Of course everybody talks about how much Tarantino influenced modern filmmakers and maybe most of them are right. But only in films like 'Truth or Consequences, N.M.' it becomes clear how much better Tarantino is. 'T o C, NM' has some dialogue scenes that seem to be directly stolen from a Tarantino movie, with just some words changed, so nobody would recognize. Sadly, this doesn't only sound stupid, it does so less fit in this film, it's a disgrace.
Consider one of the first scenes where they talk the first time about a quarter. They talk about it for at least five minutes. But nobody seems motivated to talk about it. They look as if they just have to stop there to get this quarter-thing over. The actors seem to be annoyed and impatient, not only because the guy they have to convince his quarter isn't magical is a sinewy guy, but also because they don't seem to say their dialogue from the heart, but from the screenplay. The guy himself is the only one who doesn't seem to be like that. He looks convinced and, well, is annoying. The fact that it's Kiefer Sutherland, who is also the director of the film makes it somehow understandable. But only so far, as we don't understand why he didn't just delete this dialogue.
As he should have deleted a lot of other dialogue, of course all of the other stuff about the quarter, and most of the monologues Mykelti Williamson has to stand through. He suddenly starts to say something like 'I once knew somebody who...' and goes on and on for some minutes. This really works when everybody talks like that or when at least he seems to be convinced he wants to say that. But here everyone looks at him interested and we just don't know why. Nobody else talks like that in the movie.
It's a quite bizarre movie with quite bizarre characters. Mykelti Williamson for example moves and talks so exaggerated as if it's a comedy. Kevin Pollak has a character development which can be only watched with disbelief. Rod Steiger hops on the screen, screams a bit and is dead. Martin Sheen plays one of his worst and ridiculous roles. And Kiefer Sutherland is the worst of all. He goes so much on the nerves of the audience you want to kill him. It's really quite a relief when he's finally dead. I can't like a movie where I'm glad somebody is dead after I had to watch him for an hour and a half. Not if he's the director.
At least we have Vincent Gallo and Kim Dickens here. Gallo isn't only one of the best actors of our time. He really can give a role life. Even in such a bad movie like this, we care for him. And Kim Dickens as his girlfriend is also likable. We care for both of them and the way the movie ends, makes it even more unsatisfying.
The plot is just stupid, with story lines that can't be believed. The gangsters take hostages and take them with them for such a long time that you never know why. There's a fault in Gallo's plan to make a lot of money, which never is explained. There is one character development which is surprising but in the end it didn't make any difference if it wasn't.
The film wouldn't really be that bad, but Sutherland and Sheen are so bad and annoying, that you just want the movie to end. And Sutherland as a director celebrates violence so much, it's clear that it isn't his effort we care about Gallo and Dickens. Sometimes it seems as if Sutherland took his role behind the camera, shouting: 'Yeah, let's kill him and this one and with a lot of blood there and there. Cool!'
We don't need movies like that. A movie about nothing, with no message, no more than two interesting characters and a lot of unnecessary violence. That's really the last we need.
