Well...I respect that you backed up your post with a very a well-detailed and argumentative as opposed to ignorant trolls who say, "this movie sucks," except for the garbage part, lol. And I agree, this movie is not for everyone; if you disliked Elephant, Gerry, or Last Days then this movie falls into that same sprawled out category. Yes. It is an art film. But why does Van Sant have to conform to conventional means of storytelling? I will respectfully try to debate your points:
First of all shooting the film nonlinearly is completely pointless, except to make it artsy fartsy, it also takes what little suspense there could have been out of the film. My biggest problem was the way he justified telling the story in this manner, by adding that on expository line, about how he is not a good writer so things are bit mixed up.
This isn't a genre picture, nor is it meant to be a intellectual thriller O_o It makes sense to tell it the way Alex remembers it since if all the details are hazy, then why should everything be told so clear and linear? The film is told
organically towards the character as opposed to an audience's point-of-view.
Gee thx for clearing up why this film is shot in such a pointless way.
FYI, t's not 'shot,' but edited.
I also felt the acting was very poor, either that or the writing was very bad, actually I think both the acting and the writing was bad.
There was no writing. The original draft was 33 pages. Most of this was improvised. The acting(to minority of us) was actually very authentic. Van Sant, like De Sica or Altman, cast many non-actors in parts because actors are trained to "become" or "engulf" a role; non-actors have that naivete and innocence that feels authentic. People in real-life sometimes don't act like characters from movies, so it's the same vice-versa, actors sometimes don't act like real-life people at all. Look at another great film by another great director, Gran Torino.
Ill start with the writing, ok high school kid do not talk like that. I know I never talked like that, and I don’t know anyone else who talked like that.
How do you know? There are many different personalities in high school. Just because you never acted that way, doesn't mean that is a universally
unnatural way for ALL kids to act, does it?
What did you want Alex to say? Penis jokes? Alex acted how a skater kid with an abnormally large amount of stress on his shoulders acts. I would know personally, since I had many skater friends with that "expressionless" look on their face:
A lot to say. Just not an idea on
how to say it.
Just wondering, but have you ever talked to teenagers like this one? Because many have this very
slow manner of speaking, completely anti-neurotic.
A lot of it was either explaining something that just happened, or letting us know exactly what each kid was thinking the writing basically did the acting for the film.
Remember, the whole film is from Alex's recollection, so you are going to get repetitiveness in the story as he narrates every part of it akin to remembering an event and explaining the details to yourself over and over.
Like when all those kids got called to the office, and then that one kid sits down and says “why are they calling all the skateboarders to the office”
See, I don't get this. When that happens at a real school, wouldn't a kid "normally" ask that question with that observation about skater kids? When someone tagged up my school, they called all the "gangsta" kids to the office. I'm sure someone said, "Hey, they're calling all the gangster looking kids..." or at least
I was thinking that.
The voice over sounded rehearsed, and it sounded like the kid was rushing to get to the end, it had no flow and it didn’t breath.
Well he is "reading" it off the notebook until he burns it at the end, so of course it's not going to sound
Brando-esque; it's just gonna sound like he is
reading it.
Now I’ll talk about what really makes me dislike the film, and that the whole pseudo intellectual, neo-conceptual art aspect to it. Now I know some people love neo-conceptual art for whatever reason they think it has deep intellectual meaning or some crap like that. But even if you like that junk this movie is still insulting to anyone with any shred of intelligence.
Now you're just venting. You really do hate this movie, don't you? I never saw the neo-conceptual art aspect of this movie for the most part; it felt 'arty' but never did it seem offensive to intelligent people like you say.
This book is a modern re-telling of Crimes and Punishments and focuses merely on the existential aspects of the main character's life.
The film is basically an hour and a half of bashing us over the head with metaphors and symbolism's, in order to be artsy. And before you attack me with your automatic response of “oh you don’t like it cause you don’t ‘UNDERSTAND’ it” guess what I get it, yes that’s right in my infinite wisdom I was able to understand the metaphors and the similes, how could I not, they were so blatantly obvious I think mentally challenged wombats would have picked up on them.
You summed it up. This film is more character-driven, instead of plot driven. Not much happens, and it enfolds more like a slice of Alex's life, not adherent to the mere "three-act structure."
Let’s take the title for instance, can you be any more obvious, I don’t think the blind def kids in the back picked up on it. maybe we should call the film, “broken children in the gripping struggle of life try find themselves but unfortunately fall victim to an ill-fated accident that consumes their very life with feeling of depression and paranoia” or, maybe that’s to long winded.
Ummm..it's the name of the book, by the original author? Van Sant didn't make that up. Plus Paranoid Park is a real place and is the major setting to one of the key scenes in the movie. What would you have titled it, respectively?
At any rate this kinder garden symbolism is prevalent throughout the entire film. I found it very condescending, and degrading to my intelligence, it’s as if the director thought I would be too stupid to pick up on subtle symbolism he felt necessary to assault me with frivolous “deeper meaning” imagery and sounds.
More pointless venting.
Sorry but if you find this film genius and intellectually stimulating, you’re probably greatly lacking in brainpower, or else you’re just trying to look smart amongst elitist pretentious snobs.
Now, you are just being obnoxious. Majority of the world's top critics have enjoyed this picture, as well as some not liking it. They are not "elitists." But to personally attack a group with petty insults for
liking this movie is a move
on par with a person "lacking in brainpower."
People like me are not trying to
look smart; I've enjoyed Van Sant's Elephant and Gerry; Last Days wasn't my thing, either. I also enjoyed the film's thematic elements, the composition, the way Van Sant challenges normative narrative, and the authenticity of using
real people in the movie. This movie has more balls vs. the conventional Hollywood drama, or the INDIE movie of the year trying to be "quirkiest" one around!
You may hate this movie now....or forever, but it's a bit too harsh to say this is
insulting to the intelligence. Transformers 2 tops that list;)
reply
share
johnslegers
14 years ago
People who like Gus Van Sant's work are the same kind of people as those who think a can filled with human excrement or an empty canvas with a single black dot are genius works of art : elitist liberal pseudo-intellectuals with a total lack for good taste. You may say what you want, but your rants don't change that. I couldn't agree more with the topic starter here.
reply
share
RaspberryWaffles
14 years ago
Well then obviously you're a dumbass. Because I love all of Van Sants films and I think that a *beep* filled can is pretty unartsy. You shouldn't be bashing it because you have ADD and can't sit through a film that's trying to be realistic. If ya want an explosion every couple of minutes go watch *beep* Transformers or GI Joe or any of that Elitist Neo-Destructive "IF IT DOESN'T GO BOOM THEN I WONT WATCH IT" kind of *beep* Afterwards, I'll go to your boards and bash your movies for how unintelligent, unfunny, untalented pieces of crap they are. But I won't be so ignorant as to say that the visual effects weren't good.
"I just lost my virginity in a confessional booth! LORD HAVE MERCY!" Detroit Rock City
reply
share