"Better Luck Tomorrow"
04-14-03, 01:21 PM
#26
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Crack 6K
I wouldn't criticize the acting of the movie - after all, the point wasn't to win any oscars. The actors did a great job of portraying Asian American lifestyle and behavior. Perhaps some people have standards when viewing actors, but in this kind of movie, criticism should be made on how accurately the movie portrays the character's lives instead of how good their performances were.
I wouldn't criticize the acting of the movie - after all, the point wasn't to win any oscars. The actors did a great job of portraying Asian American lifestyle and behavior. Perhaps some people have standards when viewing actors, but in this kind of movie, criticism should be made on how accurately the movie portrays the character's lives instead of how good their performances were.
04-15-03, 09:52 AM
#28
Moderator
Originally posted by Mikko Rasinkangas
I assume that the MILF dude is actor John Cho. In "American Pie" he plays the guy who keeps yelling "MILF!" whilelooking at Stifler's mom's photograph.
I assume that the MILF dude is actor John Cho. In "American Pie" he plays the guy who keeps yelling "MILF!" whilelooking at Stifler's mom's photograph.
04-15-03, 06:29 PM
#29
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
The footage of Ebert's defensive hissy-fit at the Sundance showing was just on "E! News Live". Has anybody else seen it? Funny stuff, but admirable of Ebert.
04-16-03, 10:28 AM
#30
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Pants
All right I saw it and all I can say is I'm conflicted. On a technical and competency level this is bar-none one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The cast of Clerks were 100x better actors than these kids. Their readings are strained and the scenes are cut so poorly by the editor. The editor could have shortened the heads and tails of every shot in the film, lost nothing, and made the film 15 minutes shorter. VERY BADLY edited!
The lighting was good for the budget, the music was abysmal (it must have been whatever they could get for free), the sound mix was sloppy. And I’m NOT holding it to too high a standard, I've seen zero budget movies that were a LOT more professional (look at George Washington).
The GOOD thing about Better Luck Tomorrow is its script, and it is certainly what caused the controversy. What I don't understand is why all the critics' coverage of the Sundance controversy danced around the issue. THIS FILM IS SO DAMN CONSERVATIVE. This is the kind of script that gives liberals bowel obstructions. I love it! Let me start by saying the dialogue AND structure of the script was DREADFULL. All ripped off from Goodfellas (just like Menace II Society), and the words coming out of these actors mouths just didn't work. But what the screenplay SAYS is probably enough for me to recommend that you see it just to here the message.
H'wood has made a lot of anti-social films. From Bonnie and Clyde to True Romance they had one thing in common. The central anti-heroes are disillusioned by the conservative world around them. The anti-heroes become torches of freedom from the perils of middle class conformity. This film rips all that s*** up! First, it gets its little digs in at coffeehouse hippies, rude c*** sales girls, and those despicable Best Buy employees. That's a nice bit of lashing out at the popular "jobs" of so many lost young 20-somethings who this film's characters and its director clearly loathe. It also has a wonderful dig at the reprehensible anti-smoking laws in California. These characters like to smoke, drink, and f***, with no PC apologies. But it saves its most vicious dig for affirmative action, where the lead character, in no uncertain terms, makes it clear that, by playing the race card in his name, another kid is a trader to his race. This film’s characters have contempt for contemporary Californian liberalism that rewards stupidity and lack of ambition. In its savage finger pointing at contemporary lily-white p***y society, this film reminds me of the films of Sam Peckinpah. It’s a shame it couldn’t have been a better film.
Worst of all NO RICERS!!!! (But that's sort of the point, the film pierces your expectation of OC Asian teens. They drive a '65 mustang and another kid drives a vintage motorcycle)
All right I saw it and all I can say is I'm conflicted. On a technical and competency level this is bar-none one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The cast of Clerks were 100x better actors than these kids. Their readings are strained and the scenes are cut so poorly by the editor. The editor could have shortened the heads and tails of every shot in the film, lost nothing, and made the film 15 minutes shorter. VERY BADLY edited!
The lighting was good for the budget, the music was abysmal (it must have been whatever they could get for free), the sound mix was sloppy. And I’m NOT holding it to too high a standard, I've seen zero budget movies that were a LOT more professional (look at George Washington).
The GOOD thing about Better Luck Tomorrow is its script, and it is certainly what caused the controversy. What I don't understand is why all the critics' coverage of the Sundance controversy danced around the issue. THIS FILM IS SO DAMN CONSERVATIVE. This is the kind of script that gives liberals bowel obstructions. I love it! Let me start by saying the dialogue AND structure of the script was DREADFULL. All ripped off from Goodfellas (just like Menace II Society), and the words coming out of these actors mouths just didn't work. But what the screenplay SAYS is probably enough for me to recommend that you see it just to here the message.
H'wood has made a lot of anti-social films. From Bonnie and Clyde to True Romance they had one thing in common. The central anti-heroes are disillusioned by the conservative world around them. The anti-heroes become torches of freedom from the perils of middle class conformity. This film rips all that s*** up! First, it gets its little digs in at coffeehouse hippies, rude c*** sales girls, and those despicable Best Buy employees. That's a nice bit of lashing out at the popular "jobs" of so many lost young 20-somethings who this film's characters and its director clearly loathe. It also has a wonderful dig at the reprehensible anti-smoking laws in California. These characters like to smoke, drink, and f***, with no PC apologies. But it saves its most vicious dig for affirmative action, where the lead character, in no uncertain terms, makes it clear that, by playing the race card in his name, another kid is a trader to his race. This film’s characters have contempt for contemporary Californian liberalism that rewards stupidity and lack of ambition. In its savage finger pointing at contemporary lily-white p***y society, this film reminds me of the films of Sam Peckinpah. It’s a shame it couldn’t have been a better film.
Worst of all NO RICERS!!!! (But that's sort of the point, the film pierces your expectation of OC Asian teens. They drive a '65 mustang and another kid drives a vintage motorcycle)
04-16-03, 10:57 AM
#31
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Variable697
Hey Pants, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that this film is conservative. Can you explain more of why this film is a counter to anti-social films like True Romance?
Hey Pants, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that this film is conservative. Can you explain more of why this film is a counter to anti-social films like True Romance?
I thought my review covered that pretty well. I should point out that the film isn't conservative in the sense that it's about conformity (vs. True Romance's refusal to conform to social norms). This film is conservative mostly in its hatred for the social climate of Southern California. There's a great scene where the characters come to a party and are condescended to by another party-goer who asks the high-achieving, college bound kids, "Hey shouldn't you guys be in bible study!" This party-goer is pasive-aggresivly bashing their conservative values. The filmmaker depicts this in order to criticize liberal society that labels high achievers as "Ned Flanders-like" goody-two-shoes. Another party goer (a football player) passivly-aggressivly bashes one of the gang because he Varsity lettered in Tennis (admitadly very funny. I lettered in Tennis and I thought it was hillarious.) Never the less, that kind of contempt for Tennis (and I've witnessed it first hand) is a contempt for the perception of social ellitism. Someone who gives you a hard time for playing tennis is really saying I'm giving you a hard time because I see you as an elitist because you play a sport that is percieved as being elitist. Rather than rebelling against represive conservative society (ie, True Romance) our anti-heroes in Better Luck Tomorrow are rebelling against contemporary liberal California where it is OK to bash things, as long as those things represent conservative values. This guy gets pistol whipped.
The kid who wants the gang of bad kids to rob his parents house is hated by the gang becaue he reflects the whiny liberal "I hate my Mommy and Daddy...wah, wah, wah, poor me" attitude. He gets killed for his transgression.
I think I pretty well covered the most important issue in the film, affirmative action, in my first review, but here I go agian. Not only does the lead character and our nararator quit the basketball team as an act of defying the school newspaper writer who would make him into an affirmative action icon against his will, but he pretty much sees the action of the writer as an act of race trading. He doesn't want things handed to him. He rejects playing basketball as soon as there is any hint that he might not have EARNED his place on the team. He's such an achiever that if he didn't earn it, he doesn't want it. Clearly he loaths California's systems of hand outs to people who didn't earn it.
Later, that incident over affirmative action returns when it becomes the final reason why the hero turns his back on the newspaper writer at the end.
Last edited by Pants; 04-16-03 at 12:04 PM.
04-16-03, 11:18 AM
#32
DVD Talk Hero
Pants, you might wanna spoilerize your second paragraph.
BTW, the acting in this film wasn't top-notch or anything, but it was miles better than the "acting" in Clerks.
BTW, the acting in this film wasn't top-notch or anything, but it was miles better than the "acting" in Clerks.
04-17-03, 02:24 AM
#34
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember the thread about Robert Rodriguez's commentary on Spy Kids 2 and his argument in favor of using HD over 35mm film. The following is an interview with Justin Lin on his choice to shoot BLT on film because of HD's limitations. (I got this from the official BLT website):
What was the first format you decided to shoot Better Luck Tomorrow on?
We were going to shoot the film on DV and transfer it to 35mm once the editing was done. This was an aesthetic choice as well as financial. With a small DV camera, you can pretty much get away with everything. The cost of the tape and developing it is fractional compared to film. It is cheap on the front end, meaning that you can shoot the project and raise the money for the transfer afterward.
Can you explain the process?
Well, I did a lot of research. Actually, it was extremely hard because there was no uniform way of going from DV to film. After doing some reading on the process, it was ultimately best to see it for myself. Fortunately, Chuck and Buck and Dancer in the Dark were in theaters.
What did you think of the look?
Aesthetically, it was quite interesting. It definitely did not look like film but it had it's own feel. To me it really created a layer of self reflexiveness. Both productions were shot with different Sony PAL cameras but both went to Swiss Effects to do the transfer.
Why did they shoot with PAL cameras?
PAL is the standard format around the world except for the U.S., which uses NTSC. PAL runs at 25 frames per second rather than NTSC's 30 frames and has more lines of resolution. Film runs at 24 frames per second. With higher resolution and closer frame rates, PAL is the way to go.
What about the aesthetics of the format?
Well, my personal feeling is that when one chooses to shoot DV, you should take advantage of the format instead of trying to make it look like film. If you want to make it look like film, you should just shoot film. As I mentioned before, I like the layer of self reflexiveness and the intimacy this format creates. I shot a twenty-minute project a few years ago called Breezes and had one of the experiences of my life. The whole thing cost two hundred dollars. That included meals and board for the crew and cast! Even though it was extremely liberating, I would not compare it to a film shoot. I think it's definitely an apples/oranges situation.
What are the pros of DV?
1.Cost. Upfront, at least. 2. Able to hone performance and not worry about how much film you're burning. 3. Small crew. Speed. If it's designed that way.
What are the cons?
There's no one way of doing it. The only way is just to do tests until you feel confident with the process. It has to be the right project. The format only works if it's styled right. Shooting too much footage. Because it's so cheap, I feel sometimes filmmakers get lazy and just shoot too much. Also, the audience is not really used to the format right now.
At what point did you choose to go with High Definition?
On the strength of the script, we were offered a HD camera from a production company for deferred pay. It was an amazing deal.
What's the difference between HD and DV?
HD has a much higher resolution. Supposedly it has wider latitude than DV. But I'm not convinced. One big drawback with this offer was that it was a NTSC camera.
What does that mean?
NTSC runs at 30 frames per second, film at 24 frames per second. During the transfer, six frames will be thrown out. Shots with fast movements look jagged and not smooth. The cost of the transfer is also quite expensive. It's almost the same price as 35mm film. I talked to Wayne Wang, who had just shot The Center of the World, and he went away from HD altogether and shot on DigiBeta PAL. It seemed like the more I researched the format, the more I realized that this format was not quite ready. Everyone used the term "bleeding edge" technology when talking about HD.
Did you abandon HD at that point?
No. It was hard. We had a free camera, but the technology was about a year away from being ready. I didn't really want to go back to DV because we had raised enough money to shoot HD but not quite for 35mm film.
Then how did you jump to 35mm?
Patrice, the director of photography, was really pushing for 35mm. I agreed but knew that we didn't have enough money to do it. We both were in agreement that shooting on DV could potentially make the project less accessible to distributors. It just seemed like we had gone too far to turn around. At that point, Fabian, who was still working for New Line, thought he'd approach Fuji film and see what happened. It turned out that they loved the project and wanted to support it. They gave us such an amazing deal that we were able to shoot 35mm. We then went off and shot some B-roll around Christmas time to see how the stock looked.
How did you feel about Fuji film?
Again, it's all about aesthetics and what's best for the project. The dailies looked pretty good but the latitude was not there for us. Fuji would be fine if we had a lot of time to light each shot. The stock was also favoring the greens, which might be a problem in the timing at the end. I knew that because Shopping for Fangs was shot on Fuji. Patrice really wanted to shoot on Kodak and asked if he could try to get a deal with them. We went to a meeting and it went quite well. After reviewing the project, Kodak phoned and told me that Better Luck Tomorrow had to be a Kodak film. I told them that I felt the same way but Fuji's deal was so good that we couldn't walk away from it. Kodak came back with a better offer and the rest was history. We got to shoot with the exact stock we wanted and the film looks great.
Was that the end of the journey?
Not quite. Every time we decided to change the format, I had to stylize the project differently. On 35mm, I used much more dolly shots than I would on DV. I had a lot more control on lenses. I had to take into account the time needed to set up each shot and for loading film. I also knew that the ratio of the film being used was going to be much less than HD or DV.
Do you feel like you made the right choice?
I feel I made the right choice for the project. I wouldn't have minded making the project on DV. But I had to take into account the market place and what's best for the project. And with the capital that we had, I'm proud that we were able to do it on 35mm without compromising too much.
What was the first format you decided to shoot Better Luck Tomorrow on?
We were going to shoot the film on DV and transfer it to 35mm once the editing was done. This was an aesthetic choice as well as financial. With a small DV camera, you can pretty much get away with everything. The cost of the tape and developing it is fractional compared to film. It is cheap on the front end, meaning that you can shoot the project and raise the money for the transfer afterward.
Can you explain the process?
Well, I did a lot of research. Actually, it was extremely hard because there was no uniform way of going from DV to film. After doing some reading on the process, it was ultimately best to see it for myself. Fortunately, Chuck and Buck and Dancer in the Dark were in theaters.
What did you think of the look?
Aesthetically, it was quite interesting. It definitely did not look like film but it had it's own feel. To me it really created a layer of self reflexiveness. Both productions were shot with different Sony PAL cameras but both went to Swiss Effects to do the transfer.
Why did they shoot with PAL cameras?
PAL is the standard format around the world except for the U.S., which uses NTSC. PAL runs at 25 frames per second rather than NTSC's 30 frames and has more lines of resolution. Film runs at 24 frames per second. With higher resolution and closer frame rates, PAL is the way to go.
What about the aesthetics of the format?
Well, my personal feeling is that when one chooses to shoot DV, you should take advantage of the format instead of trying to make it look like film. If you want to make it look like film, you should just shoot film. As I mentioned before, I like the layer of self reflexiveness and the intimacy this format creates. I shot a twenty-minute project a few years ago called Breezes and had one of the experiences of my life. The whole thing cost two hundred dollars. That included meals and board for the crew and cast! Even though it was extremely liberating, I would not compare it to a film shoot. I think it's definitely an apples/oranges situation.
What are the pros of DV?
1.Cost. Upfront, at least. 2. Able to hone performance and not worry about how much film you're burning. 3. Small crew. Speed. If it's designed that way.
What are the cons?
There's no one way of doing it. The only way is just to do tests until you feel confident with the process. It has to be the right project. The format only works if it's styled right. Shooting too much footage. Because it's so cheap, I feel sometimes filmmakers get lazy and just shoot too much. Also, the audience is not really used to the format right now.
At what point did you choose to go with High Definition?
On the strength of the script, we were offered a HD camera from a production company for deferred pay. It was an amazing deal.
What's the difference between HD and DV?
HD has a much higher resolution. Supposedly it has wider latitude than DV. But I'm not convinced. One big drawback with this offer was that it was a NTSC camera.
What does that mean?
NTSC runs at 30 frames per second, film at 24 frames per second. During the transfer, six frames will be thrown out. Shots with fast movements look jagged and not smooth. The cost of the transfer is also quite expensive. It's almost the same price as 35mm film. I talked to Wayne Wang, who had just shot The Center of the World, and he went away from HD altogether and shot on DigiBeta PAL. It seemed like the more I researched the format, the more I realized that this format was not quite ready. Everyone used the term "bleeding edge" technology when talking about HD.
Did you abandon HD at that point?
No. It was hard. We had a free camera, but the technology was about a year away from being ready. I didn't really want to go back to DV because we had raised enough money to shoot HD but not quite for 35mm film.
Then how did you jump to 35mm?
Patrice, the director of photography, was really pushing for 35mm. I agreed but knew that we didn't have enough money to do it. We both were in agreement that shooting on DV could potentially make the project less accessible to distributors. It just seemed like we had gone too far to turn around. At that point, Fabian, who was still working for New Line, thought he'd approach Fuji film and see what happened. It turned out that they loved the project and wanted to support it. They gave us such an amazing deal that we were able to shoot 35mm. We then went off and shot some B-roll around Christmas time to see how the stock looked.
How did you feel about Fuji film?
Again, it's all about aesthetics and what's best for the project. The dailies looked pretty good but the latitude was not there for us. Fuji would be fine if we had a lot of time to light each shot. The stock was also favoring the greens, which might be a problem in the timing at the end. I knew that because Shopping for Fangs was shot on Fuji. Patrice really wanted to shoot on Kodak and asked if he could try to get a deal with them. We went to a meeting and it went quite well. After reviewing the project, Kodak phoned and told me that Better Luck Tomorrow had to be a Kodak film. I told them that I felt the same way but Fuji's deal was so good that we couldn't walk away from it. Kodak came back with a better offer and the rest was history. We got to shoot with the exact stock we wanted and the film looks great.
Was that the end of the journey?
Not quite. Every time we decided to change the format, I had to stylize the project differently. On 35mm, I used much more dolly shots than I would on DV. I had a lot more control on lenses. I had to take into account the time needed to set up each shot and for loading film. I also knew that the ratio of the film being used was going to be much less than HD or DV.
Do you feel like you made the right choice?
I feel I made the right choice for the project. I wouldn't have minded making the project on DV. But I had to take into account the market place and what's best for the project. And with the capital that we had, I'm proud that we were able to do it on 35mm without compromising too much.
Last edited by Variable697; 04-17-03 at 02:36 AM.
04-19-03, 09:34 AM
#36
DVD Talk Hero
The irony of Asian teenagers using their brains in not-so-legit enterprises to raise not only cash, but self-esteem, power and popularity, is on full display in this film. The idea that supply and demand can be profited from the trafficking of information is simply a portents of life after the high school years. The 4 main characters in the film have a "Lord of the Flies" feel to them, and together they are a force, and apart, the engine simply doesn't run well.
The storytelling is done well, but there's some camerawork that has that "everything...and the kitchen sink" feel to it (meaning, some shots were probably a good idea in theory, but should have been cut out for a better, simpler, shot without all the fancy "look at me" camerawork that didn't add much to the scenes).
The acting is good all around, and the main character of Ben is the most developed in terms of character. The other characters are a little shortchanged, but are sufficient to drive the narrative to where it finally ends up.
It's definitely not a film you'd see being put out by Hollywood, but its point of view and the light it shines of human nature is well worth the effort to find a nearby theater playing the film.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
The storytelling is done well, but there's some camerawork that has that "everything...and the kitchen sink" feel to it (meaning, some shots were probably a good idea in theory, but should have been cut out for a better, simpler, shot without all the fancy "look at me" camerawork that didn't add much to the scenes).
The acting is good all around, and the main character of Ben is the most developed in terms of character. The other characters are a little shortchanged, but are sufficient to drive the narrative to where it finally ends up.
It's definitely not a film you'd see being put out by Hollywood, but its point of view and the light it shines of human nature is well worth the effort to find a nearby theater playing the film.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
04-19-03, 07:51 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Diego to Los Angeles
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw this last night at Mission Valley. My coworker's sister is a main character in the movie, Karin Anna Cheung. She was there signing and promoting the movie.
As an unbiased review, I would give the movie a B-. It was entertaining, but there was some things that was out of place and the supporting characters were not developed to their potential. Some scenes didn't do much to add to the storyline and I think it would of helped if there actually some parents in the movie.
oh and for the record, Karin is hella cute. here's a fact tho, she's 28.
As an unbiased review, I would give the movie a B-. It was entertaining, but there was some things that was out of place and the supporting characters were not developed to their potential. Some scenes didn't do much to add to the storyline and I think it would of helped if there actually some parents in the movie.
oh and for the record, Karin is hella cute. here's a fact tho, she's 28.
04-20-03, 03:56 AM
#38
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 10,059
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by duy37
oh and for the record, Karin is hella cute. here's a fact tho, she's 28.
oh and for the record, Karin is hella cute. here's a fact tho, she's 28.
whoaanyway, going up to Portland to watch it tomorrow. hope its good.
04-22-03, 09:56 AM
#42
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nevermind about my previous quesion, BLT made $515,000 in 42 theaters. That's a higher per screen average than Anger Management. It's total so far is about $876,000. Not bad for a movie that was independently produced for $250,000 and bought by MTV for $500,000.
Last edited by Variable697; 04-22-03 at 01:57 PM.
04-22-03, 05:32 PM
#43
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Mouthweathercity, IL.
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I liked the story and the film, but there were moments when the acting was scary, the directing missing, and cinematography close to a soap. Nevertheless, the overall experience was ok. Grade: 6/10 (which makes it worth seeing). 
04-24-03, 11:18 PM
#44
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the acting was adequate. Wasn't Academy quality or anything, but as others have said, comparisons to the "acting" in Clerks is just ludicrous in my opinion.
As for the scene that somebody earlier on said made them dizzy, and those who saw it know which one, I thought that was the point of the shot and was probably one of the best uses of that technique that i have ever seen. It made me feel dizzy and like things were spiraling out of control. In other words, it fit the scene perfectly in my opinion.
I would recommend it to people I know and I hope it does well as it moves wider. It was funny, interesting and I never felt like it dragged really. That, and Stephanie was hot!! What else do you need in a movie, an Asian-American high school cheerleader with a tatto who wants to be a cop!!!!
As for the scene that somebody earlier on said made them dizzy, and those who saw it know which one, I thought that was the point of the shot and was probably one of the best uses of that technique that i have ever seen. It made me feel dizzy and like things were spiraling out of control. In other words, it fit the scene perfectly in my opinion.
I would recommend it to people I know and I hope it does well as it moves wider. It was funny, interesting and I never felt like it dragged really. That, and Stephanie was hot!! What else do you need in a movie, an Asian-American high school cheerleader with a tatto who wants to be a cop!!!!
04-25-03, 02:19 AM
#45
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just a quick question... is there any scenes in the film where the characters are playing counter strike?
04-25-03, 08:27 PM
#46
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Where the sky is always Carolina Blue! (Currently VA - again...)
Posts: 5,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got back from seeing it. Really good IMO. Entertaining with some really well done characters. Certainly nothing like my high school but YMMV 
No counterstrike that I noticed.
No counterstrike that I noticed.
04-29-03, 08:14 AM
#48
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I finally got around to seeing the movie last night.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie except for the ending which kinda just happened all of a sudden.
Although the movie was a lot different than I expected. I was actually laughing through over half the movie. I guess the crew in the movie reminded me of my crew back in middle school & high school back in the day.
Ahhhh, the good old days.
Neways, I recommend that ppl watch it. It was actually pretty good for an Indie movie and the filming wasn't that bad. I was expecting some blair witch action here or something.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie except for the ending which kinda just happened all of a sudden.
Although the movie was a lot different than I expected. I was actually laughing through over half the movie. I guess the crew in the movie reminded me of my crew back in middle school & high school back in the day.
Ahhhh, the good old days.
Neways, I recommend that ppl watch it. It was actually pretty good for an Indie movie and the filming wasn't that bad. I was expecting some blair witch action here or something.
04-29-03, 04:26 PM
#50
Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Currently in the Nexus.
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mild Spoilers?
Originally posted by Crack 6K
The actors did a great job of portraying Asian American lifestyle and behavior.
The actors did a great job of portraying Asian American lifestyle and behavior.
Who gives a 5hit that it's another movie about more disaffected youth? Yes, there's always the inevitable downward spiral--not at all surprising, but with bad acting and dialogue to exacerbate the already intolerable facets of the movie (i.e. Stephanie, dumbass Ben, melodramatic Daric, protracted LENGTH of the movie, etc)... I almost wanted to see a sequel where they all died horrible deaths and failed out of ivy league schools. Can anyone seriously tell me that they'd want to sit through all this again?
This movie deserves a 5.5 out of 10 or less. Not worth it. If you liked that POS movie American Beauty, you might like this movie... otherwise, I highly recommend that you don't watch it at all or catch it at the dollar theater. You'd still be spending too much for a video rental. What tedium...