SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen
BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment
Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.
Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.
dan-800 I have hated almost every film David Gordon Green has made after "George Washington" - but even this movie begs the question, "why?"The acting is supposedly honest, but actually felt hackneyed and unrealistic by both the kids and the "real" actors alike. The storyline is virtually nonexistent, but what *is* there says so little that it barely exists. All that's left is the okay photography, and the sleepy directing. This is "Sundance" stuff akin to "Beasts of the Southern Wild" - boring, pointless, and so utterly, formulaically "non-form" that it's just as predictably ambiguous as the most hackneyed Hollywood Romcom is happy-ending-ized. The biggest difference between Sundance-honored independent films and Hollywood mediocrity is that at least Hollywood isn't totally disingenuous about what it's dishing out.
futures-1 Don't look for a simple, linear plot line or resolutions to what you think are the problems. "George Washington" is the offspring of "Gummo" and "Stand by Me", and a very distant relative to "Eraserhead" (but with a soul). The dialog is often beyond the age, character, and scope of the kids depicted (similar to "Brick"), which can be disconcerting, yet, when suspending disbelief, remained interesting. The scoring is dark and moody – and seldom lets up. On occasion, the lack of actor training can be seen in the kids, but for the most part they do a good job. The locations are full of dying and dead culture – rich, textural, beautiful crumbling Industrial Revolution. This is a ponderous, sometimes overly artful film that is none the less worth seeing and considering afterwards. It has things to say – and you're expected to use your own mind.
bandw I wanted to see this movie ever since Roger Ebert heaped praise on it, so I was surprised that I found it to be suffocating, frustrating, and depressing. I just wanted the people in this movie to have more, not just financially, but more opportunity, more respect, more reason to live. If that was indeed the point, then this movie did not give me any new insights.The interaction among the kids was mundane, except for an occasional soliloquy, or exchange, that obviously came directly from the screen writer's imagination and seemed out-of-place. The adult males were a sad lot - the goofiness of one of the construction workers seemed forced, as did much of the story line.This movie is nicely photographed and created a mood, but there was just not enough here to get me involved.
Jim This is one of the worse movies I've ever seen in my life. If you don't believe it, see it yourself. You'll be sorry. I can't believe the glowing reviews. This just plain sucks. Someone compared it to watching paint dry. Believe me watching paint dry is much more exciting. The movie has no entertainment value whatsoever.So Roger Ebert liked it and gave it '****'. So? He's an idiot. Rent this movie and see for yourself. No wonder Gene Siskel argued with him so much. He's probably rolling over in his grave after seeing Ebert's rating on this one.The glowing reviews on this website? They're out of their minds, period.
