I've come to accept that you can add forty to fifty critic points to any film that is grainy and has teenagers having sex. Not a movie, at all, really, just a beginning (not even a middle, much less an end). Some artistriy at work here, but it sure ain't the acting, and I fear the casting has less to do with wanting raw, unvarnished talent than it does Van Sant's desire to get close to young street boys without pesky agents asking why they have to go to rehearsals in Gus' hotel room.… Expand

Alex(Gabe Nevins) names the film. In his notebook, he inscribes the title, in pencil, just like the opening credits sequence for "Almost Famous". It was Cameron Crowe's hand. He was the author, just like Alex is the author of "Paranoid Park". Many films are told non-linearly, but since the filmmaker gives us the illusion that he's assigning the storytelling duties to a character, the disjointed narrative has an organic feel, because Alex tells his story as a means to avoid incriminating himself. Since Alex is an amateur writer, the non-sequential ordering of scenes have an artless feel. Like "Storytelling", the Todd Solondz film about how the line between non-fiction and fiction are often blurred, "Paranoid Park" is about, storytelling; subjective storytelling. The truth of what really happened at the trainyard is in Alex's letter to a friend: Alex disturbed the crime scene. That's my best guess.… Expand

I was rather irritated after leaving this movie, there was no plot development, the dialog was unbearable, what made up for it was the fact that when I left I told all the people waiting in line that Kerry dies at the end. Save your money.

Terrible. I mean the dialogue, for starters, has been praised for the realistic feel of "real teenagers" and how they "really speak" I would compare it to how a real teenager would speak during a crappy school production. Secondly, the artsy shots of skateboarders throughout the film with low quality film stock. Very gritty indeed. More like filler if you ask me. I give the same treatment to those slow motion long shots of the main character and a couple others in slow motion while some crap O.C. rock music (or whatever you want to call it) playing in the background. I'm sure if you took out all these moments and left the actual meat of this snore-fest you would not be left with enough material to make an entire feature film. Which is why i think people call this movie too long. Just the whole film in general really. The protagonist reminds me of a young Edward Furlong, without the personality. The rest of the cast while they may be realistic in that, yes, they are teenagers, does not mean they will perform like a real teenager on screen.… Expand

Dull and uninspiring , not sure what the critics were watching.

This movie is way too long at 87 minutes. The "acting" is terrible. I can't understand how Van Zant keeps getting money to make films.

Simply bad. It feels like a high school student got a large budget and made a very amateur, cringe inducing film. Another reminder to ignore the critics when Gus releases his teeny abominations. Does he pay them off or what?

This movie was trying way to hard. Just because 50% of it was in slo-mo doesn't make it interesting and doesn't save the horrendous acting. Ultimately an unresolved waste of time.

I haven't seen this many split reviews since There Will be Blood. Instead of saying, "this movie sucks," how about, "I didn't like this movie." Or, better yet, aren't people interested in why critics loved this movie when so many viewers did not? It seems a little indulgent and egocentric to give the final word on a movie (film critics are paid to do this). This story was filmed in slow motion to reflect how the teen was feeling at the moment. His entire world was turned up side down (much like the skateboarders in mid-flight) after the traumatic incident, and he was trying to piece it all together. Has anyone ever had a traumatic moment in your life where everything seemed to move in slow motion? When you felt you couldn't think, and everything was floating in space? That was the effect Van Sant was going for. I personally appreciated this movie because it was daring enough to take its time. This film reminded me of foreign classics like L'avventura and I Vitelloni, where the journey of the character is most important, even more so than the plot. Modern audiences like a neatly wrapped up story, which is fine. It is just not as challenging nor does it make the audience think as much. This film leaves a lot to be discussed, such as what should the boy have done? What will happen to him? What should happen to him? The slow camera work allows us to feel the trauma that he is feeling, not just see it. The fact that the film takes its time allows the audience to get to know the characters more (if the audience member does not allow himself or herself to get annoyed by the slow-moving plot). This film is not for everyone. For those who like mainstream movies, stick to what you know you will like. Don't waste your time listening to critics because you don't like the same things. Ask your friends for advice instead. For those who watch films and cannot figure out why a critic liked the film so much, you don't have to like the film, but try thinking about it empathetically instead of simply bashing something that you just don't understand.… Expand

The Good: Realistic, if a little too disaffected, teenage acting. Beautifully shot. Well-developed minimalist character study. Elliptical chronology. A couple of tense, gripping scenes. The Bad: The rest of the scenes are either filler of grainy skateboarding shots, slow-motion shots of the lead character that last WAY too long, oddly placed music, and a stubborn disregard for the audience. Van Sant seems to think that although the lead character has come to terms with what he has done, it's ok to leave us hanging in terms of the police investigation, which is where most of the tension in the movie derives. This movie is a mixed bag. Worth a view, but it by all means isn't as brilliant as I was lead to believe.… Expand

The gushing reviews are as pretentious and self-satisfied as this snoozer of a movie. Very little happens, which in of itself is not a problem in a great film (Last Year at Marienbad), but this is not a great film. In spite of a couple of gripping scenes directly related to the plot, this is merely a collection of slow-motion footage designed to fill time to approach a full-feature length film. My wife and I kept lookin at each other, rolling our eyes, saying "here we go, another slow motion scene of the protagonist dreamily walking down a hallway"... A rip-off. Avoid it unless you are intrigued by pretentious self-conscious movies.… Expand

Van Sant returns to great storytelling. Unique style and subtle character introduce us to life and innocence.

Everyone I went with thought this movie really stunk. The acting was so poor that at times they simply played music over the dialogue and made it completely inaudible. Zero plot development. Be cautious of the LA and NY Times reviews. They are totally off. If you see it anyway, tell me what the mother's face looked like !!!

This film is the culmination of van sant exploring both the commercial and experimental approaches to filmmaking over the past decade, and the result is even more than the sum of those parts. by turns, it is beautiful, haunting, poignant, raw, challenging, but ultimately rewarding. one of our most underrated director's best films.

Much ado about nothing! Poor execution. Shaky camerawork made me ill. Very slow-moving, like one of those boring European films. Unsatisfying non-ending. Save your time & money!

I get why all the critics went ga-ga for this movie-- it's very atmospheric and arty. But it's hard to care about any of the characters, so at the end I was left with a big "So what?"

I didn't feel like I had gained anything in watching this movie. There was no 'fresh' perspective for me, no insight, no humour, no lesson. Yep, life has a way of going really bad really fast sometimes and we live with the consequences of our actions for the rest of our lives. And teenagers are all shallow and angsty about sex 'n stuff. While it's not a bad movie, it's definitely not a great movie either. I think people are being fooled by the seriousness of the subject matter, a shocking scene, and some nice camerawork. Otherwise, it's just dull. This one will fade to black before many other movies do.… Expand

If you like scenes in slow motion walking boy are you in for a treat because this movie has lots of it. Not to be typecast, it also has slow motion skateboarding and various other slow motion activities. Critics for some reason love Van Sant, you won’t, just trust me on this. This is not a great film and don’t let any of the über-intellectuals tell you otherwise. Critics love it and you’ll hate it.… Expand

Artful and inspiring. DEFINITELY not for the impatient. This movie is captivating in it's own way and has a pleasant simplicity to it.

Simply put: unless you're really into Gus van Sant's earier work (if you don't know who he is, just don't watch the movie) you're gonna find this movie terribly boring.

A remarkably slow-moving story of accidental murder. when it should move along with a kind of anxious immediacy, it trudges on for what seems like two hours (the movie is 80 minutes) as it weaves a back-and-forth story more about nothing than murder or coming-of-age. while the cinematography is something beautiful, the rest of the film is a bit of a drag, especially the acting, which, for the most part is disappointingly inexpressive. Overrated.… Expand

What most teens are looking for is action in a movie. That probably explains the bad reviews in earlier comments stating that this gripper is boring. This, to me, one of best of year.

I saw this simply to see a person I know who was in the film, then found myself mesmerized. This is a rare feat - a tone poem spread effectively short of 90 minutes...where Van Sant's prior films flailed due to lack of structure, it seems Paranoid Park benefits as an adaptation of another's work. Skillful, haunting.

I'm sorry to say that despite what is a very very fine movie, some of the acting (particularly by the protagonists buddy) is so bloody awful as to remove any possibility of immersion. And in such a beautiful film, and so quiet and so unique, immersion is offered up and laid out and then stunted by such poor acting. The aesthetic of amateurs that Van Sant likes so much means that some forgiveness is necessary while watching his movies because some skills slip through the cracks, particularly because bad acting for his actors just means we're seeing more of who the actor really is as an individual; and that works great. But in this movie, it was so opposed to both who the character could've possibly been meant to be, and whoever this person was off camera that it entered into some kind of world where at times there was no believing the movie and no comfort in the sudden recognition that you're sitting in a theater watching it. Sorry, long way of saying that some of the acting was unforgivably awful.… Expand

I liked its slowness.

Its a slow-moving, stylized and quiet film that will only reward viewers who are attentive and thoughtful. If you are looking for a standard narrative and standard "good versus evil" ethics, you will certainly be disappointed. What we do get is an impressive film that tries to create a few days in the life of a typical teenager when something extraordinary happens to him. I suppose you could call it a coming of age flick, but you'd be missing the point if you labeled it simply as that. It has only one real fault -- a select few of the young actors fail as actors and it can wrench the viewer right out of the moment.… Expand

An improvement on Last Days which began atmospherically but forgot about plot development. the main accusations against Paranoid Park seem to be that the lead actor is vacant and not engaging as a character, sounds like your average teenager to me. As for those that reify this film as masterpiece, it is slight and certainly Van Sant has not made a great film since drugstore cowboy. good soundtrack though.perhaps the users that disliked it so intensely seen the 'good will hunting' credit and expected mawkish sentimentality.… Expand

Intriguing with wonderful cinematography. Director Gus Van Sant does a great job, but goes a little too heavy on style. It is Gabe Nevin's terrific performance that pulls the film together. The score is excellent as well. Believable story. Very well done in all areas.

I watched this film after it received such a great score and I thought I would be in for a treat. I was wrong. Not only was this movie dreadfully boring but it actually pushed me further away from liking independent films. The cinematography was cheesy at best. Yes, I understand that they're going for a more "realistic" approach to the treatment of the dialogue and characters but, like others have said, the majority of this film is filler material. The music felt as if it was just tossed in because it "sounded right" instead of actually being carefully selected. From the start of the film, I felt as if it could only get better and don't get me wrong, the initial scenes where the story unfolds are pretty decent, the film just goes downhill because of the fact that every scene afterwards reveals so little about the story. Gabe Nevin's performance is the only noteworthy part of this film, which is why I gave it a 1.… Expand

In addition to the worst of Gus Van Sant's masturbatory indulgences, "Paranoid Park" also features a shockingly inept cast, including two girls who can't stop looking at the camera. I don't care that these kids were, with the exception of Taylor Momsen, untrained amateurs -- after all, look at what Steven Soderbergh accomplished under similar circumstances with "Bubble." One can hardly call "Paranoid Park" a movie; it's more like a personal tone poem that Van Sant made for himself, and no one else. I wish he would have kept it private. Its only saving grace is the gorgeous photography by Christopher Doyle.… Expand

A gripper.