Agitando em 57

Everyone starts out young and ambitious. This film was actually used in one of my studies classes as what NOT to do. The sound is terrible, the acting is sub-par, the editing and continuity are flawed .. yet, all to great ends.

And yes, the story and characters are not much to attach to. However, it did bring some of the cast and crew to new levels and that is what makes this worth watching. See the process and the evolution of skill from the lows (this film) to the highs (look where they are now).

Did I like this film? No. It was a train wreck as a stand-alone picture. However, if you appreciate the art of filmmaking, you see this as a milestone of accomplishment for everyone involved. I applaud this film for what it did for some of those involved - and poo-poo it from every other aspect.

What a fantastic business is filmmaking ...

I also rented this film b/c of Sandra and she was the only good thing in it. She was close to looking age appropriate but just about everyone else looked too old to even be in college, except maybe in night school. The school yard was empty, there were no cars on the street and the plot was limp. Lame, lame, lame. I am also from Brooklyn and grew up in this time frame. I actually remember kids breaking antennas off cars to make zip guns and there was one fatal outcome. If the film had served as a warning about how dangerous guns are then perhaps it would have some redeeming value aside from Sandra appearing sans clothes. (Thnx for that.)Interested in hooligans in high school? Then stick with Blackboard Jungle, the first Rock and Roll movie.

There's not much to like about this film, a dull look back at the lives of some 1950's teenagers in Brooklyn. Although things get slightly better in the second half, the entertainment value is usually kept to a minimum, and there's really not much reason to like most of these characters. There are also a number of scenes that seem utterly pointless, and even the relevant scenes are usually overlong. Throw in some out-of-place and rarely funny humor, and a title that really doesn't fit, and you're left with this time waster.

Who Shot Pat? Feels like a period piece that never quite finds its footing in the 1950s Bronx even though it nails the look of windblown streets, vintage diners, and leather jackets under neon lights. The young cast struggles to carry the story, the pacing drags through every beat, and the occasional bursts of era-appropriate music aren't enough to rescue this flat and forgettable flick.

I've seen worse. I bought this movie for $2.00 at a garage sale because Sandra Bullock was on the cover and she's one of my favorite actresses. I watched it today because it rained - and on a rainy day you need something mindless to do.

While this movie was only worth the $2.00 that I paid for it, it did keep my interest for its entirety, which is more than I can say for some more recent movies. While the acting in some scenes was overdone, the sentiment between the characters was developed nicely.

If 'Remember the Titians' and 'West Side Story' had a baby, and then the baby fell on its head - it might appear as something like 'Who Shot Pat?'