The Take (2007) User Reviews

Moody Crime and Revenge.

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 25 March 2010]

John Leguizamo is an earnest security guard in Los Angeles who loves his wife, Rosie Perez, and his two children. He is coerced into taking part in a robbery of an armored car by three husky guys led by Tyrese Gibson, who threatens his family if he doesn't comply. A couple of other guards are caught by surprise and deliberately murdered by the thieves. Gibson shoots Leguizamo in the head and arranges the crime scene in such a way as to make him look guilty.

Leguizamo manages to survive. He's comatose for a while but eventually recovers, as much as you can recover from a bullet wound in the frontal lobe. "His personality may be changed," the surgeon warns his wife.

Indeed it does change. Frontal lobotomies were discovered by means of accidents. They tended to cut down on the more virulent hallucinations but they also made patients' manners coarser and impaired their ability to plan for the future. That is, these kinds of wounds, whether medically induced or otherwise, kneecap your judgment.

Leguizamo is thrown into easy rages over trivial things. He can't satisfy his wife anymore and smashes furniture, driving his family away. He sasses the cops and the cynical FBI agent coolly rendered by Bobby Cannavale. Then he undertakes to find the criminals on his own, skipping out from under surveillance. There are only a few chases and shootings.

It's a taut and credible story and the performances are good. Leguizamo doesn't exemplify celluloid magic, and Gibson, as the chief malefactor, isn't given the kind of non-stereotypical license that, say, Delroy Lindo is, in some of Quentin Tarantino's work. But Cannavale is just fine and Rosie Perez does as well here as she's done anywhere else. Her features are more lined, her dimples deeper, and she's not twenty years old anymore but who is?

The movie's virtues are almost destroyed by the direction, photography, and editing. They are to the film's integrity what that bullet was to Leguizamo's brain.

It's not as bad as the last two "Bourne" movies -- but it's pretty bad. The camera wobbles all over the place. There are instantaneous cuts, some negative shots. I don't have the technical vocabulary to describe the photography but it's high contrast. There were times when I thought the images would lapse into nothing more than blinding light sources and reflections, leaving the remainder of the screen entirely black. A scene in the OR is shot with the lighting mostly coming from the side, so that the gaping wound in which the doc's forceps are probing is a deep, dark void. And this is an operating room! The pallet seems to vary from white and black to gloomy green.

Sometimes this sort of thing, done in moderation, works splendidly, as in "Seven." Other cop/crime stories of unimpeachable quality haven't used this faddish stuff at all -- "L. A. Confidential," "To Live and Die in L. A.", not to mention "Chinatown." I mean, really, there is a simple extended close up of a cell phone -- and the camera oscillates from side to side like the head of a snake in a fairy tale.

Well, I guess we don't want to bore the fourteen-year-old minds in the audience, who would be snoring if five minutes passed without some kind of action -- if not the characters, then the camera. Still, it's bad enough in mindless action movies but this story deals as much with the drama of Leguizamo and his family as it does with the unfolding of the crime plot.

mislabeled drama with little to no suspense or action; annoying music, editing, and drawn out climax

[jdring2007 · 5/10 · 2 July 2021]

If I'd known this was categorically a drama I'd probably not have watched it. But I have a weakness for heist movies of any kind, and I really like Leguizamo, so I gave it a shot. Mistake. Now, the acting was good enough, especially from Rosie Perez, but the editing and choppy/shaky cinematography was beyond annoying, the music way too overdramatic, the action/suspense nonexistent save for the opening scene, and when it came down to it the movie was a recovery drama. As that, it wasn't too bad. Then comes the ending. The, uh, "climax." What were they thinking? A drawn out, fruitless chase scene. I'm not a spoiler reviewer which is tough here but I think I've made my point. The only way you should watch this is knowing it's a drama, and have the FF button at the ready.

Take an hour and a half out of your time to catch up on this seemingly buried 2008 crime drama, as a single shot affects a man and those close to him.

[johnnyboyz · 6/10 · 8 April 2010]

Drawing on clear influences from recent gritty, crime infused pieces such as 2000's Traffic and 2002's Narc, 2008 film The Take seems to have come and gone at a Canadian film festival before being banished to stores so as to increase profits on DVDs. It would seem there was nary a distributer at said Canadian festival willing to invest in Brad Furman's film; an overall shame, not a crying one but a shame none-the-less. The Take squeezes an amount of substance to do with male machismo; the tearing apart of a family unit; the sub-genre of the vigilante movie and the dealing of the aftermath of a heist plus all the crime drama conventions of mistrust between gangsters: honour amongst thieves, if you will, into 96 minutes. However, all too often these ideas jostle uncomfortably with one another – a persistent vying for power, a struggle between genres and sub-genres; content and study. This renders The Take less interesting than it might have been, but good enough to see in order to observe a moderately interesting, well acted independent American drama.

I think the film thinks it's more powerful and more affecting than it is in actualité. The tale is of a righteous man wronged, and the subsequent fall out it has on both his life and the lives of those around him. But for all the substance, for all the promise and for all the content; to have The Take boil down to a chase sequence on foot that, again, certainly thinks it has more of a sense of drama involved than it actually does, was just a mite disappointing and anti-climatic. Furman likes his visual tricks and gimmicks, with someone somewhere failing to realise that spectacle and visualness ought to have been secondary to this screenplay's agenda as gritty, Hispanic-American living conditions; seams in a family becoming unravelled; a man loosing his mind and sense of masculinity plus brutal shootings during a heist sequence were the order of the day. Furman tells the story with every trick in the book: the visual flair ingredient to the editing and camera work; the speeding up of footage; transitions and the hand-held camera technique on top of a number of scenes set in rooms that are close to all being entirely blacked out for sake of mood.

John Leguizamo plays the role of Felix De La Pena, a man of Hispanic descent living with his wife Marina (Perez) and their two kids in Los Angeles. De La Pena is a nice, upstanding man with a great deal of fondness for his family and the work he does. His large friend-base plus the fact his job sees him adopt a certain role of honour and trust in driving an armoured truck instills a sense of responsibility on top of the other positive conventions. But one day, things go spectacularly wrong when Tyrese Gibson's criminal Adell holds up the truck; has De La Pena drive it back to the HQ before robbing the place of its money and fatally wounding De La Pena. We've seen people shot following heists in films many-a time before, usually hard-bodied; no nonsense criminals in hard boiled neo-noirs, but they'd always get back up again after a brief lay off and plough on ahead, seeking money and revenge. The Take's sequence of wounding feels grainer than usual, De La Pena's pained reaction to his injuries are stark and cutting in ways that I've rarely felt a gunshot wound in a film before. The injury feels more painful than usual because of the film's delicate buildup of the victim: a well mannered; rather slim, though not necessarily 'weak', and supremely upstanding character in De La Pena. From here, a process of recovery for both the mind, body and soul begins as FBI agent Steve Perelli (Cannavale) hunts the wrong-doers.

It's here the film beds down for a long stretch of content similar to one another. De La Pena's sense of self vanishes and he gets a lot angrier a lot more often than usual, with Leguizamo really rather brilliantly portraying this new character: this fresher, more frothing at the mouth person. He installs security equipment in a fit of paranoia and undergoes a process of long recovery that sees him sense a once-present notion of 'manliness' now gone. Subsequently, he cannot make love to his wife; gets agitated as a result and seems to maintain this odd sense of being unable to really 'feel', as if to cry or get upset at the shooting is to fatally expel a sense of male machismo, with an ideology that might read something like: 'men don't cry - men get over this sort of thing'.

I wrote a while ago in an observation on a Finnish film from 2006 entitled Lights in the Dusk about the film's over-emphasising on the 'little-guy' in a big situation. In said film, a hapless turnkey is rendered fall guy so a gang of thieves can swipe some diamonds his job it is to contain. I cited 2001's sprawling and maddening heist flick 3000 Miles to Graceland, in which during a heist sequence at a casino, countless numbers of body guards and members of law enforcement are dispatched like the many nameless, faceless bad guys that pop up at you in certain video games, each one of them as fatally injured as the next. The Take, like said Finnish film, rejects the generic notion to follow those perpetrating the heist and instead opts for an unbeaten route down into the gloomy undergrowth of a victim of the shooting recovering. Needless to say, a lot of people that were shot in 3000 Miles to Graceland would've gone through what De La Pena goes through here – it's when these sorts of films dry up that we know we're in trouble. I notice that at the present time, The Take has a lower IMDb rating than 3000 Miles to Graceland: good grief!

Impressive action, story.

[jffbittner · 7/10 · 29 January 2019]

The Take I feel is very entertaining, more so when I heard how much money the film makers had to work with. I read some other reviews, and I was surprised to read that many thought ill of it. First off, I'll say it is exceptionally great film, with some pretty good actors for $800,000. It's not the type of film that has over the top stunts, CGI effects galore, which to me is refreshing. It tends to focus on the story, struggles with every day life, and cogs in the justice system. It has a gritty style, and I feel it's really worth seeing if you aren't looking for a "tear it up" action/suspense movie. "Good" acting...6 "Great" story....8

Excellent old fashioned film-making

[Dragonsouls · 7/10 · 1 February 2010]

The Take isn't one of those films you'll remember forever, it's plot simplistic, and script not without some flaws, but you will definitely remember the performances by the entire cast.

I always defended Leguizamo as a serious actor, while some claim he's always typecast. I knew he was talented, and he immediately sets the tension in this film. He does a great job in every scene. Rosie Perez was also intense, nice to see her always. Lequizamo drives the film, he's clearly not just a supporting actor. He deserves to be A-listed.

Another honorable mention is the directing of the film. I loved the Urban cinematography! East LA was never covered better. The old fashioned town is shown well, and gritty atmosphere adds to the already dark tale.

Overall, a good old school revenge tale, a modern western perhaps! 7/10

Begins Well, But Then Turns Dumb. Is It Too Much To Ask For A Little Physical Reality?

[Michael-70 · 3/10 · 11 April 2008]

At the end of this film, as the hero John Leguizamo is chasing the villain Tyrese Gibson down the crowed streets of LA, Gibson fires his weapon at Leguizamo multiple times.

In the cross fire, one innocent passerby is shot and a cop is killed, but there are no other casualties despite there being at least 100 other people standing around watching. I understand that the laws of physics in movie-land mean that stray bullets never hit anyone else down the block, but this is pushing it a bit.

And apparently, no one in downtown LA has a cell phone, or if they do, they have either all used up their minutes or their batteries are dead because no one even attempts to call the police.

Furthermore, I counted 18 shots fired by Tyrese Gibson (give or take a couple) and he never re-loads his handgun. Is this even possible? Perhaps it is. I am not a handgun expert so I do not know what kind of gun Gibson had or how many bullets are in each clip.

One thing I do know is that if I am more interested in counting the gunshots during the climax of this film instead of caring about the resolution of the story, then something has gone very wrong with the film in question.

This is a shame because The Take starts off so well and for over half its running time it is an original and compelling story, only to fall apart at the end with cliché dramatics, dumb characterizations and ludicrous plot points, not to mention physical impossibilities that would have embarrassed Jerry Bruckheimer, and we know how impervious he is to cinematic embarrassment.

John Leguizamo (a personal favorite actor) stars as a family man who works as a driver for an armored car company. One Friday, he is out on his usual run when his truck is hijacked and with a gun held to his head and the threat that his family will be harmed if he does not cooperate, Leguizamo is forced to take the bad guy Tyrese Gibson (in a one note performance) around collecting money from the various businesses that have a contract with the armored car company.

Back at the company garage, the bad guys shoot several other guards and in a final moment of meanness, Gibson shoots Leguizamo in the head and leaves him for dead.

At this point, we follow Leguizamo as he is taken to the hospital, undergoes some of the most realistic brain surgery I have ever seen in a film and then goes through a slow, difficult recovery complete with slurred speech, wild mood swings and a general depression and frustration at the turn his life has taken and how it affects his family.

This is all great stuff and not usually seen in films for the mass audience. Even the FBI investigation of the robbery (why the FBI is involved and not the LA Police, I do not know) begins properly with the always good Bobby Cannavale determining early on that the heist must have been an inside job (we know that it was), but then things turn stupid when they try to build a case against Leguizamo as the inside guy even though the FBI knows for certain that Leguizamo's partner that night was definitely the guy involved.

This makes no sense what so ever and neither does Leguizamo deciding he has to track down Tyrese Gibson himself. It is at this point, just past the halfway point that The Take begins to devolve into a clichéd muddle of astounding proportions. I have never seen a film start out so good and end up so bad as this one does and it's a real shame.

For the record, John Leguizamo is very good in the early part of the film and I am glad to see he still doesn't mind playing a character who's a bit of an asshole. Rosie Perez is good too and I get the feeling a lot of her performance may have been cut out of the final film.

One thing I did not like was the strange look of the film. It has a dark grainy look with desaturated colors in a weird and limited palette.

I have no idea what the filmmakers were trying to do with this color choice, but it was very annoying and there was not a single shot in the entire film where I said, "Hey, that's a nice shot". Not even at sunset and I have seen LA at sunset.

But then, to me no LA film has ever looked as good as when cinematographer Theo Van de Sande filmed Miracle Mile there 20 some odd years ago presenting us with the most beautiful nighttime cityscapes I have ever seen.

The director of The Take, Brad Furman was at the film today and held a brief Q & A after the screening and while I was discussing my disappointment in the film outside the theater, someone pointed him out to me, but the young man (who seemed like a decent sort) was engaged in conversation with some fans who obviously liked the film. He didn't need me to rain on his parade.

Besides, I'm not entirely sure the faults in the film were the directors. I have a suspicion the script let him down or maybe the producers insisted on something more cliché at the finale to make up for the originality at the beginning.

Quality Movie

[julienifill · 7/10 · 13 June 2008]

A quality movie, very good character development, it shows how Leguizamo's character grapples with rehabilitation after his near fatal gunshot wound and how his wife Perez's character has to adjust in their relationship. Gibson's character is a strong character both physically and emotionally and these roles suit Gibson as opposed to a Baby Boy role. The police detectives are relentless in their pursuit of justice. Good movie, one negative aspect was the gross sexual scene between Perez and Leguizamo but I guess the director was trying to show how his injury adversely affected their intimacy. I recommend this movie to anyone and I look forward to future work from this director

Awful. A Waste of Money

[minigiraffe6 · 1/10 · 20 April 2009]

Very disappointed. I thought this was going to be an action movie.

What I got was a boring family drama that is more like a bad after-school special.

Felix (Leguizamo) works as a bank driver in the slums of L.A. and he's the all-around good guy with loving family (Rosie Perez plays the cliché role of the wife). Then he's shot in the head and becomes a real angry person. The police think it was an inside job and suspect Leguizamo, who in turn tries to find who really did the robbery.

Yes, we've seen this story before hundreds of times, and done much better. If there was more action and less family drama, this might have been watchable, but this is a boring, predictable movie that will put you to sleep.

My Review

[joemamaohio · 6/10 · 8 August 2008]

Felix De La Pena (John Leguizamo) works as a bank driver, and he lives in the slums of Los Angeles with his wife Marina (Rosie Perez) and his two children. He's caring, compassionate and the perfect husband and father.

Until he's threatened by Adell Baldwin (Tyrese Gibson) and is shot and left for dead. When he awakens from his coma, he's a different man - angry, vengeful.

Agent Steve Perelli (Bobby Cannavale) is trying to solve the case, and realizes that it might've been an inside job, so he immediately suspects Felix. Felix then goes out and tries to find the people really responsible for what happened, before he takes the rap for it.

"The Take" is different from most action movies, because it focuses more on Felix's relationship with his family rather than the intense hunt for the people responsible for changing his life. It's not about big car chases, huge explosions and mob war - it's about a man faced with a new outlook on life, struggling to clear his name and find out who is really responsible.

What a surprise

[ambercederman · 10/10 · 13 April 2011]

I got bored several months ago and I saw that this movie was in the instant section, so I watched it. I had never heard of the movie, but I did like the cast. Wow. What an incredible movie. This is a rather slow paced, low budget indie movie directed by Brad Furman (who recently directed the Lincoln Lawyer, another excellent movie). The film tells the story of Felix De le Pena, an armored truck driver who gets shot in the head by a criminal named Adell Baldwin during a robbery. The film revolves around Felix's recovery and the investigation of the robbery. Bobby Carnavale plays a cop investigating the crime, while Rosie Perez plays the wife of Felix. The film ends with an intense and exciting climatic scene. I loved this movie. I thought it was very well made and well executed.

acting OK... but very dumb.

[bbenkeys · 1/10 · 14 April 2008]

Well, it was nothing what I expected- it was a lot worse.

There was no development of character and there were so many scenes that were irrelevant to the plot and totally cliché. Lenguizamo did a fair job but oh boy, he can't save the film. Rosie Perez is fun to watch.

The gritty, dark look of the film was overdone, hard to watch and it gave me a huge headache.

If you want to see a great gritty film, watch Memento.

Overall, I wouldn't recommend that one, unless you're a huge fan of Lenguizamo.

Typical bad indie garbage

[gooth79 · 2/10 · 28 August 2009]

"The Take" was just terrible. The locations and the whole feel of the film were cliché. The drama was over the top and badly acted. Apparently it was a low budget movie and it definitely looked like it was made for no money. John Leguizamo's character battles rehabilitation after being shot during a heist. He's also trying to track down the man who did the crime. Sounds good right? Wrong!! It's terribly boring.

Leguizamo and Rosie Perez must have gone really low to be in a movie like this. Although they're usually decent actors, here they had very little decent material to work with, and so their performances are fake and amateurish. It takes too long for the story to get going, it's really slow, and the action is lame and predictable. I'm just glad I saw this at a friend's house and didn't have to pay a cent for it. 2/10

Good start, bad ending

[thebogofeternalstench · 2/10 · 10 February 2012]

The Take started off well but ended terribly.

A few things I noticed in the movie was that Felix should of came out of hospital in a wheelchair after BRAIN surgery, and no way in hell would he be allowed to drive a car or even be able to drive after being shot in the head.

As others have said, the camera was all over the place. It gets tiresome and annoying having to put up wit that, even gave me a bit if a headache.

So Felix gets shot in the head and wants revenge, goes after the bad guy and finally has him caught on top of a roof with a gun on him in the end and what does he do? NOTHING. The FBI guy turns up and its all over then, Felix is just 'dropped' off at home. LMAO. Right.

What was the point of this movie?????

Another potentially good film marred by camera with the shakes

[msecour · 4/10 · 12 April 2010]

There is a time and a place for shaky, hand-held camera work. This irritating technique continues to be the most over-used in Hollywood. I nearly turned this film off after the first 4 minutes because I was experiencing motion sickness. And this was all while the protagonist was getting up and getting ready for work. Even when you are trying to show action as it might be seen from a live news camera I would still make a case for trying to show the action as it might be seen by the human eye -- steady and focused even when the viewer is moving. My perception is that shaky camera work is used in the same way that too much background music is used -- to compensate for mediocrity in the film itself.

I stayed with the film to the end because a lot of others felt it was a good film and John Leguizamo can be counted on for a fine performance. I thought the movie itself was only OK. Story line developed slowly and often tediously to a somewhat satisfying conclusion. I would have rated it a 5 to 6 with better camera work. I'm glad I saw the whole thing but I will never need to see it again.

Excellent

[dbean66 · 10/10 · 13 April 2011]

Woah.

The Take is a drama starring John Leguizamo, Tyrese Gibson, Bobby Carnavale, and Rosie Perez. Leguizamo plays an armored truck driver named Felix who is shot in the head in a robbery by Tyrese Gibson. The film mainly involves the aftermath of the shooting and how everyone was affected by it as well as Felix wanting revenge.

This movie is excellent. Leguziamo gives an extraordinary and very powerful performance. Tyrese Gibson gives the best performance of his career as a very brutal and frightening villain. Rosie Perez and bobby Carnavale were also excellent.

There are plenty of reasons to hate this movie. It's low budget. It's slow paced. The camera is a bit shaky at times. But this didn't bother me. The storyline is very engaging and the conclusion is very intense and satisfying. Get past a few plot holes and you'll be satisfied.

Boring, bad cinematography

[squanjaili · 3/10 · 11 June 2010]

No spoilers here. What could have been a good, gritty L.A. crime/revenge flick was spoiled by SLOW pacing and the ridiculously overused shaky camera technique and grainy and way-too-dark (to put it mildly!) final cut. I'm not an expert on film, so I don't know what you would call this extremely washed-out look, but it spoiled the movie. Many scenes were so dark as to be completely unwatchable. I am SO SICK of these "hip", modern film techniques. What is so awful about not shaking the camera and allowing viewers to actually see what's going on?

If any aspiring filmmakers are reading this, take it from me (a total movie junkie): STOP SHAKING THE CAMERA! STOP WASHING OUT THE COLORS! The story and acting are what matters to us. Please stop trying to bring attention to the direction. I've been a professional musician my entire adult life, and to me a film director should be like a good bass player: If the song sounds right and I don't notice anything wrong, then he's doing a great job!

Some Strong Elements but Mostly Stupid

[leftbanker-1 · 5/10 · 4 January 2017]

Starts off well without too much BS about family and other stuff we don't care about in a crime thriller, or whatever this was meant to be. It looks real enough, like what a family in this economic situation would look like, something Hollywood never, ever seems to get right. In the big Hollywood version the family would be living like something out of the Brady Bunch.

The heist gets ugly and he gets shot in the head. Before you know it he's driving a car and feuding with his wife. Way, way too much "acting" and emotion. Here's my two cents on film making. If something bad happens to someone let's just take it for granted that the loved ones are going to take it bad so there's absolutely no need to show this "anguish" on camera with lots of crap like someone screaming "NNNNOOOOOOOOO!" or whatever.

The dude can't distinguish triangles from circles but before you can say "brain trauma" he's driving a car and then becomes a super-sleuth, like with CIA electronic skills.

Kind of stupid. And then it devolves into a Chinese Downhill (crap storm) and a foot chase with a couple bodies left in the wake including a cop. The only saving grace is that the criminal is arrested and not shot to hell in the end—something that almost never happens in crime dramas. I defy you to name a crime drama where they arrest the perp in the end.

Criminally underrated

[mr-mike883-964-885762 · 10/10 · 13 April 2011]

Some of these negative reviews are interesting. Of course you're not wrong, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but come on. One reviewer is complaining about how it's not an action movie, another is complaining about plot holes. You wanna see plot holes? Watch Death Sentence, another revenge film which is rated higher than this despite not making any sense. This film is amazing. The performances are amazing. The story is intriguing and gritty. The ending is really intense. What's with all the hate? sure there are some problems occasionally, but all in all, it's a really, really good movie. I thought it was incredible.

Guerilla Film Making At Its Best

[nadiatownshend · 9/10 · 11 April 2018]

The first time I saw this it blew me away. Since then it is probably one of my favourite movies of all time - why? The stylishness, the grittiness, the acting and the passion. You can tell that the people involved in the project really put their all into it and truly believed in telling a good story. The story itself is, on the surface, something we've heard of before - typical heist gone wrong yada yada. But what makes this so special is the clever character study and the evolution we see in John Leguizamo's character. This is one of his best roles - the acting is top notch. Rosie Perez is equally impressive in her role and the passion bleeds from the screen. You can tell Director Brad Furman wanted to stay true to the roots of the characters - he did go to Boyle Heights and filmed within the neighbourhoods wherein the story is set. On the commentary to the film he talks about the issues this raised due to guerilla style filming and some of the risks involved. The evolution of Leguizamo's character, a man just trying to make an honest living and provide for his family, who gets caught up in something outside of his control and has to fight through the ruins of the aftermath. It's truly wonderful to witness - the lawnmower scene and his anger is felt through the screen as he battles the scars he's been left with as a result of the events. Having seen Furman's other films, I still consider this his best for its unique nerve and sheer determination to make this project feel realistic and gritty. 9/10 - For the brutal and hardcore acting, cinematography and gritty realism - do not miss this!

This is the best Leguizamo film I've ever seen

[kirksullivanusa · 10/10 · 4 June 2008]

I went to this film randomly in Santa Monica one day and I was incredibly surprised with the performance of John Leguizamo and Rosie Perez.

The director (Brad Furman) brought out subtleties in his character that were touching and personal and he gave the best performance that I can remember him giving.

The LA environment was captured in a very raw and gritty manner that makes the audience feel like they can smell the scents of the city.

When the film was over, I felt surprised because the time flew by so fast.

The cinematography was vibrant and the film had a forward moving energy that was truly captivating.

I recommend this film highly and I applaud the filmmakers!!

A thoroughly believable and riveting movie with something most heist movies don't have... heart!!!

[sb30 · 10/10 · 27 May 2008]

The Take has some of the finest acting this year from Hollywood's finest actors. John Leguizamo is riveting as Felix, a family man whose life is ruined by no fault of his own. He is a family man and Rosie Perez as his wife Marina, is a devoted, religious woman whose nuanced performance along with John's tour de force role as LEADING MAN works because it is real. The children seem like they could be John and Rosie's children. The casting was that strong. Shot in a documentary style reminiscent of 70's movies, the director coaxs from ALL THE ACTORS scenes that are memorable for their family simplicity or violent realism. I particularly loved the scene when John begs for his medication, violently fights with his wife (Rosie), blaming her for his problems and her control of his meds, and watching it all is their young son. I could feel that family's pain. It was real and palpable. The movie didn't feel like a fiction to me. John and Rosie, who have played it funny in the past, are serious actors in meaty roles here. I definitely think they should be nominated for Indie Spirit awards if not Oscars!!!

Best Indie I have seen in years.

[markdanchick · 10/10 · 23 May 2008]

When I watch the Director/Producers Comments on a rental, it is because I think a film is worth it. This was worth it. I am a big Film buff, I have been around the Industry all my life. I rate this movie a 10 in every aspect. Totally filmed in Boil Heights (East L.A.), Filmed in what they call Gorilla Filming (not done in a studio, but on the Fly). Very realistic, it was as if you were looking out your widow watching your neighbor. It is so realistic in the reaction and emotion of the characters. I have never seen better acting by John Leguizamo and Rosie Perez. The rest of the cast is perfect for their roles. I don't praise movies like I praise this, one of the best I have seen in many years.

This is what independent film-making is all about

[johnnyandthumper · 10/10 · 31 May 2008]

When you have $800,000 to make a film with an actor like Leguizamo and you're on location in a perilous neighborhood…and, when you have the passion and integrity that these filmmakers exhibit, it's difficult not to champion the spirit of independent film-making. As opposed to the grossly budgeted wastes that studios constantly call "films", here we have a filmmaker and a cast dedicated to story and to capturing something of the human condition. Hollywood pretends to have the answers and consequently puts out garbage because it makes money and justifies the jobs of bloated, overpaid executives who wouldn't know "art" if it bit them in the ass. Our culture goes to see these movies because their options are limited because of the far reach of the distribution system in place. That is why Soderbergh and others like him have experimented with non-conventional ways of distributing a film, so that money and time, our most valuable resources, are not squandered, but used wisely to reach more people with stories that are told using hearts, not egos.

I was at the premiere of "The Take" in Toronto last year and was very touched by the "Q&A" that followed the screening. To see this filmmaker stand in front of so many people and thank his parents, his cast and crew in a way that shared the adulation instead of hogging it for his own personal gain…this was encouraging. To learn of the trials and tribulations on this particular film was eye-opening and gave me a better understanding of what goes on "behind the scenes", particularly with little to no money. I'm learning that to get a film made outside the studio system is next to impossible. Many talk, few dare and even fewer actually do. Mr. Furman should be commended for his work, on screen, of course, but sometimes, where somebody might find a story lacking on the screen, if they look towards what happened off-screen, they may be heartened to know that art and artists are fighting hard everyday to bring their perspective of the world to as many people as possible. Nothing is perfect and a film that has all the answers (as most studio films try to convey) is not doing it's job to present the questions.

"The Take" is dark and bleak at times, but underlying its grit is a story of hope, reconciliation and the fight of the human spirit. It is really easy to judge and critique, but for those who have never made a film, perhaps try before you disparage the work of what I consider to be one of our great, future filmmakers and story tellers.

Oh, on a side, yet important note, the performance of John Leguizamo was one of the most real and heart-breaking of seen of his, and he's a fine actor.

An overdone "shooting" style saved by great acting.

[Berzuercher · 8/10 · 13 April 2008]

Despite the (unoriginal) shooting style and some "cliche" dialogue this was a very intense and entertaining piece of work. Because of the fine acting I was able to forgive some of the technical issues and poor choices of direction. John Leguizamo was at his best, as was Tyrese Gibson! Bobby Cannavale and Rosie Perez were also very good. All the acting was on point and "in the moment". Watch out for Matthew Hatchette, this was only his second movie, something tells me this guy will be huge. Definitely an "actor's" movie! Although it's not showing in abundance at cinemas, it is the type of movie that will do well in rentals. Go See it!