I'm a huge fan of gus van sant but found this incredibly disappointing. It was like one big cheesy cliche'. I felt it could've been more aptly named "Good Will Hunting 2: the inferior and predictable sequel". I don't understand how someone who can produce brilliant stuff like his death trilogy and To Die For (amongst others) can also make something as drenched in schmaltz as this.
shareI saw the trailer and it seems really lame and sentimental! They wanted another Good Will Hunting.
share190 proof schmaltz.
Why didn't the kid question the multitude of stupid writing advice Fogey Forrester says, like while his fingers babble on the typewriter he blabs with a smug smile, as if he's ONTO SOMETHING DEEP, "Write ya' first draft with ya' heart, rewrite with ya' brain!!!!!!!"
Ta-daaaaaaa!
More like Ta-dumb!
Why would you rewrite what your heart has to say?
Agree. The more I think about this film, the more I think it was a disappointing mess.
I had the following problems with it:
-I thought Jamal and William were too reticent and dull to be lead characters. I wanted to hear more from them, but too little was revealed. By the end I didn't care about them at all.
-The background about Jamal's father was revealed early on. But I felt it didn't have a tangible impact on anything Jamal did.
-Jamal's mother and brother only had tiny roles. These could have been a lot more meaningful.
-Jamal's friends featured in several scenes but most of their dialogue was irrelevant. Should have been cut out.
-The delivery guy. What a pointless character.
-The scene on the origins of the BMW. This scene was included to demonstrate Jamal's breadth of knowledge. I thought it was badly out of place and heavy handed. A better example would have been for us to see Jamal's academic ability in the classroom.
-Claire's character. A badly underdeveloped and poorly defined female character. A waste of Anna Paquin in the role.
-Jamal's basketball rival: A subplot started but not finished.
-Coleridge. Another character introduced, but ultimately irrelevant to the story. Beyond having the name 'Coleridge' in the classroom scene, he served no purpose.
-Racial subplot. Like you, I thought this was a bad cliche. Fundamentally the story was about an underprivileged kid trying to improve himself in an elitist school with the help of an older mentor character, who was fighting his own demons. The racial subplot felt to me like it was included as a cheap afterthought.
It is ironic that the film was about striving to achieve literary greatness: in my opinion, this screenplay is a great example of how NOT to do it.