Playing God (1997)

After his bloody showdown with Brad Pitt's psychopathic redneck in Kalifornia, David Duchovny used an off-season hiatus from The X-Files to star in this 1997 thriller, in which he plays a doctor whose fall from professional grace leads to a dangerous career in the criminal underworld. Having lost his license after drug abuse caused him to lose a patient during surgery, he's recruited into his illegal career by a slimy but charismatic millionaire (Timothy Hutton) whose associates have a way of getting shot all the time. Before long, Duchovny comes to realize the extent of Hutton's evil, and he finds himself caught in a criminal trap that also involves an alluring femme fatale (Angelina Jolie) and a Faustian bargain that could cost him his life. The plot's rather absurd and fairly predictable, but fine performances by Duchovny and especially Hutton (who makes a memorable screen villain) make this stylish thriller intriguingly worthwhile. --Jeff Shannon Amazon.com

IT'S ONLY ME, BUT:

A SURGEON LOSES A PATIENT AND HIS LICIENCE DUE TO DRUG USE AND FINDS HIM SELF EMPLOYED BY A MOB BOSS. THINGS GET OUT OF HAND THE DEEPER HE GETS INVOLVED WITH THE MOB BOSS AND THE MORE HE GETS INVOLVED WITH THE MOB BOSS'S MISTRESS. (ANGELINA JOLIE). JM June 1, 2008

Playing God

I love David Duchovny, I have all 9 seasons of the X-Files on DVD and I needed this movie for my collection. The movie is very good, it has a lot of action. I saw it a long time ago, and I'm very happy to have found it through Amazon. January 24, 2008

An Enjoyable "B"

While it isn't the most impressive movie, Playing God does have its moments. When I first saw it, I laughed out loud at a pairing of David Duchovney and Angelina Jolie, but after the third veiwing, the characters and the story began to grow on me. Duchovny and Jolie's chemistry actually works, and Timothy Hutton is crazy, colorful and quotable as a slightly sadistic crime lord. You'll get the gist of the story from previous reviews, but the important thing with this movie is to watch it tongue-in-cheek. It's entertaining, has a certain replay value, and has enough plot holes/unbelieveable happenings/goofy dialogue to warrent a double-play, and in my case, extensive nerd-ish study. What I've gleaned from the story and the character is basically: What goes around comes around. If you like enjoyable, well-meaning cheese, check this one out! February 21, 2007

"A leads to B leads to C..."

Playing God was a bit of a disappointment, considering the makeup of the cast: David Duchovny, Angelina Jolie, and Peter Stormare among others, though by no means is it a bad movie.
A down-on-his-luck doctor finds himself in the company of a psychopath criminal patching up people that need to be shielded from the police...
In short, the acting is pretty good (though nothing great), the setting is average, while the dialogues and the plot are way below average.
The major setbacks are in relation to:
1) The weak plot and especially the weak dialogues, for which the writers are to blame.
2) With the exception of David Duchovny and Angelina Jolie, everyone else was sad, especially Timothy Hutton and Michael Massee who were pathetic. Just as bad were the actors playing the minor roles.
3) David Duchovny, Angelina Jolie, and Peter Stormare (who was great in Constantine) were given terrible lines. What a waste of an AMAZING cast!
It seems as though the actors/directors/producers got together for some drinks, and then decided, on the spot, to make a quick and easy impromptu film for some extra cash/spending money.
Though the potential for a good movie was definitely there it fails to take off, primarily (but not exclusively) due to the writers.
In a nutshell, it's an ok movie and that's about it; no masterpiece here... Wait till they show it on TV.
July 23, 2006

Huh...

What can you get with a good script, good acting, good casting, poor editing, poor original music composition, and so-so direction? The answer: a film like this. The composer is channeling some of the worst b-movie concepts in the history of the last few decades here. There's a scene where Jolie gets shot that is so badly edited, directed, and scored you'll actually think it's intentionally botched...but I highly doubt it. Someone criticized the Director of Photography, but I didn't see any indication of incompetence in that regard here. The angles and shots you see in the final film are the fault of the director and the editor. They're not poorly lit or underexposed, and the principles look fine. The sets were also not bad, either. I would say it was likely the script that appealed to the actors and, in all honesty, how bad could some Hollywood professionals mess up a concept like this? A lot, it turns out. On the plus side, Jolie is at her most photogenic in this. You're only 21 once, after all. It's unfortunate they got rid of the romance between the doctor and her, both for the skin potential and to add more weight to the conflict at the end. In all likelihood the producers of this film simply got lucky when they happened to hire one really good casting director. March 26, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...