it isn't a 10/10 masterpiece, but i feel that the underlying message about this f*ed up 'spring break' 'MTV' fantasy centred society we live in today, well.. wasn't very underlying at all. i mean through the combination of the screenplay,shots and imagery i found it quite easy to decipher.
and before anyone jumps on me - yes i understand the appeal of a film is a COMPLETELY subjective thing, and this isn't exactly an easily accessible nolan-type vehicle (not to diss Nolan).I recognise that both my enjoyment and someone else's hate are both equally respectable. but those dismissing it as a 'brainless' and 'vulgar' film obviously missed the point COMPLETELY. THAT'S EXACTLY the type of culture it is MOCKING.
last i checked on here Transformers 2 has a higher score than this. i mean c'mon. even if you disliked SB you have to admit it was a exercise in art, although a possibly unsuccessful one in your eyes.on the other hand the transformers series comes off as an exercise in financial greed.
like what you like and dislike what you dislike - but at least try to understand the message of the movie before calling it garbage or brainless.
It is always awesome when some little child thinks that the reason why a crappy movie r TV show that he liked but no one else did was just MISUNDERSTOOD. No, little lifelong virgin...we UNDERSTOOD the movie just fine. That is why we know it sucked
it's a niche film for more intelligent than average, abstract art-minded people. it requires the audience to synthesize absurdity, face value beauty and larger concepts all in one and most can't do it. most people just don't have the capacity to appreciate avant garde art in any way and that's just how it is. there's nothing you can do to 'convince' those people that it's meaningful.
I am surprised at the low rating here. Yes,I understand that many people a) won't like it because it wasn't artsy enough, and b) because it dared to try and be artsy at all. I figure most expected a kind of soft porn/ reality show. I was blown away by his film. It stuck with me after watching it the first time for weeks, until I saw it again. And I think it was even better the 2nd time. The score is brilliant. Had all those passages with low sprawling synthesizer soundtrack been handled differently, we would have another film here. It brings back 'Twin Peaks'; the juxtaposition of violent visuals with gorgeous, dreamy music. We add the gently spoken voice overs; of Faith reading from her diary, maybe; of the girls calling their moms full of promises and epiphanies. Right before going on a murderous rampage. James Franco really should have been nominated for some kind of acting award. I am not saying this lightly. But he blew the lid off those scenes. "Look at mah *beep* I think the film tried to mock and satirize a whole generation; not only Spring Breakers. Because the hoods from St Pete (Alien, Gucci and the Twins) are also part of this generation - just from the other side of the track. The girls, and actually everyone from their world, are all fascinated by it. And yes - Spring Break in the end, does reveal itself as a kind of spiritual quest. Lines were drawn and crossed. Some went home by choice; others retreated, wounded, shot, realizing they weren't cut out for it; some fell in battle, and some rode off into a pink sunset. I saw other good comments. Liking it to "Natural Born Killers". I thought the casting was well done. The two bad girls, Gucci Mane, Selena G; but especially the twins and James Franco.
agreed...very surprised by the rating, but then again ....not. The movie tells all :)
I should point something out for the "dont-getters". Its just to avoid dissapointment in the future.
1. James Franco. If his name appaers´- be sure ....it will definitely NOT be a disney teenie whatever movie. He was the reason I gave it a try in the first place because if I read selena gomez I would rather skip the movie .
2. Dont trust Movie posters/marketings. A lot of movies have bad marketing these days. Studios try to get big , dumb audiences so they make complete misguiding marketing. A very good example for an excellent movie utterly destroyed by wrong marketing is "Drive" (gosling).
3. Sometimes misguiding promo its part of the message like in springbreakers case - but you dont get it: so stick to the not trusting method.
I think it is easy to get the satire, so I would not say it is misunderstood. But a movie is not "good" just because of the message. It takes more than that, I believe. The plot and the dialogue was just trash and that is actually the reason for the positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes: it explicitly shows a culture of brainlessness.
(Those critics find it artsy, maybe only because of its "original" use of the camera or so. That is just my opinion.)
And you have just described The Intentional Fallacy from formal art criticism, which is not from popular art REVIEWING. The INTENT. i.e. message, of the auteur doesn’t matter. Only the RESULT matters.
At the current moment in time, this film is misunderstood and underappreciated. But I feel like many years from now it will be better appreciated and viewed as a cult classic of some sort.