MovieChat Forums > Go (1999) Discussion > 7.3? Really?

7.3? Really?

posted 16 years ago by arise_chicken
43 replies | jump to latest

I don't post on here very often, but I just saw Go, and was so shocked by it's rating that I felt compelled to say something.

So, what is it that people enjoy about this movie? The all-around bad acting? The ridiculous writing? The completely unbelievable and under-developed characters and the totally unrealistic choices they make? Or is it the general silliness of the overall plot?

I only decided to watch this movie because I thought Sarah Polley was amazing in The Secret Life of Words - however, she played basically the same kind of character in Go, so maybe she's just one-note. The rest of the cast was just awful. I had no sympathy or empathy for any of the characters, as they were all two-dimensional caricatures with no hint of back-story given, and no reason to care what happens to them. And, with the exception of one or two people, the acting was pretty awful. Simon was an odd example of this - the actor really is British, so why did his accent sound like a mish-mashed parody of all English accents? Plus, he's an utterly crap actor.

The part I disliked the most was the entire "Simon" vignette. First of all, all four of those guys are terrible actors, their characters are completely unrealistic and boring, and most of the action was completely unbelievable. I mean, stealing a car? Shooting a guy? Really? Besides all of that, what's with the strip club bouncer and his dad? What are they, mafiosos? I understand the concept of suspension of disbelief, but come on. This is too much.

I also have to mention the kids on the fake ecstasy; maybe if they had never done X and had no idea what to expect, then their minds could make some placebo effects occur... but if they had any experience whatsoever, they would know they had been ripped off. But that's a minor detail.

Speaking of drugs, the representation of drug culture in this movie is some the worst and most unrealistic I have ever seen. Having indulged a few times myself, the only thing I could respect was the visual blurriness/lagging and the sweating of the kid that ate two pills. That was fairly believable.

I'm not a complete movie snob. I do enjoy some light-hearted, brainless entertainment from time to time. But the fact that this movie was attempting to dress itself up as a serious drug/crime movie - albeit with a (supposedly) comedic slant - made me resent it.

To me, this movie seemed like a teenagers MTV-ized vision of the drug world he has never experienced first-hand.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] davejc1886 15 years ago

The first draft of this script is priceless. The revisions are a travesty. It doesn't surprise me they use this script as an educational tool. It is truly high art. I haven't seen the film since it came out, but I remember liking it very much. I just bought it on Amazon. I don't know much about the director, but the writer is a genius.

[–] Cafetero1075 14 years ago

I am a grown man and i liked the movie, the vegas scene had you on the edge of the seat. I liked it. Yea some of the kids were dumbass *beep* but all kids are.

[–] erkur 15 years ago

It deserves more than 7.3!
19-99 keeps surprising me, it's hard to believe how many good movies came out that year (and how much good stuff happened, at least in my life), definitely a good one!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] npm_22223 14 years ago

This film was part of the many Tarantino rip-offs to come along in the mid-late 90's. I dislike this movie for that reason alone. That, and I found every character to be very unlikeable and very annoying (especially that British guy). I wanted so badly for him to at least get beaten up very badly. ...Instead he got laid by two woman. Go figure.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] homestar_is_cool 14 years ago

hey guiz

remember when Quentin Tarantino raided Pandora and destroyed all their precious magic trees - and made them watch ripoff movies and then A-bombed the place

What you're trying to cite is itself a straw man argument - movies have always ripped off movies ever since there were enough movies to rip off. Geez - look at Citizen Kane, one of those films considered to be the most unique of its kind, and try comparing it to a lot of the obscure and foreign thrillers and film noirs that came out before. You're going to find a lot of similarities - you might be compelled to call Orson Welles, one of the greatest directors of all time, a ripoff artist. However, it was his work - art inspires people to take on various portions of the art that inspired them in the first place and place it in their work. Just because Tarantino's stuff reminds you of films that he watched during that time he worked at a video store does not mean that he ripped it off.

Besides, if Tarantino is a ripoff, then you have to charge Woody Allen for ripping off countless Bergman and Cassavetes films.

With that being said, I actually like Tarantino's work. If anything, it makes me appreciate classic obscure cinema a little bit more - his films take those memorable patches and create something from it. However, you can't just use patches alone - you have to create an original story. Sure, "Reservoir Dogs" ripped off some action film from the '80s, but people do say that it focuses on the aftermath of a failed robbery than it does a guy trying to study a bunch of criminals. Remember - infiltrating crime has always been in films. It's been used quite a bit that somebody's already used the jewelry store shtick. That makes "City on Fire" a ripoff.

Also, Tarantino's films are funny. It lies in the dialogue and how over-the-top the characters get. He is a master manipulator. And ripoff artists cannot manipulate like he can.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 14 years ago

So, what is it that people enjoy about this movie? The all-around bad acting? The ridiculous writing? The completely unbelievable and under-developed characters and the totally unrealistic choices they make? Or is it the general silliness of the overall plot?

I don't feel the same about the film with respect to any of those.

Also, I think that "realism" complaints about films in general are idiotic.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] primester 14 years ago

It's a pretty good movie to watch when you're high.

[–] sz_chica11 14 years ago

i love love lovvved this movie!

[–] anewhope69 14 years ago

I thought this post was going to be about how 7.3 was too low, I think it was awesome, very fun, kept me interested the whole time.

[–] Rena_Mahone 14 years ago

Yes, 7.3, really. Such an underrated movie, isn't it?

"There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel."

[–] willard86 13 years ago

The OP is right. This "dark" comedy was neither; it was just boring, and unless a movie establishes clearly that it is hyper-realistic, or unrealistic, the realism arguments holds. That's why it was stupid and annoying that Polley's character was right back at work, without a scratch, a day after being thrown by the impact of a car.

Even if a movie is about sociopathic, jaded, annoying people, it should pull off some likable qualities in the main characters, or else it is a waste of time, like this movie.

And even if Tarantino's movies are ripoffs, "Go" being a ripoff of a ripoff is too lame. 7.3 is way too high, which is what the movie's proponents suggest the viewer be to actually enjoy it. Go figure.