Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

MBunge This movie is so good it almost entirely overcomes its basic weakness.Lost tells the story of Jeremy Stanton (Dean Cain), a man who finds himself on the road from California to Nevada. Unable to take the straight and easy path to a place called Red Ridge due to storms and flooding rendering the main roads impassable, Jeremy finds himself wandering the back roads and forgotten trails with only an inaccurate map and the thoroughly unhelpful directions over his cell phone of Judy (Ashley Scott), a woman who works for this movie's version of AAA. That could very easily be the premise of a road comedy, except there's a bag of money in the trunk of Jeremy's rental car and a vicious killer named Archer (Danny Trejo) chasing after him.You might not expect too much of a film that's just an hour and a half of Dean Cain driving around the desert and talking on a cell phone, but you'll be pleasantly surprised if you give Lost a gander. This film has many strengths and only one real flaw.Dean Cain gives a good performance made even better by the normality of it. Jeremy Stanton is a man stuck in the desert, alone and unable to get where he needs to go, with a murderer lurking in his rear view mirror. Most actors in that sort of tale will start out chewing the scenery and end up vomiting it back at you. They'd give you a performance full of every overwrought emotion they can. Cain avoids that temptation and gives us a real Jeremy, who doesn't fall to pieces or morph into some movie cliché "man driven beyond his limits". Cain's Jeremy feels frustration and anger and anxiety but when things go wrong, he puts his head down and keeps on going like many people do in tough spots. Cain doesn't give you the performance you'd expect in this sort of film, and he's able to carry on his back almost the entire movie.Lost is also a very quick moving story and even when Jeremy is just driving around in circles, there's something going on. But it's not repetitive and the film doesn't just jog in place waiting to unleash this "twist" or that "shock" on the audience. Flashes of Jeremy's memories play out along his travels, memories relating to the terrible situation he got himself in and to the man he is. The car radio also joins the voices on his cell phone as another character in the story, through news reports, talk show snippets and even a motivational tape that Jeremy plays to keep his spirits up. The script also deserves credit for trying to explain things to the viewer, instead of just relying on them not thinking too hard about what is happening. Many films abuse the suspension of disbelief to cover up for plot developments or characterizations that don't make any sense. Lost works fairly hard at making sure things make enough sense that you can pay attention to the story and not have to make excuses for it.Lost does have a weakness, however, and it's a pretty big one. As fine a performance as Cain's is and as smart at the writing is, it's still not much more than an hour and a half of a guy driving through the desert and talking on his cell phone. Oh, there are moments of action and suspense and humor and I suppose the movie deserves credit for not injecting a bunch of contrived and unrealistic developments into the plot out of fear it can't hold the audience's attention. For all that though, it really is an hour and a half of a guy driving through the desert and talking on his cell phone. It held my attention, but that might not be your cup of tea.Lost is a little gem of a movie. Not a diamond, to be sure, but it's not cubic zirconium either. It's an emerald, or maybe a sapphire. Some folks can appreciate the beauty of those stones and some folks just look at them and wonder why they aren't diamonds. But if every piece of jewelry was a diamond, think how boring that would be.

drystyx 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.

diddlysquat This movie has almost made me lose faith in film entirely. Did someone actually think it was a good idea to make it? What small, pathetic scraps of a plot line that this film actually contained were overwhelmed by about 60 minutes of nothing.Yes.Nothing. That is what this movie is. I was even naiive enough to hold out hope that Lost would perhaps redeem itself with some amazing ending... Needless to say, I was sorely disappointed. This from someone who is VERY open-minded about all forms of art. Sometimes, movies just should not be seen. This is one of those times.(However if you do have too much time on your hands and want to see an impressively boring movie... Lost is just the ticket

vmarthirial 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".