If 11:14 works, then it works because it doesn't outstay its welcome. If Pulp Fiction gave birth to this sort of picture, flawlessly encompassing three stories into a two and a half hour-odd time frame (Three stories about one story, remember?) and 1999 Doug Liman film Go was sub-Pulp Fiction, but still pretty good, encompassing three stories in about an hour and a half; then 11:14 is a sort of sub-Go mash-up in its encompassing SIX stories into something like 85 minutes. Given a good five minutes are opening credits and there are closing credits to boot, that makes for about 78-odd minutes of shenanigans and short-comings during which all manner of things random and apparently funny unfold. Therein lies 11:14's chief problem, it's in too much of a rush; too much of a hurry and far too in love with its premise-come-gimmick of unfolding multiple stories and interlocking them. When those that say 'x' needed Pulp Fiction to even exist, 11:14 is the sort of film they refer to.
The maker proves he's seen Tarantino's opus in interlocking all these tales about crime and sordid activity together, but the dialogue and general sense of authenticity is entirely lost; 11:14 additionally subscribing to revolving around kids and their juvenile criminal activity. Where Pulp Fiction was additionally adult and felt exceedingly so, as it revolved around adult characters and people you felt were either gangsters or low-level criminals, 11:14 subscribes to kids smoking; drinking; driving fast around town and grumbling about working in stores. As the templating of bigger, better, more grown up films is undertaken but juvenilised, so too are the principal characters. But all this sounds like I hated 11:14, and comparing it to Pulp Fiction is a stern and unfair comparison anyway. For the record, 11:14 just about works; plunging us into the film with an animated title sequence showing all manner of words and names resembling swerving cars ducking; weaving; twisting and bending their way in and out of roads and so forth, perfectly setting the tone of what's to come as people do exactly this after a range of scattered events.
The film begins weakly, like a version of Go with all the substance sucked out of it. Rather than offer an overview of the plot; needless to say lots of off the wall colourful "stuff" happens to a glut of disparate people ranging from Hilary Swank's store working Buzzy; to Patrick Swayze's concerned father named Frank; to teenager troublemakers Tim (Sands), Mark (Hanks) and Eddie (Foster); right through to the vampish Cheri (Cook). The key link most of the stories have with one another in terms of physicality is a dead body or death as a stone wall item, with how different people react to the item of death (whether caused or accidentally discovered) a sub-division to this premise. On separate occasions, both guilt and immorality are elements or reactions born out of the coming across of the item of death, only evident when the body or the item of death has been 'successfully' dealt with, with one character being a little allured by it as they utilise the death to ruin someone else's life whereas another offering us a grossly varied state.
The problem here is that these thematic elements are for display only, the film showing us Swayze standing there in his garage when it transpires he has gotten away with whatever foul narrative has wormed its way into his life; the three kids in the van haring along the road realising what they've done in hitting a pedestrian and one other character sitting in the back of a police car having been arrested, but cutting away and therefore onwards to the next wacky encounter it can cook up. The film is more interested in its premise and its gimmick than how these situations and encounters both affect and mould these people, six stories in little UNDER an hour and a half its eventual downfall as previous examples have been established to study fewer tales but broaden both study and accentuate the overall perils of a given situation. In fact, rarely is the film ever bothered with how the characters feel and what they think of the situation they've just created and the action they've just taken; these moments limited to fleeting reaction shots rather than drawn out observations.
The tale that garnered most of my interest than the others is the story of an organised shop robbery by a young man whom is friends with the girl behind the till, the plan to take the money and feign that a theft has taken place in the shooting of the clerk making itself rapidly apparent. In emphasising the nastiness and stupidity of the idea these two concoct between them, the film briefly shines a light on the detrimental effects and dangers of crime rather than wallow in a flurry of ditzy, off-the-wall tales that hop and skip all over the place as they get by on sheer energy and meek interest. The tale takes us on a wild ride of emotions and morally infused content, offering a stark and uncompromising reaction one minute; a bitter-sweet conclusion the next. 11:14 is decent enough entertainment, but that's all it is; comparisons to better films which utilise the manipulation of space and time more effectively to broaden great substance in the form of studies out of their premise exist, and arrive in the form of Memento and Irréversible. Forgive me, but on a closing, cynical note; the film's title reads on a standard English language keyboard upon holding down the 'shift' key: "!!:!$", which reversed is the dollar sign followed by three exclamation marks. Yes, this ploy of providing an audience with multiple stranded crime films that dart all over the place born out of Pulp Fiction's success works; and in working out the above might just be ONE of the reasons 11:14 was even concocted.
The maker proves he's seen Tarantino's opus in interlocking all these tales about crime and sordid activity together, but the dialogue and general sense of authenticity is entirely lost; 11:14 additionally subscribing to revolving around kids and their juvenile criminal activity. Where Pulp Fiction was additionally adult and felt exceedingly so, as it revolved around adult characters and people you felt were either gangsters or low-level criminals, 11:14 subscribes to kids smoking; drinking; driving fast around town and grumbling about working in stores. As the templating of bigger, better, more grown up films is undertaken but juvenilised, so too are the principal characters. But all this sounds like I hated 11:14, and comparing it to Pulp Fiction is a stern and unfair comparison anyway. For the record, 11:14 just about works; plunging us into the film with an animated title sequence showing all manner of words and names resembling swerving cars ducking; weaving; twisting and bending their way in and out of roads and so forth, perfectly setting the tone of what's to come as people do exactly this after a range of scattered events.
The film begins weakly, like a version of Go with all the substance sucked out of it. Rather than offer an overview of the plot; needless to say lots of off the wall colourful "stuff" happens to a glut of disparate people ranging from Hilary Swank's store working Buzzy; to Patrick Swayze's concerned father named Frank; to teenager troublemakers Tim (Sands), Mark (Hanks) and Eddie (Foster); right through to the vampish Cheri (Cook). The key link most of the stories have with one another in terms of physicality is a dead body or death as a stone wall item, with how different people react to the item of death (whether caused or accidentally discovered) a sub-division to this premise. On separate occasions, both guilt and immorality are elements or reactions born out of the coming across of the item of death, only evident when the body or the item of death has been 'successfully' dealt with, with one character being a little allured by it as they utilise the death to ruin someone else's life whereas another offering us a grossly varied state.
The problem here is that these thematic elements are for display only, the film showing us Swayze standing there in his garage when it transpires he has gotten away with whatever foul narrative has wormed its way into his life; the three kids in the van haring along the road realising what they've done in hitting a pedestrian and one other character sitting in the back of a police car having been arrested, but cutting away and therefore onwards to the next wacky encounter it can cook up. The film is more interested in its premise and its gimmick than how these situations and encounters both affect and mould these people, six stories in little UNDER an hour and a half its eventual downfall as previous examples have been established to study fewer tales but broaden both study and accentuate the overall perils of a given situation. In fact, rarely is the film ever bothered with how the characters feel and what they think of the situation they've just created and the action they've just taken; these moments limited to fleeting reaction shots rather than drawn out observations.
The tale that garnered most of my interest than the others is the story of an organised shop robbery by a young man whom is friends with the girl behind the till, the plan to take the money and feign that a theft has taken place in the shooting of the clerk making itself rapidly apparent. In emphasising the nastiness and stupidity of the idea these two concoct between them, the film briefly shines a light on the detrimental effects and dangers of crime rather than wallow in a flurry of ditzy, off-the-wall tales that hop and skip all over the place as they get by on sheer energy and meek interest. The tale takes us on a wild ride of emotions and morally infused content, offering a stark and uncompromising reaction one minute; a bitter-sweet conclusion the next. 11:14 is decent enough entertainment, but that's all it is; comparisons to better films which utilise the manipulation of space and time more effectively to broaden great substance in the form of studies out of their premise exist, and arrive in the form of Memento and Irréversible. Forgive me, but on a closing, cynical note; the film's title reads on a standard English language keyboard upon holding down the 'shift' key: "!!:!$", which reversed is the dollar sign followed by three exclamation marks. Yes, this ploy of providing an audience with multiple stranded crime films that dart all over the place born out of Pulp Fiction's success works; and in working out the above might just be ONE of the reasons 11:14 was even concocted.