merklekranz Generally political messages are done on television, so if you are a big fan of environmental correctness, watch to your hearts content. Most people go to the movies to be entertained, not sold some poppycock political nonsense. The hook here is the big name cast. Unfortunately the sum of the performances equals a whole movie that went absolutely nowhere. The two best performances, Chris Cooper, and Richard Dreyfus, have minimal screen time. In short, "Silver City" is to be avoided as entertainment. It is nothing more than a non documentary, rambling political expose on illegal immigration, pollution, and any number of other causes that do not belong anywhere except on the small screen. - MERK

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.

ClaMsMalta Apparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.Even "The Making of..." is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess...