Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DVD' started by Adam_Reiter, Jan 15, 2004.
I need to see this movie. Thanks for the review.
BTW, I had a friend who did rotations in a clinic. Let's just say the words pap smears and multiple sexual partners by the age of 14. I'm just saying such a thing does indeed exist. Trust me from what I've read about the movie, reality is much worse.
Just watched this the other night and was not disappointed. The acting is very good all around and it was pretty entertaining. Definitely worth a rent.
Let me tell you....
Fox sent me a copy of this screener over a
month ago. By the time I received it, I had
already heard the "critical buzz" surrounding
It really is, as Adam describes it, "a bold and
I loved it. It's worth renting at the very least.
Adam, as always, thanks for the review, I had heard a little about this movie but now I think I will have to check it out with at least a rental.
It was. "Thirteen" was shot on 16mm film, and then it was edited and color timed through the DI process (digital intermediate), and outputted from that to 35mm film for release prints. It was very grainy (intentionally so) when I saw it in theaters, and I would imagine that the DVD transfer was done either from the final DI file or a 35mm print - either way, from sources that had the desired grain level.
Thanks for the review.
I thought it was a decent film, but definitely overrated.
I found the story to be pretty cliche, and if you take away the swearing - you essentially have an after-school special about troubled kids. Nothing really new was brought to the table here.
I recommend a rental.
Thanks for the review, Adam.
I can't wait to see this one. I've never seen it, and I've forgotten about it since it's theatrical release. It'll definately find its way into my collection somehow.
For me this film was a serious disappointment. It does manage to shock at times, but the film missteps right at the start when it fails to give any sort of initial development of the main characters. The film jumps much too quickly into the transformation of Wood's character, never letting us know how she was before. We are lead to identify that she is a good girl because she owned cute little socks, and that is about all. Holly Hunter does great with what she has, but she too is short changed by the script, giving her only a few scenes to leave an impression. In the end, Wood's character comes off as an annoying and inconsiderate brat, and Hunter's character as a nice but ultimately very poor mother.
We are supposed to feel bad for the mother, but given the clueless way she acts throughout the film most of the sympathy is removed. The fall from grace experienced by Wood's character could have been seen as tragic, but instead the film spends way too much time documenting her fall and far too little setting it up. Why should we care about Wood's character when the filmmakers could care less for her? She is merely a prop, thrust into agonizing scene after scene just to shock the audiences even further.
The subject matter of the film is a rich and understudied topic, hardly ever done right, and this film comes out as a huge missed opportunity. These characters are not defined, and the story is loose and lacking any sort of structure. The film is also much too assaulting, constantly blaring this loud and miserable alternative music as a way to oft-put the audience. With subject matter like this, a long full shot take would speak much more powerfully on its own, without pretentious musical cues to guide our emotions. This script plays like it is written by a kid, and it is no surprise that teen actor Nikki Reed co-scripted it.
The end result is a seriously flawed and disappointing movie. This should have been so much better. Rent REQUIEM FOR A DREAM instead.
Well, you know how they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure.
Tell us how you really feel, rhett!! hehe
I wanted to see this in the theater due to the attention it garnered, but it never came to any of the theaters near me so I'm glad it's made it to dvd and I can check it out.
I saw the movie in a theater with my fiancee. Any remotely independent or alternative type movie is about 1.5-2hr drive for us. Saw the movie and thought it was pretty good/OK. Worth the drive.
Didn't really identify with the subject material that much (being a nerdier, non trouble-making type in high school) but appreciated the story and the way it was done. Stacey liked it a lot (probably because she used to hang out with troublemakers) I sent her the link to this thread, maybe she'll post her thoughts on it.
I don't know what's supposed to be so shocking or surprising. But I guess having graduated HS in '97, I'm a little more familiar with modern HS life - even if I was a distant spectator at best.
Perhaps a shocker for older people with kids in school that don't realize what really goes on these days.
I don't know that I could stand to see this movie. After reading a few of the reviews I think it hit a little to close to home and makes me very, very sad.
I am 19. I have a friend who I have known for the last five years, and I know all her stories, losing her virginity at twelve to a set of 16 year old twins, constant extasy use since 13. It's a friendship that I find difficult to maintain almost all of the time because I always want to "rescue" her from that lifestyle, and I can't. I myself have been hit on by very young girls in the mall, movie theatre, etc., on more than one occasion.
So while I will never see this movie, simply because I feel certain it will depress me to no end, I will say that I am glad for its existence. People need to know that this IS reality, especially with girls.
Does this movie show references of girls who like girls in any way? I've been hearing and reading that this kind of behavior is becoming more and more rampant in high school and maybe even jr. high girls that like to experiment with same sex . Even if it is too make guys jealous or tease guys, etc etc.
Does this movie depict this kind of relationships between girls?
Yes, in a small way.
If I remember correctly, the girls were practicing kissing or just demostrating their kissing technique. It seemed to have been enjoyable for them, but doesn't lead to any sort of relationship beyond being friends.
Hadn't heard of this film. Sounds Intriguing. I'll have to give it a try.
Thanks for the great review Adam! Reviews like this at HTF are often the best way many of us find out about new movies that we missed during their theatrical run...
You must not like too many movies then, because everything people experience in life has already been portrayed in one movie or another. Be it drama, comedy, action, etc., it has ALL been done before, so nothing new will ever be presented in a movie because Hollywood has already "been there and done that."
Firstly, what does my taste ("liking") of films have to do with your described void of originality in modern film? It is naive to assume that because I find one film lacking in originality that I would not like any of the hundred thousand movies already out there.
Your comment about "it has ALL been done before" reminds me of that one patent worker in the early 1900's, saying that all the ideas have been thought of already. We all know how unfounded his statement was, and people should no doubt feel the same way about your comment. We are constantly being surprised by ideas in film, maybe not in mainstream Hollywood, but certainly outside of it. Name me some movies that are exactly like BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, IRREVERSIBLE, AMERICAN SPLENDOR, BAD SANTA, PUNCH DRUNK-LOVE, ELEPHANT, etc. All those movies are no more than a few years old, and there really is not anything much like any of them.
The key thing to note though, is that film is not just about a story or a concept. More importantly, film is about storytelling, and the way something is told makes all the difference. Something like MEMENTO may have just been a better-than-average revenge movie, but its non-linear editing structure makes it something much more. It makes it original and something hardly ever done before in cinema. I would declare that something very original.
Film is a medium that is just barely 100 years old, so to declare it devoid of any new insights or ideas into "everything people experience" is very shallow. Writing has been around for hundreds of years, and it still remains to surprise with bouts of true originality, so why would film be any different?
I've been waiting for this film to come out. Thanks for the review!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Put me down for agreeing that REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is a powerful film. For me, it was this film, and not PI, that convinced me that Darren Aronofsky is a talented filmmaker. Also, Ellen Burstyn's performance is nothing short of phenomenal. Haven't watched it in awhile since it takes so much energy to get through it which, in this case, is a good thing.
Let's keep the debate friendly and respect
the fact that we have our own opinions on films.