like a zany, trashy, sexy comedy that enjoys the drugs almost as often as it derides them.A six-star rating usually relates to a mediocre or forgettable movie - Spun is anything but. It's also not a bad movie. It's interesting and unusual, but it misses its mark for most of the audience, and it's not original or interesting enough to be worth watching simply as a visual piece. It's funny enough and has enough good acting - Mickey Rourke is of particular note, in the role that may have been the harbinger of his current comeback - but in the end it'll mostly leave you confused.

When I saw "Requiem For A Dream" for the first time, I remember that I was puzzled, confused, annoyed, then incensed at the consistent failure to correctly depict the proper physiological effects a shot of any form of opiates would have upon the pupil: Constriction, rather than dilation. Eventually, I decided to stop being so ridiculously anal-retentive about it: Maybe a big ol' pupil was simply considered more... "cinematic" or whatever! HOWEVER: The VERY NEXT major Drug-Flick I saw, "Spun," shared the same, glaring "blooper" of depicting a pupillary response 100% wrong; An oversight [???] made all the more noticeable by the rest of the film's near-unprecedented level of accuracy, realism, and resonance.Can anyone tell me why the pupils get BIG in the heroin movie, and SMALL in the tweak-flick??? I know this question would be a better fit if placed in the message board section, but I can't seem to undulate my way through the verification process. Please, someone: Respond!

This happens to be my favorite movie of all time. A lot of people misunderstand this movie when they watch it. YES, the movie does not have a real point, but it does show you how the speed life is. This movie does a great job portraying that, better than any movie i've seen. You could categorize this movie as educational if you wanted. If you know anybody on speed and you you want to know how it's like, watch this and you'll get the picture. This is the best movie in drug cinema. There need to be more films like this.It also has a great cast. I'm surprised and disappointed to see this movie never got to the mainstream. I guess people shy from the truth.