1. GF_GF_GF

   9

   This film is messy just like everyone is saying. It's also a little thin in some places but this thinness works because it keeps the story light and fun despite its periodic lurid/grisly bubbling over it is nearly perfect in what it wants to do; nothing appears forced or rings false (a credit to daniels) and of course the acting (even efron, whose blankness is necessary) is amazing.… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
2. foxgrove

   6

   Watching the Paperboy is a bit like being an observer watching a car wreck. One is inappropriately fascinated by the whole thing. Lee Daniels direction is very uneven (although not without its moments of style), and he seems to subscribe to the notion that nothing succeeds like excess. It doesn't! The film is handicapped from the start by voiceover narration that alienates the viewer quickly rather than getting them involved. The grainy and amateurish photography is also at first a distraction, even though as the film progresses it does seem to fit perfectly with the increasingly steamy and violent setting. Where Daniels has succeeded most is with the performances of his cast. John Cusack is suitably nasty as the killer on death row; Zac Efron perfect as the pretty boy maturing by events surrounding him, and the currently ever improving Matthew McConaughey is just great as the newspaper reporter with a secret. Shining above all these, however, is Nicole Kidman in the role of the trashy Charlotte. She steals the film. Even by her own high standards this versatile and accomplished actress is truly amazing. If the Paperboy was judged soley on the performance Daniels has drawn from Miss Kidman it would certainly be no mean achievement.… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
3. lasttimeisaw

   6

   Three years after his Oscar-nominated dark horse Precious (2009, 8/10), Lee Daniels doesn

   • Helpful? 1 of 1 users said Yes.
4. smijatov

   4

   What a mess of a film. After "Precious" this just does not seem quite right coming from Daniels. Visually, the film is not bad. The cinematography is great, with a definite 60s glare to it, which works to truly transform your vision and make it seem as if it were shot in the 60s itself. The original score is pretty decent too, with some good tunes, especially "That man is dangerous." The storyline, however, is rather weak and the dialogue at times makes no sense. A lot is also left unexplained -- like McConaughey's love life and events surround that. It is rather gory and out there, which might repeal some viewers, but overall it is definitely an interesting film visually. What stood out to me (in a positive light) were the performances. Efron, though contained, was decent in his performance, as was McConaughey. John Cusack was excellent as the vicious murderer Hillary. His manic look and twitches really brought Hillary to life, as a credible character. The absolute best thing about the film, however, was Nicole Kidman. She shines as the sultry, sexy, yet a bit dim-witted Charlotte Bless, who has a thing for prison convicts (i.e. Cusack in the film). She steals every scene she is in, and that is quite an achievement considering the cast. With her platinum wig, short/tight outfits, and fake tan, she embodies her character perfectly. Another exceptional performance comes from Macy Gray, who unfortunately doesn't get too much screen time, but she does amazingly well with the little she's been given. It is the Viola Davis in 'Doubt' moment for 'The Paperboy'. Overall, a rather underwhelming film that, despite excellent performances, leaves you wondering what the point of the whole film was. Daniel's does seem to be at the top of his game directorially in many ways, but he has definitely missed the mark here.… Expand

   • Helpful? 2 of 2 users said Yes.

See all 6 User Reviews