Movies

Comments (3)

• Virginia Hoffman 08/03/2008 11:58:03 PM

  Well, I did read your review even though I will disagree with you. I happen to be one of those people who felt that it was a very good movie. Yes, in many ways it fulfills the "cliche" of being a typical teenage movie with a brooding unpopular character lusting after "that" girl, finding a relationship with his mentor with whom he gains wisdom from, and in the end, he finds love and acceptance while realizing that this was a defining moment in his life. Hughs would be happy to see that his influence has disappeared. However, this movie is highly defined by a great character and more importantly, nostalgia for the 90's golden era. However, the main man of the movie is Ben Kingsley. His performance was stellar as a shrink with bipolar disease, the devastating consequences of self medication, and his eventual destruction of a successful but confining lifestyle. It reminded me of Dean Moriarty or Keroac himself. I was not in love with Peck's character, though I did like that he was an unpopular drug dealer (a twist on the Dazed and Confused cliche). I also thought that the motivations for his actions were logically justified by financial necessity and loneliness, which at least, is better than the perpetually-angsty-without-reason "Garden State". As for Nostalgia, I am ignorant in the realm of movies, but this is the first one that I have seen which targets an era so close to our own yet that is so drastically different. Levine reminds the viewer in every shot, song, and line of the history of '94 and of what we have lost. For an era that was only fourteen years ago, do we not seem incredibly older? And why does everything seem bittersweet? In many ways, the predictable plot mirrors our own knowledge of what is to come: the death of Notorious B.I.G. and Tupak, September 11th, technological advances, anti-fashion, freedom of information act, the internet, global warming, iraq war, economic decline etc... Is it any wonder that the plot follows a boy, growing into a man, who experiences his first true love? '94 is an age of innocence compared to today's society. Levine excels in reminding us that things were not always what they are today. Despite the fact that you know what will happen, it is the way in which it happens that makes it interesting. Yes, this movie does not make the most innovative plot choices but to be cheeky, every story can be boiled down to seven basic plots. And as a product of one of those seven, I appreciated the incorporation of intellectualism and interesting characters.

• Virginia Hoffman 08/03/2008 11:55:58 PM

  Well, I did read your review even though I will disagree with you. I happen to be one of those people who felt that it was a very good movie. Yes, in many ways it fulfills the "cliche" of being a typical teenage movie with a brooding unpopular character lusting after "that" girl, finding a relationship with his mentor with whom he gains wisdom from, and in the end, he finds love and acceptance while realizing that this was a defining moment in his life. Hughs would be happy to see that his influence has disappeared. However, this movie is highly defined by a great character and more importantly, nostalgia for the 90's golden era. However, the main man of the movie is Ben Kingsley. His performance was stellar as a shrink with bipolar disease, the devastating consequences of self medication, and his eventual destruction of a successful but confining lifestyle. It reminded me of Dean Moriarty or Keroac himself. I was not in love with Peck's character, though I did like that he was an unpopular drug dealer (a twist on the Dazed and Confused cliche). I also thought that the motivations for his actions were logically justified by financial necessity and loneliness, which at least, is better than the perpetually-angsty-without-reason "Garden State". As for Nostalgia, I am ignorant in the realm of movies, but this is the first one that I have seen which targets an era so close to our own yet that is so drastically different. Levine reminds the viewer in every shot, song, and line of the history of '94 and of what we have lost. For an era that was only fourteen years ago, do we not seem incredibly older? And why does everything seem bittersweet? In many ways, the predictable plot mirrors our own knowledge of what is to come: the death of Notorious B.I.G. and Tupak, September 11th, technological advances, anti-fashion, freedom of information act, the internet, global warming, iraq war, economic decline etc... Is it any wonder that the plot follows a boy, growing into a man, who experiences his first true love? '94 is an age of innocence compared to today's society. Levine excels in reminding us that things were not always what they are today. Despite the fact that you know what will happen, it is the way in which it happens that makes it interesting. Yes, this movie does not make the most innovative plot choices but to be cheeky, every story can be boiled down to seven basic plots. And as a product of one of those seven, I appreciated the incorporation of intellectualism and interesting characters.

• Mitchell Hughes 07/22/2008 7:15:15 PM

  I know nobody is going to read this but I reviewed the Wackness and felt much the same way as Mr. Pinkerton. I reviewed it for Atlanta Insite magazine. I was annoyed seeing how many people seemed to enjoy it. I thought it sucked. I'm just going to post it here (it's only about 300 words) and if anybody has any response or critique that would be mad cool... or something. THE WACKNESS "For folks of a certain age there was a time when 1994 seemed like the perfect year to reminisce over. The summer was long and hot and the living was, oh, what’s the word? There were great movies, original music being made by unpolished performers who proved passion mattered and even 8-bit Nintendo didn’t seem lacking. Then one day you snapped out of it and remembered that your NES never worked and those bands you thought you liked had no talent and actually sucked. But you still have to give credit to Jonathan Levine for taking us back to a time that at least some of us remember in his debut feature The Wackness, even if it too kind of blows. Josh Peck, the “Josh” of Nickelodeon’s Drake & Josh, is an odd choice to play Luke Shapiro, an aimless hip-hop loving high school graduate. Unsure of his future and alienated from his friends, Luke takes to selling pot on the sizzling summer streets of New York. He sees a therapist named Dr. Squires (Ben Kingsley) who he pays in weed for counseling. Luke is looking for an easy answer to his problems but the freewheeling Dr. Squires tells him to live his life, be young and find love, like any good movie shrink would. The love he might be looking for is his too-cool-for-school classmate Stephanie, played by the alluring Olivia Thirlby. Things get tricky when Dr. Squires discovers Luke’s mystery girl is actually his step-daughter. Nevertheless, Luke and Squires form a friendship and bond over their shared problems. Squires is failing to cope with his loveless marriage to his unhappy wife played by Famke Janssen. And they all smoke pot, which writer-director Levine seems to think is so damn funny and badass. It’s not. For a product of New York’s Hell’s Kitchen, Peck’s wanna-be white boy thug bravado is remarkably unconvincing. Thirlby has movie stardom written all over her but her “been there, smoked that” nonchalance is flat-out annoying and Kingsley, like his character, just seems lost. The Wackness, a supposed coming of age comedy, unintentionally proves that it’s hard to be dope when really, you’re wack." I gave it a D. That's how I roll. Mitchell Hughes