bobsgrock John Sayles, one of the founders of American independent cinema, gives a terrific and engrossing story every time he makes a film. After seeing his take on the small-town Texas persona in Lonestar, I was prepared to see Limbo. I was not prepared for how it would affect me.This is, quite simply, a masterful work of cinema and narrative. Unlike most directors, Sayles is brilliant and relentless in his purpose. He takes his time to set up the plot, diving right into the strange, shapeless lives of a group of fishermen and natives in Port Henry, Alaska. Everyone in town is forced to reminisce in one way or another. The town is suffering financially, and the way Sayles has his camera almost sneak up and hide behind characters in order to listen to what the locals are saying is genius.Of course, typical Sayles, the plot is almost completely unpredictable. It begins, like Lonestar, as a detailed look into the lives of a small Alaskan fishing town with the lonely, drifting lives of the inhabitants taking front stage. Then, midway the plot completely shifts gears and we get a tale of man vs. nature, the elements that threaten to destroy and overtake the fighting spirit of people. It is here that the cast truly shines. David Straitharin, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and Vanessa Martinez are equally fantastic in their respective, so much so that it is impossible to imagine any other actor playing any of these parts. Sayles is masterful at casting and he proves that here unlike anything else he has done. The final third of the film rests heavily on the relationship between these three characters, so it is crucial that they relate well together and be believable. I couldn't ask for three better performances.In the end, this film is completely stamped with the unique style of John Sayles. Because he is so unpredictable, it is a truly satisfying feeling after seeing one of his films. You feel, not jilted and tricked like most films do, but happy and understanding what and why things happened. This is certainly a film I will be thinking about for awhile after seeing it and I can only hope that filmmakers like Sayles will continue to stick around. After all, these are the kind of films that need to be continued. It has soul, personality and a quality that can teach and inspire. A truly great film.

merklekranz The first half of "Limbo" has strong character development. Unfortunately only a small number of those characters have any bearing on the remainder of the film. For example, the culture clash between the Alaskans and the tourist industry, was totally gratuitous. There is also an inordinate amount of small talk that leads nowhere. All of this could be forgiven, if once the story kicks into gear, with the mother, daughter, and David Strathairn stranded on a remote island, something happened. Unfortunately the second half in the wild, is tedious and boring. I recommend fast forwarding every time the daughter picks up the diary. All the fine acting, and beautiful scenery, cannot hide the fact that this movie is way too long for such slight material, and the conjectural ending is totally unacceptable. - MERK

noralee "Limbo" continues John Sayles travels around the continent to find distinctive regionalisms and he portrays small town Alaska with a real authentic feel. The audio and video were out of synch for the first 15 minutes so I missed some of a key scene where the singer breaks up with her boyfriend through a song, which was too bad as the cover songs are terrific, from Tom Waits to Richard Thompson's "Dimming of the Day." The acting was excellent, particularly, Vanessa Martinez as a very believable teenager. David Strathairn was both restrained and passionate. I just wasn't completely convinced that Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's character had gone through changes to be at peace with herself. Kris Kristofferson again does a bad guy scarily convincingly.But the surprise "limbo" conclusion ruined the film for me and virtually everyone else in the audience also groaned.(originally written 7/12/1999)

howie73 This is certainly a film of two halves. It feels like an upmarket TV movie at first but the acting and camera-work are superior to that aforementioned fare. There is a sense of a community evoked by Sayles's direction as he follows a diverse array of characters and overlaps their problems with the actions of others, while, at the same time, providing enough social commentary on the evils of capitalism that threaten the natural beauty of Alaska. This socio-political commentary is subtle enough because Sayles avoids stereotypes in his portrayal of the inhabitants. The first half feels fragmented at times but the presentation of the blossoming romance between the two main characters provides a seemingly stable counterpoint to the Altmanesque rendering of the tale.However, the film is really a tease. It abandons the first half in favor of the unexpected Lord of the Flies scenario involving the three main characters for the second half. Moreover, it changes mood full circle, using fear and anxiety as the main concerns of the three stranded characters, whose lives hang in the balance, in a state of limbo as it were. I wasn't sure how the first half related to the second, and I still feel uneasy about the total break Sayles employed between both parts. As a result, it feels like two films joined together. I also feel Sayles abandoned any sense of a multi-threaded narrative drive he successfully built into the first part in favor of the unexpected second part. The second part may symbolically allude to the film's title but it's also an abrupt digression of the preceding genre. Why bother with showing the first hour if it wasn't followed up? Why bother showing many characters in the first half, then abandoning their concerns in the later, as if it didn't matter? This is essentially a TV movie for the art-house crowd but one that challenges and frustrates in equal measure.