Okay, he's making a movie about "gangsters" in Kansas City which features a bar where free-form jazz is played, so he decides a nice way to make the movie (what a surprise) is to give the actors free reign to improvise their lines! It may SOUND like a good idea - Altman sure thinks it does, he uses it to make most of his movies - but this is no excuse for offering us a muddled, terribly acted half-baked film that essentially has about three scenes that are stretched out. The plot of this is one of the worst you're likely to see. I remember, at the time i was watching it, i felt there were such major problems with the motivations within the story that completely undid its narrative structure. It pains me enough to recollect the movie, let alone think of it in that much detail.<br /><br />What Altman doesn't seem to realise is that improvisation seems to make most actors nervous. When they're saying a line they know they've made up during rehersals, they seem not to believe in it. It may have worked for Brando in Last Tango in Paris - but Brando was a titan. These actors, and most name actors Altman shows the true colours of, are not.<br /><br />The first major mistake was giving Harry Belafonte improvisation priveleges. God, is he obnoxious in this. He's the bad guy, but he's not obnoxious in a way that makes you think "oh, isn't he good" or maybe "isn't this fun." You just think Belafonte is an arrogant guy.<br /><br />Jason-Leigh's accent and acting are particularly hammy. Miranda Richardson is the only one who escapes unscathed. She's pretty good.<br /><br />1/10.<br /><br />Films this bad are rare. Can't recommend enough that you avoid this like the plague.