11:14 (2003) User Reviews

Clever and intricate

[lynton · 7/10 · 7 July 2005]

A clever little thriller/black comedy, which holds interest. 11:14 tells the inter-connected stories of a group of people, all revolving around a tragic car-accident. We see the accident, which occurs at 11:14pm, from different perspectives, as the puzzle slowly comes together.

Sure, the story works a lot on coincidence, but it's still a great build up and interesting ending, despite it being somewhat of a let-down.

The very black humour includes two sections which might just be some of the most cringing moments for men in cinema history – one of them in particular had me cowering fear.

Good performances from Patrick Swayze and Hilary Swank make this a good cinematic treat.

Intriguing and Intelligent Screenplay

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 8 October 2005]

In Middletown, at 11:14 PM, two cars accidents happen at the same time, affecting the lives of five different groups of people. A drunken driver hits a man in a lonely road near a bridge; three young men hits a woman with a van, one of the passenger has a severed penis while another man on the road shoots them; a young man robs a convenience store, with the support of the clerk; a man finds a body in a cemetery and gets rid off it; and a young pregnant woman tries to raise money for an abortion. All of these characters and their fates are very connected.

"11:14" is a great entertainment, presenting thriller, drama, crime, action and lots of black humor. The story goes forward and backward in time, but differently from "Memento" or "Irreversible", indeed presenting five different perspectives for two car accidents, each one of them disclosing new and darker information to the viewer, slightly recalling "Rashomon". The film is very well directed, and all the cast has good performances. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "11:14"

Too little and too much

[Chris Knipp · 7/10 · 16 August 2005]

Roadkill (that isn't), a severed penis (that is), a convenience store, corpses (that's plural), a wicked girl with too many boyfriends (that's plural too): these are just some of the raw materials that go into "11:14's" "Rashomon"-like multiple retellings of what happened at a rural roadside near the little town of Middleton, 'A Very Happy Place' to Live (so the sign says) on one ridiculously eventful summer evening. There's enough material for three horror movies -- or, with wittier dialogue and more sparkling production values, a substantial sequence in a Quentin Tarantino movie. On hand are energetic young actors -- Shawn Hatosy, Rachel Leigh Cook, Henry Thomas, and Colin Hanks, to name a few; double-Oscar winner Hilary Swank; a brave veteran, Barbara Hersey; and Patrick Swayze (his presence in "Donnie Darko" not forgotten by fans of the young and the edgy) -- a little like roadkill here himself -- gamely playing the loser dad of the misbehaving Cheri (Ms. Cook).

This is a whole flurry of those situations where somebody forgets that two wrongs don't make a right. It starts when a drunken young driver on a cell phone (Henry Thomas) hits something and thinks he's committed a felony. Somebody else finds a corpse and hides it to protect whoever he thinks is the killer. Another guy's ready to commit robbery to pay for an abortion because he thinks he's the dad. A coworker is ready to help him even though it could cost her her job. One character is guilty of multiple deceptions.

Unlike "Rashomon," this isn't so much a single event seen from various viewpoints as a snake's nest of malfeasance's that all turn out to be intertwined, and it doesn't repeat those moments leading up to "11:14" to get at the truth, or run them in chronologically backwards segments like "Memento" or "Irréversible" or "5x2". Eventually it connects something said during the first sequence with a character whose secrets come out at the end to reveal one of the oldest plots of all -- a doomed double-cross for profit and escape -- just like something in one of Geoffrey Chaucer's grimmest, most moralistic Canterbury Tales. There's no divine retribution here, though the local cop takes enough of the players away to run out of handcuffs and get tired of reciting Miranda rights.

Almost everybody's bad in "11:14," and gets worse, because he or she does something naughty to escape consequences and fails in the attempt. First-time director Greg Marcks's dark comedy of multiple self-sabotage and misadventure has horror movie raw materials and B-picture cheap visuals and jumpy camera-work but a conceptualist's intricate and finely tuned plot: the sequences don't leave any dangling threads. The question is, though: what's the conception? What's all this add up to, other than a freakishly busy night for Officer Hannagan (Clark Gregg)? It's a game, a puzzle, without a point. Compared to "Amores Perros", to "Memento," even to François Ozon's chilly "5x2," "11:14" has nothing general to say. The puzzle is well constructed, but it leaves you hungry for something more solid.

Marcks's scenes of wrongdoing tend to the excruciatingly slow and messy, as in the Coens' "Blood Simple" -- which Marcks has cited as a major influence. But instead of "Blood Simple's" hurts-so-good suspense, there's a breathless speed in "11:14" that keeps you watching -- but also bars you from caring about the characters The ingenuity of construction feels wasted for another reason: as in many another film with a plot line wound up tight as a drum, the ending itself lacks punch. At the finale, the hunger for relief and revelation the multiple plot lines have aroused is only partly satisfied.

No doubt Marcks's attention is elsewhere, even if it's not yet clear where. Despite its B style visuals and its debts to the Coens and horror flicks and noirs, "11:14" is attempting a fresh outlook. There is clear talent here. Though the slippery mix of genres may disappoint horror fans, hipsters, and folks just out for a nasty good old time, this isn't mere roadkill. Life remains when all the corpses and wrongdoers have been dragged away, and the hybrid comedic style is very 21st century. Some of the scenes stick in your mind, and if you won't know where to file them, that may be Marcks's point. If he can bring his visual and production values up to the level of his writing and directing skills, he may get the distribution this first film has been robbed of for several years. Let's hope he also finds a little more to say.

_________________

Seen during a brief theatrical showing in the SF Bay Area, August 2005.

Go Middleton High!

[dogalupalu · 10 October 2003]

I've been following the press on this film from the moment I first read about it.

I've seen several glowing reviews, most recently in Variety, for this film,the actors and the cannot-be-more-than-fresh-out-of-high-school-himself looking Writer/Director, who shared with the audience that his age was somewhere "in the low two digits."

I've been patiently waiting to see "11:14", finally got to while I was in Toronto!! I was one of several hundred packed like sardines into the theater. Fortunately, I did not have to sit on the floor like the rush ticket holders.

It was unbelievable! A sick and twisted tale(5 tales actually) of coincidence, deceit,small town mentality and good(or bad)intentions gone miserably wrong. Hilary Swank is brilliant as a convenience store worker so afraid to lose her job, she opts to chance suffering tremendous injury over practicing a little common sense. Patrick Swayze utilizes his intensity and tendency towards the dramatic to comedically portray the world's most overprotective Father, while Rachael Leigh Cook's character, Cheri, wreaks havoc on Middelton, Anywhere, USA.

The film opens with a car crash, a botched arrest and a few nasty head injuries that set up the film beautifully. Ben Foster, Colin Hanks and Stark Sands turn an otherwise ordinary joyride through town into the most adolescent, gruesome and completely hysterical adventure. Not for the squeamish.

All five stories are meticulously and ingeniously constructed. I, like my fellow audience members, thoroughly enjoyed every bone-breaking, heart-stopping, could-things-get-any-worse-for-these-poor-middle(ton)-Americans moment. Can't wait to see it in the States.

A puzzling thriller

[Imdbidia · 7/10 · 25 February 2011]

It is 11:14pm, an accident happens. Different people cross paths on the road, and all of them play their part in the accident. The movie tells us the partial stories of each of the parts involved, how the actions of each of them lead to what happens at the beginning and end of the film. The movie is a presented as a puzzle in which all the pieces are assembled when the film ends. A second frozen in time and dissected for the benefit of the viewer.

This is a dark thrilling movie, full of action, with a great mood and tempo, very engaging and never dull. The movie has no pity with its own characters, all of them depicted as mean, nasty, stupid and/or untruthful, deserving of the drama that unfolds during the night. Just some of the secondary characters are neutral or good.

All actors are OK in their respective roles. Two of them especially shine: Hillary Swank, who really nails her role as red-neck shop attendant, and Rachael Leigh Cook is terrific as the nasty Lolita around which all the story, directly or indirectly, revolves.

The movie is entertaining with a round story that will keep you glued to your chair. Its only problem is the mediocrity of the dialogs, and that the characters have no dramatic depth, but, well, you cannot expect depth from a thriller.

11:14 Edgy, Smart, Terrific

[JigShaun-2 · 9/10 · 5 September 2003]

Festival. Based on what I'd read, I was expecting some sort of Tarantino rip-off.

Instead I got run over by a very fast, very clever film. Directed by 27 year old Greg Marcks, the film is populated by up and coming young stars including Colin Hanks and Rachael Leigh Cook. It's actually 5 stories that all take place in a small town in middle America at around 11pm on a random night.

Characters keep running into each other and bad bad things happen, but the stories are all strung together in really clever, often darkly funny ways. The dialog is sharp and real, and Marcks has a real skill with his young cast. There are some really excellent performances, especially by Rachael Leigh Cook, who as the trashy Cherie is just the right combination of evil and desperate.

Although even in her trailer park costume she's breathtakingly beautiful! Also look for Ben Foster, who surprised me with a very realistic performance, after something REALLY bad happens to him. Hanks is also good, as is Shawn Hatosy. I was blown away! And the strangest part of the Premiere screening? It finished at exactly 11:14.

Or Connect the Dots

[dianefhlbsch · 7/10 · 11 March 2012]

It has often been said that all of our lives are interconnected. Nine people's lives are linked together at the same moment in time, all with life changing results.

This film actually has no plot, but rather details the actions of all of the nine people leading up to that fated moment and shortly after. Interestingly, it is all about the freak timing and some very stupid or cruel choices that people make. Sometimes those ill-thought out actions can have devastating results.

While this film does not fall under the heading of "enjoyable evening of entertainment" for me, it is a MUST see film for teenagers and their parents. It is not preachy, but very matter-of-fact blunt. Actions do have reactions, as well as consequences. There is also a difference between "harmless fun" and "stupidly dangerous".

Bad decisions make for good entertainment

[amvogeldc · 9/10 · 8 August 2003]

Half an hour or less of one night, two traffic accidents, one severed body part, several crimes or felonies, one silly dog, at least one spectacularly bad decision per character and two deaths make for 90 minutes of pure high-adrenalin fun. And smart fun at that! Of course, it's a bit like, say, Pulp Fiction on Vodka/Red Bull, but hey, I've been rarely entertained so well by other people's fiascoes.

The stories of about a dozen American small-towners intersect at 11:14 one night. Everybody has their own agenda, be it vandalism, fast money, sex, protecting the reputation of their daughter, or just to do their job, and most of them have had too much too drink - which leads to the aforementioned bad decisions. Some great acting (Shawn Hatosy and Patrick Swayze stand out), dynamic camera work and fast pacing keep 11:14 moving and viewers on their toes. And of course, there's always one more twist...

I saw 11:14 pre-release at the Fantasy Filmfest, and it was received very well. If film distributors are just a little smarter than the characters in this film, this should be a smash!

out after curfew

[wrlang · 7/10 · 6 August 2006]

11:14 is a decent film you must watch all of to appreciate. Using multiple story lines, a series of lives all come together at 11:14 in a body hits car accident. Good casting and acting help keep your attention as the sometimes mundane lives of all the characters come together one piece at a time over a 24 hour period. While the disjointed stories are simple mini-movies of themselves, it isn't too hard to figure out how they all come together. I like the complexities of movies such as these, but they are not for people who want simple entertainment. You need to watch this uninterrupted and concentrate on the subplots to get the full value.

Worthwhile - Can't believe it's not more widely known

[wunderwood · 9/10 · 29 January 2006]

This is one of those movies that you really ought to see. We rented it based on the back cover, and we were glad we did. 11:14 has been compared to Crash and Memento. We haven't seen Crash, but it looks like we should, and while I thought that 11:14 was not quite as terrific as Memento, I felt it was definitely in the running with it.

I came to IMDb to see what else this guy, Greg Marcks, has done and was surprised to see that the only other entry is a 19 minute short film. How on earth did he get stars such as Patrick Swayze and Hillary Swank? If you do decide to see this movie, DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER FIRST. What a rotten trailer. The trailer gives away virtually the entire plot.

Good except the last 15-20 minutes

[s_talsma · 7/10 · 21 June 2005]

Good movie.

I agree with most other comments, kind of a wild roller-coaster of bad things happening.

A bit disappointing ending however, the movie basically tells the story of 30 minutes around 11:14 in 90 minutes. However, after a little over an hour in the movie the story is clear already...

Instead of preparing you for an interesting ending, the director decided to keep telling the by-now-very-obvious story for the kind of people that usually miss half the film by getting beer popcorn, talking or other reasons..

This movie is worth the money nonetheless: Good fun to watch.

Outstanding film which has action, comedy, and intelligence

[Paul-201 · 9/10 · 23 February 2004]

I saw this movie at the Florida State University's Seven Days of Opening Nights festival in Tallahassee, Florida. The director, Greg Marcks, is a Florida State film school graduate. I was fortunate to attend a question and answer session with him. His attention to detail is stunning. This is the type of movie where lots of gaffs could occur because the movie is about five stories that eventually come together. I did not notice any gaffs. The movie re-visits previous scenes from a different perspective. By 11:14 pm, all of the events come together. The attention to detail is important because the whole movie must tie together at the end. This movie perfectly ties together.

The acting, dialogue and action sequences are great. It's amazing how well this movie flows. As Mr. Marcks pointed out during the Q&A session, this movie should be seen as a black comedy. The movie is funny. This movie was influenced by "Cops" and other shows that show not-so-intelligent people. But the movie is intelligent. If it weren't, it wouldn't be good. Based on the reaction of the audience, this movie should be well received.

Smashing

[teh_mode · 7/10 · 20 July 2006]

Whenever a film is touted as the "next Pulp Fiction" it always makes my heart sink a little bit. It never does a film justice, particularly those that, not only are not in the same league as Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece, but don't even match up to the previous movies spawned in its wake. For every Go there is a Two Days In The Valley, so in the end, all you should ever really do is try to view a film its own right, rather than condemn its failure to match its inspirations. Perhaps then, it is fitting that newcomer-director Greg Marcks, who's only previous work was a short film about a man who reads to cigar-rollers, via radio, has created a tremendously entertaining if, at times, rather gruesome tale about five intertwining stories revolving around a couple of car crashes at 11:14pm.

Story one involves a young man who, obviously after intoxicating himself, attempts to drive himself home when, low and behold he hits what appeared to be a dear. After closer inspection it turns out that he has actually hit a fellow human, who is now dead as a possum. This incident, along with the other four stories, are not actually tales, but rather perspectives which, as the movie goes on, begin unravelling a narrative hidden from each of the other stories' characters, displaying how they are oblivious to the repercussions to which their misgivings seemingly affect others. Along the way there are some pretty nasty, although hilarious, gags involving such modern day taboos as fatal graveyard sex and a certain missing penis. You will squirm as you chuckle at the ensuing madness invoked upon our protagonists.

Where as hokey, silly riffraff like Snatch involved increasingly contrived story lines intertwining over a rather dubious narrative showed cheeky-chappy cockney gangsters smirk and dance their way through a music video of a movie, 11:14 manages to recapture the style and essence that made something like a Quentin Tarantino movie so effortlessly entertaining. What nobody cared to inform the duplicators of said director was that it was NOT swooshy camera moves, ridiculously quirky gangsters or even a decent soundtrack that made Reservoir Dogs the movie it was. It was a script. A script that was so funny, so original and so clever that you fell in love with it. 11:14 might not necessarily be a "lovable" movie, but it is constructed in a very clever sense, fooling its audience in a sense of doom, only to reveal itself later on to choruses of laughs. Marcks obviously understands how to strike a balance between humour and dread, as parts of this film had me clutching for breath, yet laughing all the same.

The cast do their up-most to fill in the gaps that may not make this as brilliant as some people have made it out to be. Most characters only serve the movie with around 15 minutes worth of screen time, so it is impressive that most of their scenes are packed with enough humour to keep you interested. Patrick Swayze's god-fearing father who is frantically trying to rid the body of his young daughter's lover is fairly impressive, but the daughter herself, played with wonderful faux-ditz and scheming nastiness by Rachel Leigh Cook, steals the show. You probably won't feel much for the clumsy nature of the characters, but they will certainly keep you on your toes.

11:14: Where is the intelligence of which everyone speaks?

[Platypuschow · 4/10 · 22 February 2024]

Plot

The events leading up to an 11:14 p.m. Car crash, from five very different perspectives.

Cast

Henry Thomas, Colin Hanks, Ben Foster, Patrick Swayze, Clark Gregg, Hilary Swank, Shawn Hatosy, Rachael Leigh Cook and Jason Segel! No shortage of star power but written/directed by a person with less film experience than I have in thermo-dynamics.

Verdict

I keep seeing in the reviews that this movie is intelligent, that it's smart and I'm confused where people are getting that from. Am I missing something or is the bar for something to constitute as intelligent really just that incredibly low.

The concept where it's the same story told from multiple characters perspectives is not new, in fact it was done quite close to this in 1999 with Go starring Sarah Polley, Jay Mohr and Timothy Olyphant where it's how 3 different characters saw different elements of a drug deal gone wrong.

That's not intelligent, it's just filming a the same scenes and events from multiple characters perspectives, which in this case may enlighten us to other things we'd not seen in the previous angle but doesn't deliver intelligence nor entertainment for that matter.

The plot didn't warrant all these different perspectives, there are no interesting developments and surprisingly there isn't even a big twist at the end either! The movie just suddenly ends abruptly, roll credits and let the disappointment creep in.

If this is what passes as intelligent I really am concerned.

Rants

This is another one of those movies that suffers from the terrible protagonists issue. Namely, who am I rooting for? Every character is just a terrible human being that I wish ill on, I can't cheer these people on! So if I don't have a suitable protagonist it irreparably damages the film for me.

Breakdown

Impressive cast Doesn't really go anywhere Far from "Intelligent" Doesn't have an ending.

Well executed but a bit pointless

[imdbbl · 26 June 2010]

At 11:14 PM on one fatal evening, previously unconnected lives connect for the first time, with fatal consequences for some. The film slowly unveils five separate tales as the characters unwittingly careen towards each other... 11.14 is composed by interrelated sets of situations and characters like Crash (2004) or Babel (2006) and I have to say that the film was incredibly well executed. Technically speaking, it's almost flawless. But unlike Crash and Babel, 11:14 is more of a dark comedy/ thriller-noir then a drama per se.

Unfortunately, the plot isn't that interesting and in the end the film comes trough as a bit pointless. It all seems like a simple series of events that had consequences and not a straight narrative line. I just don't think it's a story worth telling, besides I felt that the story was in service of the narrative gimmick and not the other way around. On a more positive note, the film has a great pace and is somewhat engaging. The cast did a good job as well. All in all, it's a decent watch but I would skip it.

6/10

Certainly style over mostly everything else, but writer/director Greg Marcks brings enough of that to the table so as to get by in a wavering but punchy film.

[johnnyboyz · 6/10 · 25 July 2010]

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.

What a cracker of a movie !!

[siit · 9/10 · 6 September 2006]

I knew nothing at all about 11:14 when I saw it in the guide of what movie was on next. To be honest I was just going to keep 11:14 on in the background as I was supposed to be doing something more important. But I began to watch it.... and am I glad I did !! The credits haven't even finished rolling as I am writing this review because I thought it was that good.

The plot is supposed to be basic; an incident happens at 11:14pm and it is told from five different perspectives. But oh how it all progresses, ties together, and ends in a very satisfying manner. It reminded me of a cross between 'Memento' and 'Pulp Fiction' and to be honest, I found 11:14 comparable to those above mentioned excellent movies.

The actors themselves were so natural and played the roles so well that there was not one actor that was the 'star'. I can't say enough about this movie. It was clever, witty, funny when necessary, intelligent and excellently casted.

My only gripe was occasionally too many events 'seemed' to happen in the supposed allotted time which made me aware of the time frame more than I probably should. But so saying that it detracts very little and I enjoyed 11:14 immensely. See it, I am sure you will love it too.

Clever.

[deloudelouvain · 7/10 · 6 April 2019]

The story of 11:14 is about what happened during an evening leading eventually to two different car accidents at the same time in the same town. What is interesting about this story are the five very different perspectives showing how everybody got involved willingly or not in those tragic accidents. There are enough twists and turns to keep your mind occupied during the entire movie. The whole plot is cleverly written and it all fits together at one point. The acting wasn't bad at all, much better than I expected. All in all 11:14 was a pleasant surprise, way better than some high budget movies.

WOW - If you thought "scream" is a great movie than watch "11:14" and be surprised

[alexis2 · 10/10 · 13 August 2003]

I saw this movie during the "Fantasy Film Festival" in Germany. It is really a perfect mixture: it has all from horror to humour and the story is told with lots of originality... The film is built up like a puzzle which is assembled piece by piece, and resolves the story... For the viewer there are plenty of surprises till the end!! I have a little the impression that the director has been inspired by some scenes from the movie "snatch" where you can see at some point the same event happening from a different point of view. In this movie everything is built up on what happens at 11:14 ...and every actor in the story acts on his own "egoistic" way and contributes to assembling the puzzle.... I loved especially the black humour scenes...which made laugh the whole theatre.... This movie is a must see for everyone. If you thought "scream" is a great movie than watch "11:14" and be surprised!

greetings from Germany

Alex

Only one major flaw

[SigmaEcho · 7/10 · 23 May 2006]

There's an old list of simple guidelines that a good script should follow - One of the most important is to make your characters smart, as opposed to them all being dumb as a rock. If your characters make an endless stream of bad decisions, it's way too easy for the writer to have them get into bad situations, and the audience looses interest in stupid characters. You've written a poor story when all the conflict could be resolved if the characters had just stopped to think for a moment. "11:14" suffers from this problem. All the main characters make stupid decisions where they break the law unnecessarily. The only deaths are accidental, so if they were just honest and told the police what happened, they would be fine. Instead they make dumb choices, and as a result you really don't care what happens to them - you just end up thinking that they get what they deserve.

That said, that's the only thing wrong with this film. The pace is great, great editing, clever non-linear story structure, solid acting, and best of all, a great attention to detail. If you watch the film again, you start to notice even more little details that show that Greg Marcks really did a fantastic job, on nearly all levels. If he writes smarter characters in his future films, then he's got a very bright future as a filmmaker.

If you're handcuffed & a cop asks you "How 'bout the penis?"

[badtothebono · 9/10 · 8 January 2006]

check your watch. If it isn't 11:14, be very afraid.

What's not to like? This is very creative & very well acted & highly engrossing. The only nit I could pick is that, without doing an exhaustive study, I'd say some of the lenghts of time different people were supposed to spend doing what they did seemed quite short, esp. Swayze. I'll assume they did their homework, & it is correct, but it seems off. Otherwise, if you want something far from ordinary Hollywood hogfarts, watch this.

Don't worry about the comments about sick, twisted, squeamish, etc. This is almost The Muppets compared to most Hollywood "blockbuster" wannabes. whatever violence there is, is not gratuitous, not flagrant, not long-lasting. I hate violent movies, & I readily recommend this.

Quick and energetic film

[sergepesic · 7/10 · 7 September 2009]

The idea that 5 different stories converge in one is not a new one, but it works pretty good in this little, independent movie. Depressing small town and its even more depressing youth are the center of this plot. Sex, booze, petty vandalism, those are the favorite pastimes in the town of Middleton. And it all, what a surprise, ends in tragedy. Director Greg Marcks gathered very good cast of actors, who seem to have very good time making this flick. Shawn Hatosy and Barbara Hershey stood out in this inspired ensemble. What worked the most in 11:14 is that the young director didn't try to necessarily stretch this story. 86 minutes was the perfect lenght for this quick and energetic film.

outstanding

[wtnally · 10/10 · 30 July 2006]

i never heard about this movie or even knew it existed till a caught it on hbo. and man what a treat! this movie is so brilliant, you'll be watching it thinking, what is going on?! then it explains it from another persons point of view. with hilary swank and patrick swazey, the best known actors in the movie, leading the way, this is a great movie. just like pulp fiction, it intertwines people together through a car crash that happened at 11:14. this has some of the best acting i have ever seen in a low budget independent film and great directing and m night shyamalan type writing. i highly recommend this film to anyone who has ever thought about watching it, you will be surprised. 10/10

Not Bad

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 11 March 2010]

I love the kind of plot that goes into flashback and reconstructs how a serious event occurred. This is the story of a series of decisions that impact each other. Everything happens at 11:14 P.M., which is the reason for the title. This is a story of the angst and irresponsibility of a bunch of kids out for various reasons on a warm night in a small town. When bodies start falling from bridges, grave markers fall on heads, and a phony holdup occur, it leads to an interconnectedness of a several characters. There are many good acting jobs in what could have been really an exploitation film. As it is, the pacing is good, it grips us, and we find ourselves connected to the people, even though most aren't worthy of much. I had never heard of this film when it came out and I was glad I watched it. It was nice to see Patrick Swayze again. I always thought he was a pretty good actor.

Middle-wheel done road movie!

[Gunnar_Runar_Ingibjargarson · 5/10 · 17 June 2008]

How is it possible that 11:14 went virtually unreleased in theaters? After modest film-festival exposure, it played briefly in San Francisco in August 2005 (over two years after it was completed), but that's a cruel twist of fate for such a cleverly twisted movie about cruel twists of fate. Destined for sleeper status on DVD (and given a slightly higher profile by Hilary Swank's subsequent Oscar-winning performance in Million Dollar Baby), the audacious debut of writer-director Greg Marcks boasts a fantastic cast in a smartly constructed comedy/thriller, partly inspired by Blood Simple, in which a fatal traffic accident is examined and re-examined from multiple perspectives. The flashback structure involves all of the characters and events that lead up to the accident's deadly occurrence at 11:14 on an otherwise pleasant evening in Middleton, a typical suburb of Anytown, USA (filmed in the vicinity of Los Angeles). Marcks's screenplay attracted an impressive ensemble cast (costar Swank also signed on as an executive producer), and they're all given equal time as the intertwined plots are revealed. They include Rachael Leigh Cook (whose bad-girl behavior sets the chain of events in motion); Patrick Swayze and Barbara Hershey as her worried parents; Swank and Shawn Hatosy as would-be criminals with a dimwit plan; Henry Thomas as a drunk driver whose involvement is deeper than we realize; and Colin Hanks as one of three teenage vandals on a fast track to trouble. With falling corpses, graveyard sex, reckless gun play, and a severed penis, it's all in good, grisly fun (apart from intricate plotting, Marcks has no lofty agenda up his sleeve), and there's ultimately not much point to its random misfortune, but 11:14 is clearly the work of a promising filmmaker, worthy of rediscovery on DVD. Bonus features include Marcks's intelligent commentary, a standard behind-the-scenes featurette, and a useful "character jump" feature allowing viewers to choose a plot trajectory whenever one character encounters another.