Thanks for the memories!

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

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Well if you want to be a jerk... I'll point out that in Pulp Fiction the scene was a little different. The bullets did not miss Samuel L. They went through him. Watch it again and see when he moves to look at the wall behind him. The bullet holes are directly behind where he was standing. And i would be willing to bet Tarrentino did not invent this scene either. He just happened to make it in a popular movie. I give Montana an EXCELLENT rating because it is not mainstream and some characters are more interesting (i.e. they don't say everything on their mind, so you have to figure them out). I like having to judge characters by observing behavior. There are many better movies with better directors, but this movie reminds me to figure things out on my own. These kind of movies can be much more stimulating. The only mystery in Pulp Fiction was what was in the case... so what.

This is most definitely an over-the-top film, starting off sick and getting progressively sicker and sucking you in during the process. the characters are well-defined and well-realized, especially Philip Seymour Hoffman's smarmy, reptilian Duncan, Robin Tunney's not-as-dumb-or-pathetic-as-she-appears Kitty and Sedgwick's hardboiled-on-the-outside Claire. Of course the film belongs to Stanley Tucci, the film's dying hitman. Another sublime, subtle performance from this extraordinarily talented actor; he actually manages to give this brutal excursion a heart.

I picked up "Montana" on a whim, and was very plesantly surprised by it.I'll concede that there were some holes in the story, and some of the characters were very flat, but Claire and Nick made a VERY interesting study.There were enough plot twists that I didn't forsee to keep me surprised, and the main characters were definitely engaging enough to keep my interest.However, the violence and carnage were definitely worse than was necessary (comparisons to Tarantino seem justified).I'd give it a 8 - not great, but interesting and engaging.

Montana is not a hit, but is a good example of how to make an excellent movie. The plot is 'tantalizer', the actors/tress are level one pro, and the director (Jennifer) is brilliant. I kept glued to the screen all the time, and my dinner went cold...I'd like to see more of Jennifer's work, but it seems this is the only film she did. At least I didn't find more titles at the IMDb. I'll appreciate any hint.