IFC Films | Release Date: March 7, 2008
6.6
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 90 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
58
Mixed:
14
Negative:
18
Watch Now
Buy On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
AndrewR.Apr 20, 2008
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JonathanF.Dec 18, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
CarlGJun 2, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RobertH.Aug 5, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
dlloydJul 9, 2008
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?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ErikWApr 20, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AaronJ.Dec 21, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JohnP.Mar 17, 2008
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 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 !!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DaveM.Mar 30, 2008
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DavidCJan 2, 2009
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 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 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DiegoCNov 24, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DavidB.Sep 12, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
SeanS.Jan 13, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful