|
Directed by: Zack Braff Starring: Zack Braff, Natalie Portman I just got back from seeing the "East Coast premier" of Garden State at the Stony Brook Film Festival. I was a bit disappointed, because originally Zack Braff and Natalie Portman were scheduled to come to the showing, but commercial premier got moved up and so they were not around. However, that's pretty much the only thing that disappointed me, because the movie was excellent. Zack Braff must have learned a thing or twenty from working on Scrubs, because his directing and writing kind of remind me of Scrubs more than anything else. The movie somehow was both very touching and very funny, in a way which Scrubs has perfected throughout it's three seasons. Natalie Portman showed that she can still act, which kind of points even more of the blame for the Star Wars prequels directly at Lucas. She was amazing as Sam, the quirky, pathological love interest. Another thing Scrubs fans might notice is that the music in the movie is really good, just like in Scrubs. In fact, they even use The Shins - New Slang, which was on the Scrubs soundtrack as well, in an integral part of the movie. There were a number of downright hilarious parts to the movie and yet they didn't get in the way of the overall meaning. All in all, I'm going to rate it a 5 for writing and directing on Braff's part which only seem more amazing when you consider that it is his first go-round behind the camera. I gotta say I am looking forward to the next. RATING: 5 PROS: Funny and touching CONS: Not many ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0333766/
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2004 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
I was with Quick Stop. I really can't thank him enough for asking me if I wanted to go. I couldn't believe how much I was laughing in the movie. I couldn't believe how much I was able to personally related to Zack Braff's character (while that isn't necessarily a good thing  ).I really, really liked this movie. I knew very little about the movie, even after watching the trailer. That's a very, very good thing. Natalie Portman's role was rather scary. Only because I know girls like that! Beautiful, yet crazy as hell! The story was good, but I also loved the characters. They were slight exagerations of people that you know. Flaws, ticks, gifts and all. I was very impressed with Braff's direction. His story as well. I have no idea how he thought up of this kind of movie, but I'm very glad that he did. I'm going to go and give this a higher rating than Quick Stop did, because I really think that this may be the best directorial debut that I have seen. I've only seen one episode of Scrubs, but now I'm definately going to be watching. 5.5. It is rightly deserved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2004 07:45
|
|
|
I went with Quick Stop and The Grapist to see Garden State and must say that like them I was quite impressed. I've loved Scrubs and Zach Braff ever since I was introduced to the series. Zach's writing and direction were amazing for anyone, but considering he's a newcomer it makes the movie even more remarkable. Natalie Portman was not as wooden as she has been in her most recent movies as the eccentric Sam, Braff's love interest. Peter Sarsgaard was also good as Braff's friend Mark. Like Quick Stop I loved the mix of drama and comedy throughout the movie. Before the movie started I tried not to set my expectations too high, but it quickly surpassed what I thought the movie would be. I highly recommend it.
Freakoutmusic fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jul 30, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2004 04:37
|
|
|
I just saw this movie today and I'm actually pretty shocked as to how good it was. The characters are very real and easy to relate to, I felt like I knew somebody who was or could be each character in the movie. The subtle comedic touches had everyone in the theatre laughing hysterically, while the emotional overtones and realistic, and at times, awkwardly brilliant character development had us wanting to learn more and more about what was going to happen to these people. I remember not wanting the movie to end, because I really felt attached to the characters. The soundtrack is very well-chosen, and the music is integrated very well into the movie, except for the couple of times there were about 5 seconds of music that seemed to get cut off a bit early. My only real complaint is that the ending may have been a bit abrupt, but it's really not bad enough to take anything away from this great film. Aside from maybe one or two lines delivered a bit awkwardly by Zach Braff, the acting was really solid. Natalie Portman proved to us that she really doesn't suck at acting, and that the crazy, off-the-wall girl you were always afraid to talk to can be really enticing. As a long-time Scrubs fan, I was afraid to see basically the same type of dramadey "funny show that likes to be cool and have a message," but was pleasantly surprised to get something much more intriguing. Zach Braff goes above and beyond all expectations I ever had of him. Here's to hoping this isn't a fluke. 5.5/5 Jumpin_Frog fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Jul 30, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2004 06:19
|
|
|
Amazing amazing film. As a directorial debut, I give Zach Braff all the credit in the world, it was a great movie. Lighthearted, yet serious, quirky and intelligent, it was a great piece of filmmaking in which I felt like I connected to characters, they were all believable and well developed. The art aspect of the film was also quite apparent, a lot of the shots were just surreal, and every scene was incredibly well done. I have nothing but praise for this movie. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2004 08:41
|
|
|
I got to see the dallas premier with Zach in attendance. I'd read reviews out the wazoo before attending and was expecting something different? I kept reading how everyone compared it to the "graduate" and "Harold and Maude" got name dropped a lot. It was fun and funny but nothing comparable to those two films. I don't know something was missing. i say go see it but i can't make it the definitive movie of a generation of lost twenty somethings. a good director-al debut... Zach was great to listen to. everyone was asking really great questions till the end. some woman said something along the lines of "you should get a screenwriting for dummies book". he spun the question around and made it sound like the person asked if screenwriting for dummies was a good book to read. he said he had never read any of them...
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2004 15:30
|
|
|
I saw a sneak in DC last night (no Braff). I thought the movie was good, but unremarkable. All of the visually interesting elements are in the trailer. The story itself is pretty average -- who really gives a poo poo about the disillusionment of 20-something white boys? Braff is lucky to have great supporting actors to fill out average roles. Ian Holm plays his dad -- it's a nothing role, but Holm is good (I almost expected the ubiquitous Brian Cox to be the dad). Natalie Portman is the reason to see the movie; she's bubbly, quirky, and sexy. The ending drags and borders on cliche.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2004 17:55
|
|
|
PLEASE POST ONLY REVIEWS IN THIS FORUM
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2004 18:44
|
|
|
^^^ what the hell??? I just saw a press screening this morning and I must say I thought it was a very beautiful movie. Usually in a film like this the central characters serves only as a point for all the other, quirkier, more interesting characters to orbit around. Such was not the case in this film, as I definitely felt more connected to the quiet, intense character than I did to any other. Natalie Portman is good too, even though I can't stand her I really fell in love with her this time. It's really a testament to the strength of this film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2004 20:03
|
|
|
I had very high expectations for this movie after reading so many rave reviews, and while the movie wasn't exactly what I expected, I still enjoyed it and would reccommend it. I felt that the beginning dragged on quite a bit, and the movie wasn't that interesting until Braff's character meets Sam in the doctor's office. Portman was great and, in my opinion, the reason to see this movie. The movie is much more enjoyable when she is on screen, which, thankfully, is most of the time. I agree with the poster above who stated that the ending felt very cliched. The whole resolution kind of bugged me, especially the way that the director decided to aproach it. The whole "I'm gonna get on the plane because I need to be an indvidual, but wait I realize that I love you so I'm going to get off the plane" seemed over the top, especially compared to the majority of the movie which seemed quite realistic. The same cliche that was in the final episode of friends for gods sake. There were also a couple of little things that bugged me with the story, e.g. the mother hits her neck on the counter and is paralyzed from the waist down? how does that make sense and the friend gets the necklace back after he stole it from the mother's grave, even though when jewish people are buried they are not buried with any jewlery. I really like the characters though, Braff did a good job with his character balancing the two different personas of the loner type and a new person experiencing certain emotions for the first time. Ian Holm was a good choice as the father, I wish he was in the movie a little bit more. Overall I would give it a 4/5. This sounds like a bad review but I'm terrible about praising things and can only seem to find faults in movies when I review them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2004 15:50
|
|
|
Just saw the movie, and I thought it was very good. It was finally a movie with great dialog, something I haven't heard since Eternal Sunshine almost 4 months ago. The chrachters were very lovable, especially Samantha (not just because Natalie is hot, but because that charachter is so fun and quirky) and the feel and look of the movie is very cool, I loved it right when I first saw the trailer. Also have to say the movie is suprisingly funny, much funnier than I expected. I laughed out loud many many times during the movie. My main complaint is a pretty formulaic ending, and so I was a little bit disapointed when I came out. But thinking back on the movie, it was very good, despite the cliche ending. Hope Zach Braff comes back with more movies like that in the future! 4/5 - one of the best movies of the summer. Pinkied_Brain fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Aug 7, 2004 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2004 08:42
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing this with 3 friends in Washington DC. Considering we live in Chesapeake, VA, and it took us 4 hours each way to see the movie, I'm really glad it didn't suck. I definitely thought Zack Braff did a great job with the movie overall and he definitely has the ability to write and direct in addition to some quality acting skills. I hope he makes a few more films in the near future. I've never really had a problem with Natalie Portman before and she was being extra hot in this movie. She wasn't annoying somehow, despite the setup of her character wanting to lean that way. The movie had so many quirky and awesome elements in it. None of the humor seemed to go out of the way to fit in, it just always matched the situation well enough. The only real issue I had with the film was the dog-related humor, I thought it was awkward and out of place with the rest of the movie's mood. But it barely detracted from the film overall. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2004 05:37
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the Dallas premier was tommorow at the Magnolia. That being said I intend to see this or the screening of Office Space at the Inwood tommorow. I may see this with friends and a fellow goon. Consider this a review placeholder. edit: Saw Napoleon Dynamite instead because Garden State was sold out at the only theatre showing it. Next Weekend. Mr.Mysteriosity fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Aug 15, 2004 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2004 07:39
|
|
|
I just saw this today, and was going in with really high expectations. I was expecting an amazing film, and that's exactly what I got. It's really cliche to say this, but this movie made me feel different than any other movie has. It felt so real. And there were tons of little things that made the whole experience really delightful. It says "balls" on his forehead. He smudges it off, goes to the doctor, and takes off his shirt. Brilliant. The doctor's office with walls covered in plaques, and a single one on the ceiling. The movie itself is incredible, but what really makes it amazing is the soundtrack. Over and over throughout the movie, it was as if it was saying, "Look how loving awesome my soundtrack is". There is a shameless plugging of The Shins, but they are a great band and deserve all the attention that this movie will give them. I walked out of the theatre utterly satisfied. Amazing movie. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2004 03:26
|
|
|
I just got back minutes ago from seeing the film. I was captivated. Zack Braff did an amazing job directing, writing, and starring in this film. For many reasons, watching Zack's character felt like looking in a mirror. This took on a whole new meaning for me, considering the number of close ups on Zack's character Andrew (heh, my name's Andrew too). In many ways, I felt such direction was intentional to almost help you fit in his shoes as we walked through his journey. I loathe stories about LA. I absolutely loathe them. Yes, it's soulless. I live here. Yes, people have money and everyone wants to act. Thank god Zack left that part of the story for only the first five minutes. The story is a suburban love tale and an adventure through the past, the mind, and a couple of days of returning home. Natalie Portman's character, Sam, was annoying at first, but in that cute kind of way. She felt really young the whole time, almost too young. But she was about his age, so I guess it worked. I think her youth and pathology clearly make her batshit insane, but beautiful in a way, in a way I think many of us goons like. The character is someone we can love, despite her flaws. The whole movie I felt was like a college movie, but a really well done one. It had a lot of the typical party/drug/graveyard things you see in college films, but it did it all in a way that wasn't distracting or over the top. I loved the film. It's one of the few films I was taken aback by. Few people were in the theater when I saw it and I went alone, so I had plenty of time to soak in everything. It's one of those movies that truly makes you feel good about everything. The dialogue is nothing spectacular, but it has an honesty to it that I rarely see in films. I highly recommend checking it out. 5.0/5.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2004 04:29
|
|
|
This film is ABSOLUTELY gorgeous. Every single shot in the movie feels like it was worked on and crafted for days and days. The performances are quite good, and the music is outstanding. The only problems I had with the movie were: 1) Some slight pacing problems here and there. This includes some shot changes where the actors were in noticebly different positions before and after, as well as some dialogue that felt slightly misplaced. 2) The ending just felt tacked on. I would have felt much better about the film if Braff's character had stayed on the plane and gone back to LA. Minor complaints aside, excellent film, and battling Eternal Sunshine for my favorite flick of the year. 5.0/5.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2004 07:39
|
|
|
quote:vots came out of the closet to say: I loved all the characters, and I believe they were acted beautifully. Braf and Portman really should be applauded for how well they did. The only problem I had with the movie was the dialog. It seems so thin at times, and almost corny at others. I absolutely was in love with the movie for the first 30-45 minutes. There was a laugh a minute and great plot and character development. However, the later half of the movie was too heavy on the mediocore dialoge. I really empathized with Braf's character, and the idea of losing what home is, but the "this is what life is" parts were really weak. I teared up at some parts, but was very  at others.Also, the soundtrack seemed weak to me, and at times was more of a "look at what music I listen to" then actually being helpful to the development of the movie. I also, that the ending was a bit tacked on. The confrontation with the father felt odd too. Overall though, I'd give it a 4.5 for visual beauty, a touching story and a great first effort. ManoliIsFat fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Aug 14, 2004 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2004 11:10
|
|
|
This film is just another reason for me to hate Sundance and Robert Redford. They've slowly been turning the American independent film scene into a carbon copy of commercial filmmaking, abadoning the sense of excitement and innovation that filmmakers like Cassavetes and Scorsese brought to the table in favor of no-risk, crowd pleasing projects. Garden State is actually ten years too late, missing out on the "growing up is hard" romantic comedy thing from the early ninties, when Kevin Smith and Ed Burns were cutting their teeth on their first projects and everyone else decided to follow suit. Indepedent filmmaking used to be about making the films you couldn't make in Hollywood, not just a way to get into the big leagues. More than anything else, Garden State feels like a demo reel for Braff, playing a little stronger than a film student's senior project. The film was a little too cute and quirky for my tastes, especially Portman. I really just can't take her seriously in anything anymore, she seems to just play to her established audience rather than try to do anything of interest. Braff is pretty strong in his role though, and it is very easy to indentify with him, but everything else around him seems weak and fabricated. Some of the relationships between characters are so outrageously cliche it's nauseating. I also felt Braff's direction was pretty mixed. A lot of the visual "tricks" were of first-year film school quality, like the slow motion stuff and the pop music, but he made some surprisngly daring choices on more than one occasion (the opening with the plane crash, the wandering parts before Portman enters). If he had stuck to his guns, he could have turned this into a really exciting project, maybe even something on the level of The Graduate (which the film seems to aspire to on more than one occasion, going so far as to use music by Simon and Garfunkle), but as it is, this is just another drop in the well of "I wanna work in Hollywood" filmmaking. I have never seen Scrubs, so maybe I don't bring the same sense of goodwill towards Braff that everyone else seems to, but as a first impression, this falls way to short of the expectations I had from reading other reviews in this thread. Maybe when he doesn't have anything left to prove he can make a great film, but this is not it. 2.5, an average film
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2004 17:39
|
|
|
quote:lazarus came out of the closet to say: It hit the right nerve. Given that he works on a show about a hospital I'd hope he checked with someone about the paralysis. And he said that he isn't really a practicing jew, so I doubt his family observed all the rules/laws. When Natalie Portman says that she's listening to The Shins I was like *swoon* I'm in love *swoon* The story was interesting. And I think if the ending was different the prescription haze vs. life with pain dilemma would have been stronger. Boo hiss. Edit: voted 5.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2004 02:41
|
|
|
After having seen this movie, I have to say it's one of the better films I've seen in the last few years. While there a lot of small things to nitpick, it did succeed in making me identify with the characters, not a particularly easy task. The direction is startlingly good for a first time director, and Braff has a real sense for the timing of his sequences. While both Portman and Braff pull off great performances, I felt that Peter Sarsgaard had possibly the most realistic piece of acting I've seen in a long time. His character seemed so realistic, he could have been one of the guys who live in my area who are doing nothing with their lives, but still assume "they're going to make 'it'". 5.5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2004 19:00
|
|
|
I voted 5.5 because this is one of the best written movies I have ever seen. There really isn't much to say in praise of the movie that hasn't been said, but I loved and related to the characters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2004 02:53
|
|
|
Just saw the film, and it was definetly one of the most fabulous films I've ever seen. Everybody should see this, it's a good thing it's being spread to more theatres. It's so hard to explain why this movie was so great, or even what I liked about it...all I know is that it is an amazing film. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2004 05:52
|
|
|
Just saw this movie and I went in expecting an great movie. What I got was only a pretty good movie. Mainly the first 30 minutes or so. Some of the jokes just seem so forced. It was trying too hard to be funny and therefore was not funny. Like they added some scenes just to try to be funny. However, once Zach Braff met Natalie Portman I felt things started to pick up. I felt I could relate to the characters and the jokes actually had something to do with the story. Most shots were visually pleasing as well. While I wasn't "amazed" or "captivated" by this movie, the characters were very relatable and interesting which made the movie worth it(it's also made me in love with Portman).
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2004 07:40
|
|
|
I admit, there were some very funny scenes in this movie. The knight, the arrows, the balls, and the rich friend trying to guess Aldous Huxley's name had me laughing good. However, I had some problems with the film itself. Overall, I thought this film was uneven, in several aspects. I really enjoyed Braff's dry humor, but some of the other scenes seemed very out of place. The spin-the-bottle scene seemed to drag, and the part in the hotel was very alienated from the rest of the film. Also, the structure seemed to follow a simple forumla of set-up, joke, set-up, joke, etc, which became a bit tiresome towards the end. For example, the old lady talks about the shirt made from leftover material, Andrew wears the shirt for a second, then it is no more. In addition, the idea of definition, repetition, variation was not properly utilized in some scenes, resulted in failed jokes. For example, the scene where he takes the joint, rejects the golf book, and takes the e, would have worked better comedically if he had taken the joint, e, and then rejected the book. However, in doing so, the pacing for the e sequence would have been a bit off, so I don't know. Furthermore, the movie felt uneven emotionally. I will say that during some scenes I was genuinely moved; however, there were several scenes where it seemed like he was trying too hard and were just plain uninspired. However, I did like the characters and they were portrayed very well by their respective actors. My score: 3/5 Edit: I forgot to talk about the music. The mentioning of the Shins should have been left out, for it served no purpose other than mere namedropping. Some of the songs fit well with the scenes, but like some of the scenes themselves the soundtrack overall seemed a bit forced, like he was trying to impress someone with his music choices. However, it could have been a lot worse and the songs he picked were at least semi-appropriate. what the christ fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Aug 16, 2004 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2004 09:04
|
|
|
I saw this movie last night, and I thought it was ok. Nothing too special. It had a lot of funny jokes and good little bits, but they were few and far between. It felt like an eternity when I had to sit through the emo tastic, cliche bits that bogged down the entire film. The entire movie seemed like it was trying too hard to be quirky and left of center and I didn't really buy it. The ending especially was horrible and typical. From a film making stand point, I thought the movie told us how people felt instead of showing us too much. Film is a visual medium, I prefer when I can just see how people feel or whats going on, rather then a character saying "I am sad and depressed because my mom died, etc etc." Perhaps instead of "Large" telling us about how he accidentally paralyzed his mother, a flashback could've been used to show it. Overall this movie is worth seeing, but its nothing too special. The typicalness of the plot, and corny bits of dialogue really hinder the good quirky jokes. Overall I would give it a 3/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2004 10:50
|
|
|
Loved the film, don't care to elaborate much since everything I could just about say has already been said. Did love the Method Man ridiculously unecesary cameo, plus the role played by Geoffrey Arend better known as the stoner who eats the whole bag of shrooms in Supertroopers. Sam: He's like my knight in shining armor! Andrew: Don't bring up knights to him, it's a sore subject. Mark: I'm going to kill that motherfucker. Andrew: Pun intended? 5/5 edit: On top of the spectacularness of the film itself, I can't wait to see this movie become fodder for the writers of scrubs ala the janitor's role in The Fugitive. CallMeDan fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Aug 16, 2004 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2004 19:46
|
|
|
quote:HooverDam came out of the closet to say:
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2004 18:41
|
|
|
quote:HooverDam came out of the closet to say: There is a fallacy in your review; you state that you thought it was corny and cliche, yet you suggested a flashback would have been more appropriate for the telling of the story of his mothers accident. Furthermore, doing so would have ruined the feel of the movie. This movie was not simply telling a story, it was getting the audience to grow into caring and feeling for the characters. What better way to do this than hear a story verbatim rather than simply show the transgressions. Watching this segment gave me the feeling that he was talking as if I was there with him. 5.5/5 Best movie I have ever seen. Want to play freerolls? Get the schedules for major poker sites here. Captian PLANET fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Aug 18, 2004 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2004 05:13
|
|
|
quote:HooverDam came out of the closet to say: Uh, that would have been retarded. There were no flashbacks of any kind in the movie. It was as if the characters were living out four days, and you were there to witness it. Flashbacks are stupid and I'm glad there weren't any in this movie. edit: beaten twice
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2004 09:00
|
|
|
I liked Garden State quite a bit. The characters were all likable, and the humor was witty and sharp. The audience I was in for Garden State laughed more for it than the one I was in for Harold and Kumar. Go figure. The movie is brilliantly shot, and the trailer doesn't really do it justice. There're so many parts in the film that just stick in your mind because of the amazing imagery. The soundtrack is good, and it goes above the role of background noise, and seems to become integral to the feel of the film. And it's not the typical romantic movie soundtrack, where something happens so they pick a song with lyrics that describe what the audience is supposed to be feeling -- the songs all work on their own merit, and seems to enhance the mood of the movie, rather than blatently state it. The entire tone of the movie accurately conveys the feeling of coming home after college/highschool. Seeing the odd assortment of Large's friends and what they've chosen to do with their lives makes you feel as though you've known them for your entire life. And despite how unlikable most of the characters are at the onset of the film, you actually feel yourself caring for them by the end. As mentioned before, however, the end is my only failing with the film. It's not that it was particuarly cliched, but it did feel tacked on. I expected something more dramatic for the ending. That's not to say that I was disapointed with the movie, but the finale felt lacking. Everything is acted well. From Large's drug induced laconic haze, to Sam's quirky mood swings (I know people just like that), even to minor characters (like Tim and the hardware store guy) -- all of it comes across as amazingly realistic and well done. I can't think of a single character that was either written or acted poorly. All-and-all this movie just seems to click. Everything comes together, and leaves the audience with an entirely memorable experience. As I've described it to multiple people: This is a romantic comedy that doesn't suck poo poo. This is what hollywood would make if they cared about anything other than attaching big names to predictable scripts. As I've said for many films this summer, this is a big name flick that doesn't treat the audience like a group of mongoloids. Highly recommended. Pros: Acting, Plot, Cinematics, Pacing, Humor Cons: The ending leaves you feeling disatisfied Rating: 5.0 of 5.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2004 17:43
|
|
|
Zach Braff acted, wrote and directed this movie. Doodi-doodi-doo I've read about him. He is a confident fellow and a great talker and good to get along with. So why did he make this movie? Not only is it kinda pretentious but also kinda wrong. Why didn't Andrew (the main character) get all hosed up after leaving the pills? That's what really happens. You can tell Braff doesn't know jack about the life he played in Andrew. To me it seems that Mr. Braff thinks he can teach the pill-taking world how to be as awesome as he is, well, he doesn't seem to know some people need pills. Other than a few laughs here and there, I didn't see a reason for watching this and was pretty bored at times. It's all about You need love instead of pills and the main character got pills instead of love and now that he found this girl he is "cured" but why? Braff proves he knows nothing of medical patients lives in this movie. I mean, it literally screams: "Yay! Life is great, you dont need pills, money (his friend) or drugs (his stoner friend) to be happy! All you need is love"... But then, that's easy to say when your life has been so good. 3 out of 5
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2004 01:52
|
|
|
quote:Spram came out of the closet to say: Anyways, I thought it was a terrific film. Sure, there were a couple rough spots here and there, but it was still one of the best debuts I've seen in a good while. 5.5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2004 02:19
|
|
|
Uh. Holy poo poo. Acting: Wonderful. I've only seen Natalie Portman in The Professional, the Star Wars debacles and this. She makes me want to see anything she's ever done. She had a couple points of maybe slight overacting, but I'm possibly over-scrutinizing. Braff is very good, both with the comedic timing and with the dramatic statements. Ian Holm is a great supporting actor in this, Peter Sarsgaard's character grates on me, but his acting is superb. Cinematography: Very artsy feel to it, but it's very, very good. The shirt scene from the trailer is great, the shot with the swimming pool dive (trailer), the scene in the mansion are all wonderfully done, as is the concept and shooting with the rainstorm. I'm being generic because I don't want to use the spoiler tags. Story/writing: Compelling. I'm beaten on the explanation of Andrew's massive perscriptions, but anyone who thinks the story was "pills are bad!" is silly - he was medicated without a need. Now I'll use spoiler. I think Andrew actually said it best at the end with Gideon, "I'm also here to forgive you for what you did to me," he knows he didn't NEED the pills. I sincerely hope that Zach Braff continues screen-writing, acting and directing his own movies if they're this good. ONLY drawback, i felt (no film is perfect, not even Citizen Kane): All the characters are aggressively quirky. Andrew's heavily medicated, Sam's a pathological liar with epillepsy, Mark's got the trading card thing, the pretending-to-return-stuff thing, among others, Gideon's afraid of his own kid, Mark's mom is sleeping with someone younger than her son, along with the pot thing, it seemed like everyone had a huge quirk. Maybe this is really representative of real life - "everyone's got a story," and it's just not common in movies to see so many of them at the surface, or maybe Braff really just wanted everyone to seem distinct and it's not really a drawback at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2004 06:01
|
|
|
I have a feeling that this movie will be know as two things. The first, obviously, will be as "the movie from that Scrubs guy." The second is "This year's Lost in Translation". This movie was fantastic, and deserves an Oscar nod. Also, I'd like to say that the E tripping scene is probably the most realistic portrayal of being high on that drug I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2004 16:32
|
|
|
quote:Keuric came out of the closet to say: I agree completely. If they did indeed shoot this movie on location in New Jersey, they did a drat good job giving it a sort of beautiful quality to it (and as a New Yorker, its not easy for me to give compliments to New Jersey). One question, sort of a derail: Can anyone direct me to more information about the giant underground canyon thing? Does it really exist? Googling has brought me nothing. I ask because it seems they went to great legnths to make it a fair representation of actual stuff in New Jersey. Voted 5.5/5. Narrowly beats Eternal Sunshine for favorite flick of the year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2004 01:13
|
|
|
Just saw this this afternoon. I must say that the film was very good; fantastic cinematography and there were several breathtaking scenes. But,as some of you have already said, the ending just seemed so obviously tacked on...a real loving disappointment considering the context of the film before it. Oh and this movie is horribly depressing... 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2004 02:16
|
|
|
It seems like the few people in this thread giving the movie an average or negative review are doing so for personal reasons. This movie isn't about the after effects of getting off pills, staying true to the 'indie film' culture, or even the humor. Its message is something else entirely and I think your focus would have been better spent elsewhere. If you can't connect to or feel the meaning of this movie, then I don't know what to say. I am sure that you don't have to firsthandedly experience something going very wrong in your life know that it hurts. Sure, it didn't happen to you, but that's where having feelings towards other human beings comes into play. Even if it is all make-believe, these things are grounded in the reality just outside your window. I can safely say this is one of the best films I've ever seen, and besides a few minor first time directing overlooks it was beautifully done, with excellent cinematography, music, dialogue and acting. Zack is a new favorite of mine and comparing the Natalie from Star Wars eps 1&2 to her in this is the difference between the earth and the stars. The ending could have felt more involved, and the hotel peek-room scene was out of place. But other than these, it is absolutely excellent. Almost everyone in my audience continued sitting in their chairs after the end of the movie instead of leaving nearly immediately as it goes with other films. I've never seen that happen. A solid 5.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2004 05:10
|
|
|
The last two things in the movie, Large confronting his father and Large confronting Sam, seemed awkward, cliché, and mishandled. But it doesn't bring the rest of the movie down. I'm giving it a 5.0.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2004 16:28
|
|
|
I saw this last night after a lot of anticipation, mostly due to the positive buzz and great reviews. Overall, I enjoyed the movie, but it certainly didn't change my life, or even my outlook on life. I think this movie should have touched me in a deeper way, given that I'm a twenty-something, out of college and in that tumultuous time in life when, as Braff's character says, "You're missing a place [home] that never existed." I thought the acting was good, the random jokes and non-sequiters thrown in to liven up scenes were amusing, and the love story was sweet. But overall, it just didn't really move me. Somehow the story just didn't manage to hit an emotional groove for me, so by the end, I found I hadn't really been touched by any of the most pivotal moments in the film. Maybe this was a flaw in the writing, but by the end of the film, when Braff is finally confronting the pain he's feeling from his mother's death, and having what should be a pivotal confrontation with his father, I just didn't feel any emotional resonance coming from the story. Even Portman's teary desperation to keep him from going back to LA struck me as a bit hollow; I would've enjoyed the ending a lot more if he'd actually left and tried to live his life the way he wanted to from then on, instead of the rather silly "I love you, I want to be with you" conclusion the audience got. And yeah, I couldn't buy the fact that he had been drugged up his whole life and managed to get off all those prescriptions in four days. The story would have been more powerful if we'd actually seen the results of abruptly stopping a mood-altering drug as strong as lithium, which is a little more intense than suddenly allowing a person to shed a tear and scream cathartically for the first time in years. I enjoyed it more as a "slice of life" movie, watching very real characters in very real situations, and for the touches of quirky humor thrown in. Other than that, it just didn't move me, so overall I would just give this a 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2004 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
quote:HPopper 2.0 came out of the closet to say: You know, I can see it with the ending, but I think they way they handled his father at the end was pretty good. His avoidance of his father was sort of a metaphor for what his father did for him with the pills, and I liked how it wasn't an idyllic way to treat their relationship, but was on the road to recovery, just as Large is at the end. The Sam scene at the end is probably the one detraction, though..but not enough to take serious points away in my estimation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2004 00:53
|
|