Fierce People

If you just want to judge this movie based on the final product you see on the screen, it would be about 4 stars. I give it 6 because it wanted to be so much more and I will always find value in anyone or anything that aspires to greatness even when failure is the result.

Basically, would you rather see a prosaic movie that can only be boring and unimaginative be as great as it can be or a daring movie with interesting ideas, that could be great, turn out to be mediocre at best?

The talent the production attracted tells you that the potential was there but I am guessing the production either ran out of time or money or both as the finished product failed as a complete work of art.

It does make me wonder about Griffin Dunne, the director, I am intrigued by the subject matter he chooses to direct, you can always sense the potential, but he never seems to make a great film. I say that with the caveat that Addicted to Love is one of my favorite films, flawed, but it strikes a nerve with me.

Even as mediocre as Fierce People is, it will make you think, it is definitely intellectual, and the subject matter concerning humanity and the desires and motives and actions of modern day human beings as compared to primitive cultures is certainly interesting. The idea being that no matter how sophisticated modern man, especially in western cultures, thinks he is, when it all comes down to it we are still just human beings, animals, that want and need sex and food and shelter and comfort, and unfortunately, violence and cruelty and power over other human beings is often how we gain and protect what we have.

Bottom line, if you are simply looking for escapist entertainment, skip this one, you will be bored. But if you want to dig a little deeper and maybe think about the creatures you interact with on a daily basis in a different way, this film is worth a viewing.

I literally have no idea how to rate this movie. It comes in two halves, and I quite liked both of them, but the two halves belong to completely different films. Have you ever been driving down a quiet country road near your house, taken a left turn and suddenly found yourself in Helmand Province, Afghanistan? That's what this movie is like - there's a tonal shift around the halfway mark that's so jarring, so out of place with what's gone before, that it left me utterly dumbfounded, staring at the screen, saying over and over 'That didn't really happen, did it?'

If I've got trouble with it, I can only take pity on the people who had to market this movie. It's a pretty light comedy for the first half - all wacky families, odd-but-cute kid taking his first steps towards manhood, that sort of thing, and it's all very well done. And at the centre of it all is Donald Sutherland, never better in the role of a patriarch who has made scads of money, but lost out in many other ways. It's light and frothy and amusing and - then. Then the event happens, and everything turns VERY dark indeed. The second half plays more like a socially conscious melodrama, with teenage pregnancy, class division and... other issues. It's good too, for what it is, but that seismic shift in the middle of the film makes it all pretty hard to stomach.

So do I recommend this movie or not? Hell, I don't know. Both its parts are very good, but they add up to a baffling whole. I realize that that isn't necessarily very helpful, but you probably ought to be warned that this has been marketed as a comedy, and an enjoyable coming of age movie. That's true, but only up until the halfway mark...

"Fierce People" is a quirky coming-of-age tale told through the dark lens of a learning that the lives of the very rich are really blackest comedy. Uneven direction and a spotty screenplay (based by the author on his novel) almost do this movie in. What saves it is a gallery of first-rate performances by a fine cast. The acting is uniformly excellent, which keeps the viewer from focusing on what is basically very familiar territory.

You have to hand it to Diane Lane. Her role as the alcoholic (apparently recovering) mom is poorly written and inconsistently conceived by the director. But she gives it all she's got (which is plenty) and her later scenes with her son (also well portrayed by Anton Yelchin) achieve a depth and emotional impact that is a great credit to both actors. That depth sure isn't in the script.

Donald Sutherland is in great form as the seventh richest man in American who brings New York City masseuse Lane and her teenage son to the wilds of richest New Jersey. As his granddaughter, Kristen Stewart shows why she has zoomed to stardom in the "Twilight" films and to critical acclaim in movies like "Adventureland." Not only does the camera love her, she pays it back in full with a performance here that is remarkable for its subtle depths. (Watch her face when she gets in the black Mercedes in the movie's final scene.) As the grandson, Chris Evans is vivid and effective. (The camera loves him too.) The rest of the cast is great too. But highest praise goes to Elizabeth Perkins as Sutherland's alcoholic daughter (and mother of those aforementioned children). It's a small role, but she really comes across as she comically portrays a lifetime of privilege and desperation.

Despite the fine performances, many scenes fall flat and slide into confusion. Some of this may be due to the poor audio recording (at least on the DVD). Some of this may also be due to the inconsistent emotional focus of the script (which really needed another couple of rewrites, probably NOT by the author of the original novel).

Nice location work, though, wherever that estate was that most of the movie was shot!

I thought this was a very good movie. Someone said it was 'sick' so they couldn't watch it. I think if you realize its rated R then you will be prepared for the nudity and drug use. It is a good story and the acting is amazing. Just can't be a prude to appreciate it! Its basically about a mom who does drugs and wants to get clean so she calls a very wealthy old friend and he moves them to his estate and crazy things happen. I guess it is a drama. I am just so sick of people who don't like movies because of cursing or nudity. That is the world we live in. You obviously aren't comfortable with yourself if you can't see things like this movie. And it's rated R. So, that should tell you from the beginning that its not all peachy happy rainbows. I liked it. I think you will too!

Long ago, when I was a middle class suburban teen, I had the dubious experience of spending most of a year around rich kids. A few of them were as rich as the family depicted in this film. This movie, more than any other I've seen, nails the behavior of young super-wealthy kids like the characters portrayed by Chris Pine and Kristin Stewart. That intoxicating mix of being beautiful, athletic, active, charming, seductive, cocky, arrogant, witty, disarming, entitled, and in their souls, corrupted and corrupting, envious, narcissistic, self-absorbed, irrationally competitive, and pitiful. Of course this film depiction is exaggerated (but not incorrect) in its evil and violence, but it hits far more realistic notes than false ones. Uncannily so. This really is what young foks act like when they know there will be no negative consequences to them acting out their whims.

Otherwise, this movie has something too many movies lack these days -- a smart story that's still engaging, seductive, funny, but still with a social message, that doesn't weigh you down with angst or excessive downerism, and that's well directed and acted, and easy to re-watch a few months later. Then a few months after that.