surendeur
A rejoint le janv. 2002
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis3
Note de surendeur
After school special? You have GOT to be KIDDING ME! Anyone who dubs it as such must have been raised eating bon bons or sucking their thumb until age twelve. See, there is this developmental process called "GROWING" is *gasp* ridden with cliches! When presented as honest as "Thirteen" - it induces chills as opposed to cringes. Also, comparisons to "Kids" is rather obvious, but "Thirteen" is not as blatantly exploitive. The director is not going for flamboyant shock value, but rather a jolting ride into the world of this thirteen year old girl intermitten with haunting moments of vulnerability.
The ensemble could not be more perfect. Holly Hunter delivers one of the best, if not THE best performance of her career as the concerned, confused, oblivious "cool mom" who is losing her daughter to apathy and (seemingly) unwarranted rebellion. The two leads, Rachel Evan Wood and Nikki Reed are extraordinarily brave and uninhibited.
What I loved most about this movie was that nobody was directly at fault for this girl's descent. There is a point where the father character says: "Would someone tell me exactly WHAT the problem is?" The movie doesn't answer the question, nor should it - that's PRECISELY what WOULD make it an after-school special! Instead, it brings many of us painfully close to memories we thought we had forgotten... that "awkward phase" we are SO ashamed of. Seeing "Thirteen" felt like a rite-of-passage... a way of affirming that "Yes, being thirteen REALLY sucked. But now I'm over it."
The ensemble could not be more perfect. Holly Hunter delivers one of the best, if not THE best performance of her career as the concerned, confused, oblivious "cool mom" who is losing her daughter to apathy and (seemingly) unwarranted rebellion. The two leads, Rachel Evan Wood and Nikki Reed are extraordinarily brave and uninhibited.
What I loved most about this movie was that nobody was directly at fault for this girl's descent. There is a point where the father character says: "Would someone tell me exactly WHAT the problem is?" The movie doesn't answer the question, nor should it - that's PRECISELY what WOULD make it an after-school special! Instead, it brings many of us painfully close to memories we thought we had forgotten... that "awkward phase" we are SO ashamed of. Seeing "Thirteen" felt like a rite-of-passage... a way of affirming that "Yes, being thirteen REALLY sucked. But now I'm over it."
This film was a favorite at the Seattle Film Festival. I went to a screening last night with rather high expectations, some of which were met and others, which well... were not.
We follow six oddballs from the big apple whose lives center around thick film festival guides and meticulous prints of "La Dolce Vita". The beginning is a clever montage in which we are introduced to each one and are allowed to laugh at their idiosyncracies. One individual's eccentric voiceover is played while he's spreading half a jar of peanut butter onto a slice of wonderbread. All are extraordinarily unattractive and the nightmare of any suburban mother who's afraid that they're kid is watching too much television. I am beginning to the think the term "film buff" should be given a new meaning. They ride on a subways crowded with anxious people catching the train to work. They sit at the sides of the train, hearts pounding at the pure thought of someone may "stealing their special seat" at the 3:00 showing at MoMA. One even collects thousands of film records. The revelation? He doesn't even own a record player.
The film stays a quirky, safe experience in the first half-hour. Then it becomes repetitive, disturbing, and not necessarily in a poignant matter. We step into their apartments and it's not surprising that they're all packrats (to say the VERY least). Many live with books (mostly related to film) stacked up to the ceilings, struggling daily to find their way out the door. Their social lives are exclusive to their `film society', which consists of spitting out film titles and waiting for ten second criticisms. Only one person is employed. The rest either live off someone else or a dead relatives royalties. The film became progressively more uncomfortable for me upon realizing that this, was, indeed a documentary and that the hypocrisy of sitting in a theatre, laughing at an extreme version of myself became too much for me. Had the filmmakers not been there, I probably might have walked out. As playwright Edward Albee said: `The best art holds a mirror in front of your face and says, THIS IS WHO YOU ARE. NOW CHANGE.' I wish it could have applied to this movie the same way. It never strayed from being a caricature-driven freak show and very much resisted giving us a thorough investigation of who the psychology of these people. What the hell they get out of saving every ticket stub and soda cup from their childhood. Tell me why? Tell me how? Give me answers before the film comes to an end
And of course, as most films do `Cinemania' came to end and left this viewer extremely irritated. Usually, I resist walking out of the theatre commenting on the film's quality. This time, when asked the question, I answered: `Self-conscious. But I'm sure they're thrilled that they're on screen. It's just too bad they don't understand how sad they are ' Which, I will admit is a matter of opinion and surely mine will be battered.
For me, it was a montage of social loners and obsessive-compulsives in the Big Apple. A friend of mine was touched, humored and said it reminded him of well, himself. What I failed to tell him was that it affected me the same way too. He just has a better sense of humor.
Recommended for fans of `Trekkies', `The Cruise' and `Crumb'.
RATING: 6/10
We follow six oddballs from the big apple whose lives center around thick film festival guides and meticulous prints of "La Dolce Vita". The beginning is a clever montage in which we are introduced to each one and are allowed to laugh at their idiosyncracies. One individual's eccentric voiceover is played while he's spreading half a jar of peanut butter onto a slice of wonderbread. All are extraordinarily unattractive and the nightmare of any suburban mother who's afraid that they're kid is watching too much television. I am beginning to the think the term "film buff" should be given a new meaning. They ride on a subways crowded with anxious people catching the train to work. They sit at the sides of the train, hearts pounding at the pure thought of someone may "stealing their special seat" at the 3:00 showing at MoMA. One even collects thousands of film records. The revelation? He doesn't even own a record player.
The film stays a quirky, safe experience in the first half-hour. Then it becomes repetitive, disturbing, and not necessarily in a poignant matter. We step into their apartments and it's not surprising that they're all packrats (to say the VERY least). Many live with books (mostly related to film) stacked up to the ceilings, struggling daily to find their way out the door. Their social lives are exclusive to their `film society', which consists of spitting out film titles and waiting for ten second criticisms. Only one person is employed. The rest either live off someone else or a dead relatives royalties. The film became progressively more uncomfortable for me upon realizing that this, was, indeed a documentary and that the hypocrisy of sitting in a theatre, laughing at an extreme version of myself became too much for me. Had the filmmakers not been there, I probably might have walked out. As playwright Edward Albee said: `The best art holds a mirror in front of your face and says, THIS IS WHO YOU ARE. NOW CHANGE.' I wish it could have applied to this movie the same way. It never strayed from being a caricature-driven freak show and very much resisted giving us a thorough investigation of who the psychology of these people. What the hell they get out of saving every ticket stub and soda cup from their childhood. Tell me why? Tell me how? Give me answers before the film comes to an end
And of course, as most films do `Cinemania' came to end and left this viewer extremely irritated. Usually, I resist walking out of the theatre commenting on the film's quality. This time, when asked the question, I answered: `Self-conscious. But I'm sure they're thrilled that they're on screen. It's just too bad they don't understand how sad they are ' Which, I will admit is a matter of opinion and surely mine will be battered.
For me, it was a montage of social loners and obsessive-compulsives in the Big Apple. A friend of mine was touched, humored and said it reminded him of well, himself. What I failed to tell him was that it affected me the same way too. He just has a better sense of humor.
Recommended for fans of `Trekkies', `The Cruise' and `Crumb'.
RATING: 6/10
the movie stopped becoming terrible long before Josh Hartnett stroked a hawk perched on his hand.
waste of talent, terribly self conscious... wants to overachieve... no nuances.
one of the worst movies i've seen more recently.
waste of talent, terribly self conscious... wants to overachieve... no nuances.
one of the worst movies i've seen more recently.