So much average

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

It is a beautiful movie, all the scenes shot very nicely. But the reason I would not recommend it is because the movie has no clear focus.The focus of this film, which was split between Buster and the couples half-and-half, should have been solely on Ray and Martha instead, who would have had the chance to make the film a lot more twisted, gruesome and action-packed..., the sort of things you would expect in a serial killer movie. The movie-rated "R" anyway-is a lot cleaner than I thought. The most gruesome scene is probably the blood gushing out of the woman who was shot by Martha in a furry while she was riding on Ray having sex. That is all. I guess if there was additional 20 mins scenes shot on the killer couples and their preys, we would have the chance to look deeper into their twisted mind and the manic killing spree. Instead, the film spent a lot of precious time on Buster. If there was a good story about him, it would have been different. But it was none. Buster's wife died at the beginning, shooting her brain out in a bathtub. The scene was a lot like the later one, where Ray's victim committing a suicide because she caught him having sex with Martha. So I naturally thought there was some connection between Buster's wife and Ray. I waited until the last minute expecting to see it revealed, but nothing. The director did not give any explanation about Buster's wife's suicide, which basically devalued the starting scene-there was nothing in the end to echo the beginning. Then it was Buster's personal life: his son, his mom, Rene... has not much to do with neither the killing nor the detection. So does anybody care except the director, who is actually a descendant of real Buster?In the end, I was puzzled why Laura Dern joined this film. She was David Lynch's favorite leading actress. She looked like an angel in Blue Velvet. She was so skillful in Inland Empire. Then she played Rene, who was not important what so ever. I mean, Laura tried to show the different aspect of this woman, her harshness in the office, her tenderness in bed with Buster, her self-respect... All the effort was wasted again, when it came to the end scene, where it had no time to explain her reunion with Buster. There should have been some good emotional scenes.Even though the shooting was done beautifully, the storyline was planned very poorly. I can't say I enjoyed watching it.

Don't be fooled - the cast could not save this film from the slow moving train-wreck this predictable and clunky abomination is. You will be left asking 'Why?' There was a shopping list of 'themes' and genre enforcing clichés that violently assaulted the viewer throughout the entirety of this awful tripe, including but not limited to: 1: Salvation in police work; 2: Femme-fatale; 3: Fraught father-son relationship with new woman on scene; 4: My jurisdiction's bigger than yours; 5: Good cop, bad cop; 6: Fiesty latina; 7: BJ behind the wheel of car; 8: Avant-garde murder-sex scene (really Selma?); 9: Men too tough to talk about feelings and turning to therapeutic carpentry; 10: Cops and donuts joke; 11: Historically 'appropriate' sexism; 12: Cop makes grisly find. Sinks to knees in pain; 13: 'This is a suicide.' 'No, it's a murder!'; 14: Blood dripping through floorboards; 15: 'We've just missed them.... Coffee's still warm.'; 16: Punchy one-liner before getting the chair.John Travolta is old. He had a stuntman. There were no stunts. Make-up will not fool the discerning viewer.This film is unwatchable. Drink responsibly.

The real-life story of Ray Fernandez and Martha Beck is quite compelling. They teamed up in the early 1950s to swindle lonely old ladies out of their fortunes. That storyline is presented directly and clearly in the 1969 movie "The Honeymoon Killers".Unfortunately, the same storyline gets lost in "Lonely Hearts", a drab, dreary, really dreadful movie less interested in the Fernandez/Beck plot than in the promotion of Hollywood celebrity Travolta, who plays an obsessed cop on the scent of the depraved duo. After the first few minutes the viewer easily gets the drift of this film.Every time Travolta, or his cop buddies, came into view, I fast-forwarded the DVD. What I wanted to see was Fernandez and Beck, not some irrelevant cop, and surely not a cop played by Travolta, an actor who needs to retire. With every movie he makes, he looks worse and worse. His cop buddy here, played by James Gandolfini, is hardly any more appealing, with all that unnecessary bad language. And the inclusion of the totally untalented Scott Caan makes a mockery of the casting. But it gets worse.The real Martha Beck was heavy, even fat. Here, they cast thin, voluptuous Salma Hayek to play Beck. Clearly, the filmmakers were not interested in historical authenticity. They probably reasoned, incorrectly, that viewers are ignorant of the facts in the case. Further, the pouty, one-note performance of Hayek is laughably embarrassing. She is another actor who needs to retire."The Honeymoon Killers" is a film that definitely has its weaknesses. But at least it focuses on what is important, the story of Fernandez and Beck. It is an honest movie. Anyone interested in the facts needs to watch that movie, not this one. "Lonely Hearts" is not far removed from outright mendacity, and is clearly aimed at promoting current Hollywood star celebrities at the expense of historical accuracy.

Talk about flying under the radar... No doubt the strong sexual content has had something to do with this: we may be stupid and ultraviolent in this schizo country of ours, but we're also prudes. Beautifully written and directed, LONELY HEARTS gives John Travolta yet one more golden opportunity to be Golden. Likewsie, Gandolfini, whose performance goes hand-in-hand with Travolta's. Hyek does what she can with her role, but the fact that the character was changed from an overweight wallflower to... well, Selma Hyek... is a detriment. One could've (at least superficially) understood her obsession with holding on to "her man" if she'd been portrayed as the dumpy matron she was in Life: as it stands, Hyek seems shoe-horned into the part. (Kathy Bates would've been a much better choice.) Despite this, the movie resonates. It's hard to believe it wasn't more highly touted (I don't even recall seeing it advertised anywhere)...