Cosmoeticadotcom Lost in the glare of Michael Moore's 2004 pseudo-documentary Fahrenheit 911 was independent filmmaker John Sayles' far more incisive filmic take on politics called Silver City. While Moore's film was a frontal assault on the George W. Bush administration, Sayles' film was less a jab at Right Wing politics, although it clearly was, and more an assault on the sliminess of politics in general. I was surprised at how good the film was, considering all the negative reviews it got from critics. Is it a great film, in league with Sayles' best? No. But it's light years beyond typical Hollywood fare- especially bigger budgeted films like the Clinton era's Wag The Dog.The film it most resembles is Roman Polanski's Chinatown, although set in contemporary Colorado, and this film having a lighter feel- in terms of the cinematography and humor…. t's a shame that this film was swamped by so many other screechy films, such as Fahrenheit 911 and Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ, for it deserved it, despite its bad ending. The best thing about Sayles is that he is unpredictable- save that he writes and directs stellar adult dramas, and given his last several films, that aspect of his work seems to be in no danger of diminishing.

peng88 First off, this is mostly directed to the reviewer who compared Silver City to Chinatown. Silver City may not be a classic but frankly I was quite impressed with Danny Huston as the investigator.I also thought the supporting cast was quite good and it was especially refreshing to see complex Latinos-not just bad guys or simpleton characterizations.As to the script, I HIGHLY disagree with it not being very creative. It was textured, funny in places and absorbing. Maybe not OUT OF THE PAST caliber but certainly with enough memorable lines.But then again, I just happen to think that people need to be reminded that Bush, Chaney, Rove -and now Palin are not what they present themselves to be-or at least, what they promise the country they will be.

jeremy3 There was some great work by minor characters in the film. The actors playing Mexicans were very convincing and real. One had sympathy for the right-wing radio show host (Miguel Ferrer) being bullied by the bigwigs in the party for being a bit of an outcast. Kris Kristopherson gave a great performance of a cowboy-millionaire, who fancied himself as a man who made things happen (and could convince almost anyone that he was really justified in being the amoral individual he was). There was also a sincere performance by a miner, who became a manager and ended up paying bitterly for being the "yes man" to the mine owner - a large, amoral corporation with a powerful lock on the life of the entire state of Colorado. The problem was that, of the major characters, only Chris Cooper shines. He is obviously portraying Bush, and does an excellent job of portraying a naive man, struggling to express basic thoughts, and being adored and utilized by everyone who holds onto his cape in expectation of great fortunes out of his becoming governor. The main character, the private investigator, I never bonded with. He never really engaged me. I didn't really understand his appeal or where he was coming from. Darryl Hannah's role was incredulous. Is a beautiful woman like here in the 2000's just sitting around hoping for the next man in town to arrive? I don't think so. Tim Roth's performance was very blasé. The biggest disappointment was Richard Dreyfus' performance. His characterization was so one-dimensional and stereotypical that you couldn't really feel convinced by it. There were great moments of beauty in the film. I particularly liked when the town developer said in glee that he 'is going to build a city'. It shows exactly how and why people become so greedy and zealous about development and progress. They see themselves in the history books. The ending was sad. The fish floating in the water showed the fragility of life amidst the beauty of Colorado. However, even that message was severally weakened by the whole rest of the movie that led up to this scene. The movie disappointed me, because I was only moved at moments. The rest of the movie seemed rather pointless and wandering. This is a flaw that John Sayles is usually not guilty of. As bizarre and unique as the stories that Sayles comes up with, his plots are always cohesive and logical. Silver City is an exception to this.

krorie The problem with this movies is not that in tried to be a "Chinatown" clone or that it tried to spray the viewer with a lot of left-right political mumbo jumbo, but that it didn't know where it was going. Was it to be a political spoof mixed with satire or a serious political murder intrigue mystery? It actually worked best when it went in the direction of a political thriller. The two most effective scenes are the opening with the body in the water and the one in the morgue when the coroner is explaining some of the evidence concerning how the body got into the water in the first place. The campaign ads that flashed across the screen from time to time were not humorous but merely distracting.So much has been said about this film by IMDb critics that I only have one other observation. I thought the usually lackluster Daryl Hannah stole the show from the other veteran Thespians with her portrayal of burned-out Maddy Pilager who just happened to be an expert archer. Mary Kay Place, an exceptional actress was virtually wasted in a small poorly written role. The rest of the cast was great as has been noted by others. Especially noteworthy were Kris Kristofferson, a much better actor and songwriter than he is a singer, the under-appreciated Chris Cooper, Ralph Waite, who never gives a poor performance, and Richard Dreyfuss, whose part was also underwritten.