Palo Alto

"Palo Alto" has a lot of direct ancestors and even more godfathers. On the shared DNA side, we have, from Gia Coppola's grandfather Francis Ford, "The Outsiders"; from her aunt Sofia, the (very recent) "Bling Ring". George Lucas, Peter Bogdanovich, Gus Van Sant, and many others look on, no doubt benevolently, at the many echoes of (or direct quotations from) their work, while Larry Clark kind of peeks in from the wings, no doubt shaking his head over how the sexy parts never go all the way.

The sad news, I'm afraid, is that the sum does not reach the quality of the many appropriated parts.

Interestingly, it is above all Van Sant who seems to be channeled here. This is partly due to the cinematography of Autumn Durald, which echoes, but does not equal, the work that Harris Savides and others have done for Van Sant. The many tight shots of the talented young actors have, at their best, much of the empathy and meaning that Van Sant invests in even the slightest of his young cast members. But there is nothing in this film that can remotely touch even the most casual, off-hand exchanges of the opening moments of "Elephant", for example.

But Van Sant comes to mind above all because of the arrival here of Val Kilmer's son Jack, whose resemblance to the River Pheonix of "My Own Private Idaho" is startling. This cannot be coincidental: James Franco, the author of the source material of "Palo Alto" (and an actor in it), worked with Van Sant on a tribute to Phoenix, "My Own Private River", and the resemblance cannot have been missed as the younger Kilmer was being cast. In a film about teenagers, he alone (born in 1995) actually looks like one. (Though not as absurdly as in so many other American movies, all the other young actors look just a couple of crucial years older than the characters they are supposed to be playing.) And he feels like one, and projects complex emotions in ways that are attributable to one He is extraordinary, and required no help from the make-up department, I'm sure, to produce the growth of peach fuzz on his upper lip that appears in several of his scenes. (All credit to Coppola for letting it be.) I hope and trust that Uncle Gus is paying attention and will do something great with this talented kid before he grows too much older. (It should be noted, by the way, that Kilmer père plays a cameo here, as a step-parent grotesque who could have wandered in from a Judd Apatow movie. His brief, hammy sequences are embarrassingly out of synch with this film and should have been cut.)

Others are quite good, too, and Emma Roberts (niece of Julia), as the female lead, is more than that -- she is revealed here to be an extraordinary actress, perhaps even the next Scarlett Johannson. Too bad that she also, as mentioned, looks a few years too old for this particular role.Still, the camera captures her with real affection and sympathy. Oddly,though the budding romance between her character and Kilmer's is the central plot line of the movie (to the extent that there is one), neither actor is seen to best effect in their (few) actual scenes together.

Franco plays a girls' soccer coach with a dangerous glint in his eye quite well, though the camera (a recurring problem in this film) holds his reaction shots for too long, weakening rather than underlining his predatory smirk. The rest of the adults are negligible, and the other teens are more run of the mill young American actors.

Of the plot there is little to say: teenagers in yet another California town, left to their own devices by distracted adults, stumble around, get drunk and stoned out of their minds. Sex ensues, of course (rather prudishly portrayed, with everything below the belt taking place below the frame). Attractions and jealousies sprout, with some age-appropriate hints of sexual ambiguity. Friendships hit a brick wall. Something like true love seems in the end to be brewing.

The classics of the genre have all been made. This calling-card film shows Gia Coppola to have talent, and she no doubt will go on to do bigger and better things. One could question whether, had she not been a Coppola, this film would ever have been made, but that would be churlish, as it is in its way not bad at all and, at moments, is very good indeed. And we should all be grateful for its revelations of the younger Roberts and, especially, Kilmer, who should, by rights, head on from this to greater things in the hands of more seasoned directors. In this sense, "Palo Alto" might turn out to be "The Outsiders" of their generation: we saw them here first.

Franco fantasy. Adults acting like idiots. Teachers sexually assaulting students. It's just handled awkwardly not deftly. Poor dialogue.

Bizarre and slow. And weird.

This film is about several suburban teenagers who live hedonistic lifestyles, and slowly their lives spirals out of control.

"Palo Alto" shows the teenagers getting up to all kinds of trouble, but there is not really a focused plot. We get shown various events that happen to various individuals, but it is all superficial and we don't get to see any real meanings behind their actions. The plot meanders but never seems to get anywhere, with no central message to get across. I thought it was as if I watched a bunch of events happening, and that was it. It did not leave me feeling satisfied, touched or entertained. In fact, I felt a little bored by it.

So this is what it's like to be a teen in high school these days? So basically nothing has change?

Gia Coppola's 1st film has no plot. it's just 100mins of watching Teenagers be teenagers. If you find that interesting than go for it. It does capture the essence of being a teen quite well.

I never read the book it was based on, which was written by James Franco who also has a small role in the film. I know the book is just a collection of short stories which is what the movie feels like, just a collection of short stories.

I would not reject a film just because it had no plot, but I think I'm too far distant from the situation to be that interested in it. Closer to my experience was the movie Kids, which is a lot like this movie, but has a plot to it. I do think that the fact that Palo Alto has no plot makes it a much bolder movie.

This flick is more set up for those who can related to these specific characters, rather than semi-documenting the life of teens. So while I recognize myself in some of the kids and recognize other kids I knew growing up in some of the kids, it was not enough for me.

I think Gia's aunt Sofia is better at that, but she is the more experience film maker and it might take Gia a few more tries to get there.

Don't come looking for plot - our teen years didn't have one either. Like Dazed and Confused before it, Palo Alto throws us into the joys, pains, and emotions of the life of American-suburban adolescence. Though unlike its defacto predecessor, Palo Alto takes a look at this world through a softer, more elegant, more personal lens. The film bounces us around from character to character, all high school students in the titled town. Reckless parties, desperate sexual encounters, jealousies, weed, breaking things, sexually aggressive teachers (James Franco) and, of course, homework. It's all part of the world of Palo Alto. There is no rhyme or reason. Or is there? James Franco (whose book of short stories the film is based on) plays Mr. B, the high school soccer coach, tells his favorite player April that everything has a reason. Maybe he's right. You be the judge. Director Gia Coppola, in her first feature-length effort, works wonders at keeping the characters and the world of Palo Alto authentic. "Glee" exists in a land far, far away from here. Instead, we get an unfiltered look at what it takes to navigate the turbulence of adolescence and find our path to adulthood. It's a painful but beautiful thing.