IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,2/10
9192
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA rich college kid is taught a lesson after a joy ride ends up destroying a country restaurant.A rich college kid is taught a lesson after a joy ride ends up destroying a country restaurant.A rich college kid is taught a lesson after a joy ride ends up destroying a country restaurant.
- Auszeichnungen
- 2 Nominierungen insgesamt
Erik Eidem
- Charlie
- (as Erik Kristofer)
Isabell O'Connor
- Judge Maddick
- (as Isabell Monk)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
*MILD SPOILERS* - Hey, you know how there's always that one guy in every Nicolas Sparks movie (usually rich and spoiled) who makes a crude remark about the hero's girlfriend and then gets punched out in a public place (usually a wedding reception or a party)? Well, if you've ever wanted to see HIS story, this is the movie for you! Even though this came out 2 years BEFORE A Walk to Remember, it came out a year after the book - I don't know if someone at 20th Century Fox ordered some writers "hey - make a movie kinda like this book NOW!", but what I do know is this movie sticks closer to the Sparks formula even moreso than AWTR! Besides Sparks standards like a small town, disapproving parents, class issues, disease, and death, this one throws in future Sparks tropes that were missing - love scene in the rain, multiple montages of people building or renovating something (usually a boat, tractor or a house; here a diner), a love triangle with a "nice guy", and a PG-13, shot from the shoulders-up sex scene - they're all here. All we're missing is handwritten letters in a box and a North Carolina coastal setting and this would actually be the ultimate Sparks movie. I wonder if he consciously or subconsciously borrowed a bunch from this movie - a true Who Made Who? situation.
But is it any good? It's entertaining and watchable, but it's also head-scratchingly wrongheaded in concept or execution. The main character is arrogant, he's sleazy, he's ungrateful, he makes fun of poor people - it seems like they're setting up some kind of redemption story, but then they forgot to film the redemption parts! He's just as big an a-hole at the end as he was at the beginning, and we're supposed to root for him for some reason as he steals another guy's girlfriend, then treats her like crap, then leaves and disses the entire town, then comes back like nothing happened. It might make some sense if Chris Klein showed any of his aw-shucks, goofy persona (from Election and American Pie, etc...) but he's simultaneously unlikable and uninteresting here, not to mention he bears a striking resemblance to mass murderer Elliot Rodger. I mean, look at his smug look on the cover, you're about to get a whole movie of that. This is the first Chris Klein movie where I don't want to hang out with his character (and yes this includes Street Fighter).
Why are we supposed to cheer on Leelee Sobieski as she cheats on her boyfriend with this guy? They have zero chemistry and they never portray her boyfriend as anything less than a good guy, and I'd argue more women would choose Josh Hartnett over Chris Klein- it's mind-boggling that we're supposed to sympathize with her as she makes out with Klein RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER BOYFRIEND'S BEST FRIEND and he's supposed to be the bad guy for ratting them out? As a Paul Verhoeven-esque satire of the tragic romance genre, this kinda works, but viewed straight it's kind of unbelievable that they released this movie without major reshoots or re-writes.
But is it any good? It's entertaining and watchable, but it's also head-scratchingly wrongheaded in concept or execution. The main character is arrogant, he's sleazy, he's ungrateful, he makes fun of poor people - it seems like they're setting up some kind of redemption story, but then they forgot to film the redemption parts! He's just as big an a-hole at the end as he was at the beginning, and we're supposed to root for him for some reason as he steals another guy's girlfriend, then treats her like crap, then leaves and disses the entire town, then comes back like nothing happened. It might make some sense if Chris Klein showed any of his aw-shucks, goofy persona (from Election and American Pie, etc...) but he's simultaneously unlikable and uninteresting here, not to mention he bears a striking resemblance to mass murderer Elliot Rodger. I mean, look at his smug look on the cover, you're about to get a whole movie of that. This is the first Chris Klein movie where I don't want to hang out with his character (and yes this includes Street Fighter).
Why are we supposed to cheer on Leelee Sobieski as she cheats on her boyfriend with this guy? They have zero chemistry and they never portray her boyfriend as anything less than a good guy, and I'd argue more women would choose Josh Hartnett over Chris Klein- it's mind-boggling that we're supposed to sympathize with her as she makes out with Klein RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER BOYFRIEND'S BEST FRIEND and he's supposed to be the bad guy for ratting them out? As a Paul Verhoeven-esque satire of the tragic romance genre, this kinda works, but viewed straight it's kind of unbelievable that they released this movie without major reshoots or re-writes.
Plot
A rich college kid is taught a lesson after a joy ride ends up destroying a country restaurant.
Cast
A stellar cast featuring Chris Klein, Josh Hartnett, Josh Hartnett, Michael Rooker, Bruce Greenwood and Annette O'Toole even though she's offensively underused here.
Verdict
The movie starts relatively well, sure the characters come off as obnoxious but the fantastic 90's rock soundtrack really sets the tone and the film had my attention. Sadly that's the only time it had my attention for a good reason, I had a chip on my shoulder for the entire film because of the themes.
Without spoilers the core theme is girl loves boy, boy loves girl bad boy who is a horrible character with no redeeming features and is presented as an arrogant tool throughout comes along, girl cheats on boy with dirtbag and that's actually a love story. You think that's the setup for a story of forgiveness and redemption? Nope, that is the story.
Who is this for? A love triangle featuring two scumbags and the victim caught in it all. The film actually made me angry that this is not only the way it played out but also that this was presented as love and romance. One reviewer's title is talking about when you find love you need to hold onto it, whereas this film is about the literal opposite.
Disgusting film, I have no idea what they were thinking when they made this.
Rants
Who has been cheated on here? Raise your hand. I'm betting if you're reading this you have been. Do you think your ex (Hopefully you had the good sense to walk away) could be constituted as a the good guy in that story? No, cheaters are scum in every sense of the word. Don't want to be with someone? Don't be with them, but don't break their heart and don't make movies where the heartbreaker is made out to be a good person and the theme to be about "Love".
Breakdown
Great soundtrack Solid cast Awful premise Dreadful characters.
A rich college kid is taught a lesson after a joy ride ends up destroying a country restaurant.
Cast
A stellar cast featuring Chris Klein, Josh Hartnett, Josh Hartnett, Michael Rooker, Bruce Greenwood and Annette O'Toole even though she's offensively underused here.
Verdict
The movie starts relatively well, sure the characters come off as obnoxious but the fantastic 90's rock soundtrack really sets the tone and the film had my attention. Sadly that's the only time it had my attention for a good reason, I had a chip on my shoulder for the entire film because of the themes.
Without spoilers the core theme is girl loves boy, boy loves girl bad boy who is a horrible character with no redeeming features and is presented as an arrogant tool throughout comes along, girl cheats on boy with dirtbag and that's actually a love story. You think that's the setup for a story of forgiveness and redemption? Nope, that is the story.
Who is this for? A love triangle featuring two scumbags and the victim caught in it all. The film actually made me angry that this is not only the way it played out but also that this was presented as love and romance. One reviewer's title is talking about when you find love you need to hold onto it, whereas this film is about the literal opposite.
Disgusting film, I have no idea what they were thinking when they made this.
Rants
Who has been cheated on here? Raise your hand. I'm betting if you're reading this you have been. Do you think your ex (Hopefully you had the good sense to walk away) could be constituted as a the good guy in that story? No, cheaters are scum in every sense of the word. Don't want to be with someone? Don't be with them, but don't break their heart and don't make movies where the heartbreaker is made out to be a good person and the theme to be about "Love".
Breakdown
Great soundtrack Solid cast Awful premise Dreadful characters.
I just finished watching this movie for the first time (and last time) last night because after seeing a commercial for Hollywood Homicide, I was in the mood for a Josh Hartnett movie. I should've watched Pearl Harbor, at least I knew the characters in that movie. Josh Hartnett was the only good thing about this movie, but even he was not enough to save it.
Yes this movie follows the typical teen love triangle where the problem is solved only because someone is sick. But I think that the biggest problem with this movie was that the characters were so undeveloped. If I had not read the back of the video box before watching the movie, I probably would not have even known what the character's names were. The only character that I could even connect to was Hartnett's Jasper. Other than that I just watched Kline and Sobieski hold the same facial expressions and speak in the same tone the entire movie. (If your tv is anything like mine, you're going to need to have the volume up as high as it can go if you want to decently hear the dialogue).
I think that the plot upset me the most though about the film. I like Hartnett's character from the start, probably because I was only watching the movie for him. And Kline's character grew on me as I saw him change into a better person, plus the scene with the cows cracked me up. But Sobieski's character made me so upset that I was wishing she'd die because she was just hurting the two boys. Hartnett did nothing wrong to her and yet she cheated on him with a boy she didn't even know (he must've been a good kisser). So you like the new boy in town, at least have the class and decency to break up with your boyfriend before you start making out, geography style, in the grass.
I would give this movie a 1, but I think that Josh Hartnett, and the cows, saved it from that rating so I'm giving it a 2/10.
Yes this movie follows the typical teen love triangle where the problem is solved only because someone is sick. But I think that the biggest problem with this movie was that the characters were so undeveloped. If I had not read the back of the video box before watching the movie, I probably would not have even known what the character's names were. The only character that I could even connect to was Hartnett's Jasper. Other than that I just watched Kline and Sobieski hold the same facial expressions and speak in the same tone the entire movie. (If your tv is anything like mine, you're going to need to have the volume up as high as it can go if you want to decently hear the dialogue).
I think that the plot upset me the most though about the film. I like Hartnett's character from the start, probably because I was only watching the movie for him. And Kline's character grew on me as I saw him change into a better person, plus the scene with the cows cracked me up. But Sobieski's character made me so upset that I was wishing she'd die because she was just hurting the two boys. Hartnett did nothing wrong to her and yet she cheated on him with a boy she didn't even know (he must've been a good kisser). So you like the new boy in town, at least have the class and decency to break up with your boyfriend before you start making out, geography style, in the grass.
I would give this movie a 1, but I think that Josh Hartnett, and the cows, saved it from that rating so I'm giving it a 2/10.
..that separate good, memorable movies from movies like this. Its not entertaining, touching, funny, interesting and at times feels a little sub-human. The principals act like they are other-worldly, in the worse way, when they are supposed to be relating to each other and the audience.
Starts out conventionally enough. Rich kid gets new car for graduation but the dean says he can't have the car until after the ceremony. Goes joy-riding nonetheless, and stops in the diner on the wrong side of the tracks for a quick argument with the local yokels. Wise-asses the waitress/girlfriend of the head yokel. Shockingly, they play chicken until they accidentally burn down the diner they left three minutes earlier (aren't all diners five feet from the gas station?).
They told they have to Pay The Price in court, so the only reason to get this 'fish out of water' to stay in town is to come up with the scenario that both boys have to assist in the rebuilding of the diner. Worse than that, the rich kid in staying with the family of the un-rich kid..in the room above the attic. That 'room above the attic' has rescued many a person in need of a bed..
Rich kid inexplicably is treated well by the girlfriend, who never mentions to him that he nearly killed her. This does not bode well, of course, with her boyfriend, and is never fully explained. You don't know why Sam (Leelee Sobieski) falls for Kelley (Chris Klein), or why Jasper (Josh Hartnett) allows it.
Chris Klein is tolerable, Leelee completely intolerable, and Josh does not register much of an impression. The character with the most life is the judge that sentences Kelley and Jasper to help re-build the diner. She gets off at least one funny remark, which is more than anyone else does. Everyone is so morose and humorless that you will feel a little sill if you even think of smiling while the movie is on.
The ending is one way to end the piece, not the most original, but at least it was over. I don't enjoy trashing a movie that some little girl somewhere in the world might really love, but since I am not one, I have to. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that its not mean-spirited, and although it fails to compel, its innocence and home-spun, corny dialogue comes from a nice place. 4/10.
Starts out conventionally enough. Rich kid gets new car for graduation but the dean says he can't have the car until after the ceremony. Goes joy-riding nonetheless, and stops in the diner on the wrong side of the tracks for a quick argument with the local yokels. Wise-asses the waitress/girlfriend of the head yokel. Shockingly, they play chicken until they accidentally burn down the diner they left three minutes earlier (aren't all diners five feet from the gas station?).
They told they have to Pay The Price in court, so the only reason to get this 'fish out of water' to stay in town is to come up with the scenario that both boys have to assist in the rebuilding of the diner. Worse than that, the rich kid in staying with the family of the un-rich kid..in the room above the attic. That 'room above the attic' has rescued many a person in need of a bed..
Rich kid inexplicably is treated well by the girlfriend, who never mentions to him that he nearly killed her. This does not bode well, of course, with her boyfriend, and is never fully explained. You don't know why Sam (Leelee Sobieski) falls for Kelley (Chris Klein), or why Jasper (Josh Hartnett) allows it.
Chris Klein is tolerable, Leelee completely intolerable, and Josh does not register much of an impression. The character with the most life is the judge that sentences Kelley and Jasper to help re-build the diner. She gets off at least one funny remark, which is more than anyone else does. Everyone is so morose and humorless that you will feel a little sill if you even think of smiling while the movie is on.
The ending is one way to end the piece, not the most original, but at least it was over. I don't enjoy trashing a movie that some little girl somewhere in the world might really love, but since I am not one, I have to. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that its not mean-spirited, and although it fails to compel, its innocence and home-spun, corny dialogue comes from a nice place. 4/10.
Here On Earth is about opposite people who fall in love. They must change their whole lives to be together. Samantha is a teenager from a family with limited income. She has always dated Jasper. They love each other and will be together forever. At least that's what they thought before a boy named Kelly came into the picture. Kelly is a rich kid from the other side of town. Kelly and Jasper are in a car race and accidentally hit Samantha's family diner which causes it to catch fire and be destroyed. Kelly and Jasper then help rebuild the diner. Kelly and Samantha begin to like each other, and now Samantha must choose. Does she go with Jasper who she's been with forever, or does she go with Kelly who is different? She falls for Kelly, but it wasn't easy. They have numerous problems, everything from flashbacks of a parent's suicide to one of them getting cancer. Through thick and thin their love holds them together.
The main intention of director Mark Pizanrski was to show that if we want something bad enough. we will do anything to get it. Kelly and Samantha wanted to be together. They change their whole life to be with each other. They stood up to people they loved and had to face tough situations. But in the end it was worth it. Samantha declares that `some people live their whole lives and never fall in love, I lived my life and I fell in love.' All the hard work had been worth it. This is to me what Pizanrski wanted to get across.
My favorite part of the movie is the characters. They do such fine acting that the audiences feel as if they are a part of it. The characters will make them laugh and cry at the same time. Without the excellent acting of the cast, Here On Earth would not have been a success. They are what make the movie entertaining.
The main intention of director Mark Pizanrski was to show that if we want something bad enough. we will do anything to get it. Kelly and Samantha wanted to be together. They change their whole life to be with each other. They stood up to people they loved and had to face tough situations. But in the end it was worth it. Samantha declares that `some people live their whole lives and never fall in love, I lived my life and I fell in love.' All the hard work had been worth it. This is to me what Pizanrski wanted to get across.
My favorite part of the movie is the characters. They do such fine acting that the audiences feel as if they are a part of it. The characters will make them laugh and cry at the same time. Without the excellent acting of the cast, Here On Earth would not have been a success. They are what make the movie entertaining.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesMelissa Joan Hart was considered for the role of Samantha.
- PatzerKelley wears identical blue Oxford shirts throughout the entire movie, which spans one summer. Odd, but possible.
- SoundtracksBlack Balloon
Written by Johnny Rzeznik (as John Rzeznik)
Performed by Goo Goo Dolls
Courtesy of Warner Bros. Records and Third Rail Records
By Arrangement with Warner Special Products
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Here on Earth?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Here on Earth - Grenzenlose Liebe
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 15.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 10.522.168 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 4.510.705 $
- 26. März 2000
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 10.873.148 $
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 33 Min.(93 min)
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen