Lost (2004)

So much average

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

This film has been given way too much credit from the other posters. For me, the film had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Lost is one of the worst films that I have ever watched. The dialogue is trite and sophomoric even cheesy at times. The same lines are repeated so many times, you start to tune it out. The use of profanity to make Lost look serious just served to make it look more ridiculous and redundant.It baffles me why a talented actor such as Dean Cain subjected himself to it. This was not a good role for him and he did not seem like he was into his character one bit. I wish that I could get my time back that I WASTED watching it. This is the type of movie that half way through viewing you want to turn it off but part of you says that it might get better but it never does. The plot is not consistent. This is a film that I could not recommend to anyone.

This movie seems even better when seen before and after other recent releases (most of them so bad, this one looks like a classic in comparison). But even on its own merit, it is a good movie. One asset that makes you know it's a good movie is that the time passes swiftly while watching it. It flows very well. The story is about an upper class (at least to most people, although he feels himself middle class, which the movie does an excellent job of telling us without being too flagrant) bank official who along with another bank worker, joins with three criminals to rob his own bank. He does a double cross and gets lost in the Nevada desert with the money. The characters are very well done, and even though most of aren't white collar bankers, the film does an excellent job of making us understand them and care about them. Both the bankers come across as very likable. Only one of the three criminals is ever seen, and those looks are very obscure. A lot of good mystery here. You know early on that the lead character is being stalked, and it is evident just as early that it isn't just an accident that he is lost. The question is, which character double crossed him? There are three who stand out, a mysterious trooper who never says a word (makes you wonder if the producer just didn't want to pay him more for his important role in the movie), the man's wife, or a lady he keeps calling for directions from the car rental agency. Clues point to each. Little nit picks: which is what they are, since the film stood out as a whole as worthy of having little flaws. First, the plan itself was a bit hair brained, but in retrospect, even the best planners make bad snap decisions, and we don't know how long he actually thought about it. Second, a few stereotype situations such as the super human bad guy (but he isn't all that super human, though he's depicted a little too resourceful to be totally believable), and the scene with the trooper parked by the sign (which was just way too corny and predictable for a movie of this caliber). Third, the rear view mirror shot of the protagonist in the road seemed more to be done to prove it could be done than for any real purpose. (I admit that is a real nit pick, and the makers of this movie had a right to show what they could do). What stands out is the depth of character. This man has a realistic shallow side, and a compassionate side, too, which is why we like him. Like I said earlier, this movie flows-very logical and very well paced. Placing the movie in the desert gives an exciting locale, which is needed since the motor vehicles are an important content of the movie, and motor vehicles just aren't exciting cinema. Again, the director/writer team handle this with aplomb. Thumbs up.

I heard the movie was bad...I heard it was boring...I heard it was itself, lost. However, the mere thought of staring at Dean Cain, and only Dean Cain, for 90 minutes didn't seem like a bad idea...and at first, it seemed to pay off. The movie started off incredibly well-paced, the plot unfolded perfectly, as were learned more about Cain's character, and what he's doing lost in the desert. The movie hooked me quickly, and did manage to hold my interest through it's running time. Dean did a find job, as did Lemke, a first time director. However, the WRITING...it was atrocious. Somehow the writers envisioned the main character as a grown man, a business man, as someone who talks with people like a teenage boy to his toked up pals. I tryed counting how many times he said 'man', but I lost track. You know..."I can't believe this, man", "how could you do that, man?", "hey man, what's your problem?!". I mean, seriously...it got to be a bit much. Also, they had his character doing some of the most ridiculously stupid crap that any living person could do while lost in the desert...such as fail to ask a cop for directions, and trading in your perfectly functioning BMW for a $500 Ford truck, that you don't even know runs, for the sole reason that you want to avoid a cop that doesn't like you littering (at least, that's how it seemed, since there was really no point otherwise). Towards the end, the movie became so predictable, I was sure my assumption had to be wrong. It just couldn't be the resolution...it's too easy! Sure enough though, it was. Some great acting on Dean's part (for what he had to work with, anyway), an interesting story (before it took a wrong turn, no pun intended), and decent direction made this movie a 6/10; and surprisingly, I'd probably watch it again (perhaps something to do with staring at Dean Cain for 90 minutes, ).

A snapshot of one day, perhaps the last day in the life of the main character, Lost is the story of a young banker that finds himself trying to escape the desert's unnamed roads and reach his highly needed destination in time. Of course, having to go from point A to point B through the arid land has a slightly more illicit goal than just sight-seeing Nevada, and early in the movie we see why this is the case and who and how he got involved in that adventure.If nothing else, setting the movie the first 30 minutes does help to expect more from this adventure, and we are even willing to forgo or "understand" why from now on every other close-up frame of Mr. Stanton (Dean Cain) is him talking on the cell phone and driving. I have seen other comments here comparing the movie to Phonebooth (2002) which I find irresponsible and ill-dignifying of the later, unless is all right to compare movies by the simplest coincidence, in the case here, that two males are talking on telephones.But beyond that, this is nothing but the Saturday morning cable-TV filler film that demands nothing from you and takes you as co-pilot with the hero (anti-hero? not so) seeing here, seeing there for so long, that its outcome is more than expected, even though you wished all along something else could have happened.I must agree with other comments calling it boring, but what troubled me more was all the missed opportunities to go one step deeper and reveal, in parallel with the allegory of being lost in the desert, the inner struggle of the character for his actions, to whom he is impacting and how to deal with the results. The chances where there, but they were always "Lost".