I find it hilarious that the plot keywords for this film include "shot to death". That, of course, refers to the fact that people in the movie get shot to death. However that's how I would characterize this mess. It was shot to death.
I had just watched Bowling for Columbine, and read a lot online from the reports of witnesses as well as friends and family of the shooters. So I was looking forward to an interesting character study along those lines.
What a disappointment. Just sloppy. The timing is rather difficult to track (I'm pretty sure I understand what the director was trying to do, but it's inconsistent and a few times even contradictory). The character development is sometimes excellent and other times terrible. I mean why do we see so much of John, a character we learn to like, and then the only thing that actually happens with him is he's told to leave? And the black guy who's name escapes me now. We see him walking around like he owns the place and we expect something interesting, but we get absolutely nothing. He doesn't even die in an attempt to be a hero. He just dies.
Nathan's girlfriend is potentially pregnant, and he's a lifeguard. From the moment he put on the jacket I expected he would be a hero in some way, even if only for one person. When Alex is doing eenie-meenie-miney-moe I wanted to yell, "Nathan, charge him! He's going to shoot one of you, make it you, and take a shot at taking him out in the process. Grow a pair! Your girlfriend might be pregnant for crying out loud!" Instead he just waits for it, apparently taking the chance that he might not be the one to get shot. Some lifeguard.
The director clearly loves photography. I mean Gus spent a lot of time in this movie focusing on the guy with the camera and the time in the darkroom. At first the photography seemed interesting, but eventually it was just obnoxious. "Okay, we get it. You like to spin around and around. Can we please get some character or plot development going here?" And the slow panning? Just a waste of time when it's so overused. It loses its impact after the 12th or 15th pan. /sarcasm/
A couple of teenage boys kissing in the shower. I wonder how many panels were dedicated to that in the storyboards? I wonder what thoughts were going through his mind as he did the casting for Alex and Eric...
How about just basic creative writing, which is particularly relevant in character studies? We are introduced to the conflicts of numerous characters, all of whom have names that we are shown (though confusingly sometimes the name is shown before the character, sometimes the reverse). Yet not only do we NOT see any development of their conflicts, we don't even get the vaguest resolution of half of the characters. We see a few get shot, including one of the shooters (and we were never treated to the slightest hint of why that might have been, unless it was provoked by the shower kiss, in which case I can understand; it made me want to shoot someone, too, as it was so out-of-place), yet we don't know if the rest lived or died. Why spend any time developing a character that won't even get a moment of screen time after the initial development?
Here's my theory: Gus had an idea about what he wanted to say. He didn't actually get that written down, though, because he was having fun with the storyboards, planning out how he would shoot the film. He got so excited about the shots that he forgot to actually say something.
He felt each shot was so brilliant that they all needed to be 4 or 5 minute steadycam shots. Just long, long, pointless shots that are "artistic."
As a result, the movie was shot to death.
The best thing about this movie: If you watch it, you'll only lose 1 hour of your life. I, for one, will never again waste another minute on a Gus Van Sant film.
I had just watched Bowling for Columbine, and read a lot online from the reports of witnesses as well as friends and family of the shooters. So I was looking forward to an interesting character study along those lines.
What a disappointment. Just sloppy. The timing is rather difficult to track (I'm pretty sure I understand what the director was trying to do, but it's inconsistent and a few times even contradictory). The character development is sometimes excellent and other times terrible. I mean why do we see so much of John, a character we learn to like, and then the only thing that actually happens with him is he's told to leave? And the black guy who's name escapes me now. We see him walking around like he owns the place and we expect something interesting, but we get absolutely nothing. He doesn't even die in an attempt to be a hero. He just dies.
Nathan's girlfriend is potentially pregnant, and he's a lifeguard. From the moment he put on the jacket I expected he would be a hero in some way, even if only for one person. When Alex is doing eenie-meenie-miney-moe I wanted to yell, "Nathan, charge him! He's going to shoot one of you, make it you, and take a shot at taking him out in the process. Grow a pair! Your girlfriend might be pregnant for crying out loud!" Instead he just waits for it, apparently taking the chance that he might not be the one to get shot. Some lifeguard.
The director clearly loves photography. I mean Gus spent a lot of time in this movie focusing on the guy with the camera and the time in the darkroom. At first the photography seemed interesting, but eventually it was just obnoxious. "Okay, we get it. You like to spin around and around. Can we please get some character or plot development going here?" And the slow panning? Just a waste of time when it's so overused. It loses its impact after the 12th or 15th pan. /sarcasm/
A couple of teenage boys kissing in the shower. I wonder how many panels were dedicated to that in the storyboards? I wonder what thoughts were going through his mind as he did the casting for Alex and Eric...
How about just basic creative writing, which is particularly relevant in character studies? We are introduced to the conflicts of numerous characters, all of whom have names that we are shown (though confusingly sometimes the name is shown before the character, sometimes the reverse). Yet not only do we NOT see any development of their conflicts, we don't even get the vaguest resolution of half of the characters. We see a few get shot, including one of the shooters (and we were never treated to the slightest hint of why that might have been, unless it was provoked by the shower kiss, in which case I can understand; it made me want to shoot someone, too, as it was so out-of-place), yet we don't know if the rest lived or died. Why spend any time developing a character that won't even get a moment of screen time after the initial development?
Here's my theory: Gus had an idea about what he wanted to say. He didn't actually get that written down, though, because he was having fun with the storyboards, planning out how he would shoot the film. He got so excited about the shots that he forgot to actually say something.
He felt each shot was so brilliant that they all needed to be 4 or 5 minute steadycam shots. Just long, long, pointless shots that are "artistic."
As a result, the movie was shot to death.
The best thing about this movie: If you watch it, you'll only lose 1 hour of your life. I, for one, will never again waste another minute on a Gus Van Sant film.
Tell Your Friends