Am I the only one who thought the first half of this movie was terrible, and the last half brilliant?
I completely agree, I did not think it was terrible though. I just felt like the film was lagging, and didn't pack any punch at all until the third act, which was fantastic. It was like they were saving all of the raw, sentimental stuff purely until the end, I'm so glad I stuck it out though.
shareagree found the first 40 minutes (actually more like 35) flat and trying to hard, but the last half was more believable and had more depth. I wouldn't say the last half was brilliant though, it was good, a more believable and interesting story, but honestly, not enough to have me recommend the film.
Koalas are telepathic. Plus, they control the weather.
To me, one of the problems of the first half was the director trying too hard to be the new Wes Anderson, and moderately failing at it, because his cinema doesn't have as much character. Plus, I found the character of Earl pretty dull. But I wouldn't say "terrible", because it managed to entertain me enough (the dad was great). Still, yes, the second half is much more compelling. And I found the last fifteen minutes surprisingly moving. Up until the VERY impressive last scene between them, I wasn't impressed with the directing, and then came that scene. I felt a bit cheated by the main character's lie about Rachel's death, like many I guess, but in the end, I found it a pretty clever move.
The movie reminded me many times of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which is one of my favorite movies of the past years. It clearly wasn't as brilliant. But I found it way more memorable than a big hit like The Fault in our Stars.
___________
- Booker, are you afraid of God ?
- No. But I'm afraid of you.
I liked it better than Perks of being a Wallflower. To me , this movie held its pace whole time. First half hour are superficial, jokster like, but all great friendships start like that. It is not that you come to someone and say : I am going to like You firend. You often get suprised by founding out how much you care for someone. Anyway, I agree about The Fault in our stars section. I did not like that movie at all.
shareI did not. While a lot of the best and most emotional stuff came in the latter half of the film (as it usually does,) the film never dragged for me and I found the first half just as compelling as the second.
sharei think the first half was kinda necessary in building up for emotional impact, to make care for the characters.
who loves all people of all gender,skin color, nationality, sexuality equally?
crocodile
I didnt think it was terrible, just normal, nothing really great.
But the second part...
I completely agree, I watched it again for a second time and I think the moment for me where it becomes brilliant is when it stopped trying to hard to be a Wes Anderson Clone and actually focused on the emotional turmoil of someone going through cancer.
After the second time I pinpointed it to the scene where she decides to stop treatment. That scene and every scene after it broke my heart.
Actually, I liked that the first half was slow and a bit dull. It really parallels the friendship with Rachel. He just doesn't want to be there, he's bored, he's awkward, she's awkward. The film builds momentum as their friendship gets stronger and he becomes more expressive. It's fitting.
shareI started watching last night and stopped at 48 minutes in.
Came here and saw your post, giving it another chance