Fifty Pills

After partying, groggy New York University freshman Lou Taylor Pucci (as Darren Giles) wakes up. He has lost his scholarship and is unable to pay for the next semester. But Mr. Pucci wants to stay in school, finish his paper on Dante's "Inferno" and lock tongues with pretty blonde Kristen Bell (as Gracie). Via answering machine, his perfectly eyebrow-plucked roommate John Hensley (as Coleman Anderson) offers Pucci an opportunity. Pucci must sell 50 hits of the drug "Ecstasy" for Mr. Hensley, at $20 a pop… We flashback four months ago, to see what happened to prompt this deal; Hensley had a party and, although Pucci didn't attend, he was blamed due to having a bottle of vodka in his refrigerator. Next, we see how Pucci endeavors to sell the pills...

"Fifty Pills" is the kind of movie which fails as a whole, but has parts which are interesting. Director Theo Avgerinos and his team show they are capable of telling a good cinematic story – though this isn't exactly it. This may also be why "Catcher in the Rye" is not represented well on film. The drug peddling plot doesn't make much sense; of course, it's meant to be comic, but it isn't funny. Neither are the tame representations of deviant sex or the dumb gay references. The first segment that amuses is the scene with "Different Strokes" fan Eddie Kaye Thomas (as Ralphie), due to the absurdity of the film's themes reaching momentary cohesion. The crew's work on the "Cross the River" interlude is nice; musicians David Manning and La Rocca contribute well.

**** Fifty Pills (4/26/06) Theo Avgerinos ~ Lou Taylor Pucci, John Hensley, Kristen Bell, Eddie Kaye Thomas

I really liked this movie and thought that the acting was good for each individual.

Having seen "Fifty Pills" last night and subsequently discovered it's score of 3/10 on IMDb, I feel the need to redress the situation.

OK, so it's not the greatest of films ever made in the already massively over subscribed college-comedy genre but it is by no means the worst. "Fifty Pills" is relatively well scripted, and, with one or two exceptions the actors play their parts well; making a good job of portraying believable characters.

Some of the jokes are obvious and predictable, but there was more than one moment when the humour leapt at us with the unexpected voracity of a demonically possessed ferret.

Most importantly, the film flowed well and there were no moments when my concentration wandered towards the events outside of Theo Avgerinos' creation. At just over 75 minutes, the movie was exactly the right length.

The aspects of "Fifty Pills" that let it down for me were the poor dialogue in scenes involving Darren's parents, and the over use of one or two running jokes.

I give this film 6 out of 10.

I saw this movie today at the Tribeca Film Festival and it was a great movie. It had a little bit of everything thrown into a well written script. Comedy, drama, and romance, what else could you want?! The actors portrayed their characters so well, and with names like Kristen Bell and John Hensley you already know you are getting a good quality performance. The movie flowed very well, never losing my interest. Best part about this film is the age range it seems to grab. The theater was filled with 20 somethings to late 50's. Everyone laughed and seemed to enjoy the entire film. Well written story that I definitely recommend to anyone looking for a good laugh and a good story that tugs at your heart.

It's too bad that someone took such a good name for a movie...I mean the title alone gives anyone an idea or three about what this movie could have been...(almost famous, requiem for a dream...just to name two extremes...and extremely good, creative movies with similar resources)...It's like when a band takes a great name and shoulda' just named themselves 'another lame-ass band'... Well, the same thing holds true here...a great writer could have taken the same concept (forget the name) and driven this movie into a completely original direction with some real drama, real comedy and real emo-tion...instead, we get what we get...plus now this great title is attached to this run of the mill, halfass storyline with so-so performances...

I don't know...Whenever I take on a project (regardless of what it is) I find myself 'forced' to 'climb the mountain, burn the candle at both ends', etc, etc...to get the best result I can...even if 'those' results weren't required, expected or asked for, I just find myself pushing it as far as I can with the resources I have. So I really don't get it (or maybe just let down) when I see something that has been given great resources and it's not even nearly the best it could be..Specifically, when I see a movie that has had a decent budget thrown at it and it turns out mediocre (at best)..well, it's just too bad...someone fell down somewhere...I think in this case it was a combination of people not giving it their all...starting with the screen writing and then dribbling down to the casting...then onto the direction and the actors themselves...it's just not as good as you would hope for (especially with the great movie name, again)... and that's all I gotta' say about that....F...F.G.