Jeux de gangs

Watching this movie, the first thing that came to mind was, "Wow, these kids sure are fake." In many initial reviews, this movie was derided as being a joke. It was either hearing about the various nude scenes of Anne Hathaway or a bunch of white kids trying to act black, and doing it poorly.

I said that that "fake" was the first thing that came to mind, because we are immediately presented with this group of rich white kids acting like they are black. However, it is being mistaken by some reviewers that these actors are doing a bad job. What we are really seeing is truly how superficial that these kids are. They are fake, in every sense of the word, and that is the whole point of the movie. Don't try and act like something you aren't because there are consequences.

I say this is a social commentary, not perfectly executed, but still fairly well done nonetheless. It does truly present many aspects of youth behavior nowadays that most people don't really look at. We are given a true side to high school, where there are fake people everywhere, underage and illegal activity is happening, and its all going on without parents there to see. This movie takes the comedy out of the teenage life that has been prevalent in movies over the past 8 years or so such as American Pie and other similar styled teen comedies and turns it to a sort of opposite view. Now I am not by any means saying that this movie is a guiding light which everyone should see. In fact, I don't know if this movie is for everyone, because of the issues it presents. Some people, especially parents, would undoubtedly have problems coming to terms that the behavior seen in this movie happens. Now it doesn't happen everywhere, or in every school, but I'm pretty sure that you know what I mean.

I think this movie, is backed up by pretty well performed acting done by the majority of its cast. Anne Hathaway, who many doubted had the range to tackle such a role, seemed very natural in the part. I don't mean that negatively, and I actually give her credit for really becoming the character. The rest of the cast does a good job, but it is her performance that truly helps you understand most of the underlying message of the movie.

I know that some will not see in this movie what I saw, but to each their own. I do hope that people see this movie and don't criticize it solely on what they think is bad acting. It has a much deeper theme than that, and I think that the more people understand that, the more people will realize this is a pretty good movie.

This movie was often times painful to watch, and it's not because of its "moving" subject matter. It's possible the filmmakers aren't at fault, here, because when you make a movie about irritating people, don't be surprised that the viewers will find themselves irritated. But if you take on a film that'll make people's brains hemorrhage, you probably deserve to be booed.

Honestly, though, after seeing this piece of crap, I'm surprised Stephen Gaghan can still get work in Hollywood. Likewise for Hathaway, who does a respectable job with a vastly mundane script. Not so kudos to Bijou Philips, for whom playing trash isn't exactly a huge stretch or test of acting ability, nor to Freddy Rodriguez, who, to make his speech more threatening, actually slows himself down so much that he starts. Speaking. In. Fragments. Of the trio, though, he may be the most surprising transformation, especially since he's so squeaky on "Six Feet Under." It was unexpected, but it may have been a casting mistake. Instead of appearing threatening, he looks more like he has Short Man's Syndrome, since Hathaway has a head of height on him, and may appear more menacing therefore. I know I shouldn't be so astounded, but it stupefies me still, how far Hollywood will go to make the worst casting decisions in the name of getting someone proximately famous for the DVD cover. Oy...

I think the most irksome thing about "Havoc" is that, in the end, it's a vacuous morality tale. They had a chance to make something of the examination of bored, rich teenagers who want to be poor on purpose, but they instead glazed over it. No one involved has long-lasting suffering. It's like the whole thing was just a bad dream, which is, I suppose, a fitting description of a night spent watching "Havoc," a most aptly-titled film. The most disappointing aspect of the whole deal is that the personal responsibility lesson isn't given enough gravity. Bored, unlikable, upper-class adolescents get in a wee bit of trouble with a Latin gang of their own accord? My cup overfloweth. Honest to God, if I have to hear another person defend an individual's actions on the basis of the "It's only your fault until you get hurt; then, you can blame someone else" line, I'm going to implode. And guess what "Havoc" does?

Bottom line: if you're looking for half-naked girls, you've hit the jackpot. Also, if you're a teenager and you're looking for some kind of searing expose of the "Gee, I think I'll go join a gang today" lifestyle, you, too, are in luck. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you find yourself vomiting uncontrollably and crying for your mother during the ninety minutes of the train wreck called "Havoc."

The film "Closer" (2004) was never meant to be liked, just revealing. I felt the same vibe resonate throughout the eighty-six minutes of Havoc. It's not at all meant to be a film you'll necessarily respect, favor, prefer, or like--the film is simply meant to show you the stupidity of the rap/gang culture. The emptiness, the lack of emotion and integrity that is showcased throughout the generation. A previous review stated that all the actors were terrible in this film, that there was no plot, and virtually nothing in the movie in the first place. I agree to an extent; there is no plot in the lifestyle, no purpose. However, I believe the actors actually gave surprising performances, Joseph Gordon-Lewitt the most convincing; I didn't even recognize him for a moment. The filming was well done with a few gag-me exceptions; most angles were appropriate for the scenes (though the sexual situations *definitely* could have used a little more imagination).

Overall, there could have been more to the film than what we're left with. This could be attributed to the death of the original screenwriter in 2003, or it could be the director's execution. However, I still stand by my opinion that it's worth watching, but that you probably won't desire to see it again.

Negative comments about this film need to be tempered by the sad story surrounding its making. The script was written by a 17-year old girl named Jessica Kaplan. No, It's not Citizen Kane, but it is an extraordinary piece of work for a teenager. And most sadly, she perished in an airplane crash at the age of 21. The film is dedicated to her memory.

As to the film's merits, it is by my count the 1,464th variation of Rebel Without A Cause, which I think said all that needed to be said on the subject. Did you know that adolescents often find society empty and pointless? And that they do stupid things by way of rebelling against it, in hopes of dispelling their angst and finding something more meaningful? Yes, it's true. In this version of that old chestnut, the rebels are a particularly spoiled group of high school students living in Hollywood. To find something they consider "real", they form youth gangs in imitation of the poor folk in East L.A. And then they actually go there, at first to buy drugs; but then rich girls Anne Hatahway and Bijou Phillips try to get involved in the local Hispanic gang scene. Some pretty modest mayhem ensues.

The East L.A. people are awfully sanitized and not very believable. Nobody is addicted to anything. Nobody is desperate. Nobody appears to be poor. These are basically solid middle class folk, devoted to family, who have a few surface quirks and who happen to sell crack cocaine instead of, say, life insurance.

Is it my imagination or does the gorgeous Bijou Phillips always play exactly the same role -- a sexually eager girl who gets in over her head, discovering the hard way that yes, she has limits? That's the role she plays here, and she is fine (as is lead Anne Hatahway). But I wonder whether that is her entire repertoire. Perhaps she will branch out someday.

Somewhere on this planet, there must be some group of people more deserving of sympathy than affluent Hollywood teenagers. So I found myself wondering why this film had been made. The young scriptwriter should not be held accountable, but you would think older people would know better.

Seeing this movie is exactly like seeing "Malibu's Most Wanted", with the exception that it is not a comedy. With "Malibu's Most Wanted" already being a very average film, one could only imagine how much worse this film is. The whole premise of the movie is very, very ridiculous, being that the kids are just like the kids from the TV series: "The OC" except they are more rich, more devious and of course more "gansta". With the exception of Anne Hathaway's character "Allison" and Freddy Rodriguez's character "Hector", the acting was horrible. Every time "Toby", Allison's boyfriend appeared, I just shook my head in utter disappointment. It was so painful to just hear him speak, let alone act. Everyone else had an average performance, and no one lead you to believe that anything was authentic. To be fair there is an underlying message within the film ,concerning the lies and the truths of society; yet the way it executed and presented itself was very bad. I guess if you are a Anne Hathaway fan, and want to see her in the buff, you can see this film, but I do remember that she does the same in "Brokeback Mountain", so don't waste your money buying this DVD, you'll feel disappointed.