anybody else thinks the film's 2nd half is poor?
-
lukejbarnett — 5 years ago(September 03, 2020 05:11 AM)
i think you hit the nail on the head as far as one of the main reasons(the other and more important one being the pacing not being that good and the movie not being as intense in the second half)for this being a great film and not one of the best films of the '90s and all time. the lack of chemistry between the young, 20s actors.
the performance from brad pitt is a great performance but every time he's acting with jason patric and minnie driver, it's like they are in different movies.
acting chemistry is important. i don't know how chemistry with actors is achieved though.
lukejbarnett -
Linda1973 — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 07:57 AM)
The first half is incredibly powerful and gut-wrenching in parts, but I do agree that it shifts when the 2nd half comes along. I wholeheartedly agree with some other posts on here that the child actors are much better than the adult counterparts. They have a better chemistry, more emotion, and are just all around better.
Then there's Minnie Driver, who (to me) brings no believability to any dramatic role I have ever seen her in. She always seems to be "acting" and never comes across as "real." I don't mind her so much in some comedic roles I have seen her in (mostly in guest roles on sitcoms), but I find her very annoying in this movie and in "Good Will Hunting."
But again, the first half is amazing. -
lukejbarnett — 5 years ago(September 03, 2020 05:17 AM)
ok, i thought the child actors were great, well, i mean, brad renfro and the actor who played jason patric's character's younger self. it's interesting how good they were because they were so young, especially great was the kid who played the main boy character. but you can't say the child actor gave better performances than brad pitt.
yeah, what was up with minnie driver in this? she was very weak in a mostly greatly acted film. she gave the worst performance in this movie. she really was unaffecting and showed almost no emotion in this. she was like a dummy in this movie.
lukejbarnett -
franzkabuki — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 06:36 PM)
It certainly goes downhill fast once the court case takes over. For one thing, it seems to become sort of morally confused. For another, the way the trial is set up and unfolds, is quite unbelievable at times (nobody is able to figure out that the prosecutor is a close childhood friend of the defendants? The judge allows a character witness for the murder victim to be brought in and questioned at great length even though up until that point, the character of the victim had never been an issue? And then the witness promptly breaks down and admits to every wrongdoing, including rape, without missing a beat) No wonder there is no record of any such trial having ever taken place
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
stevenackerman69 — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 11:38 PM)
You know what? I agree. The first half when the boys are kids and in the boys' home, I liked that very much. When the stars came on the screen with them as adults, I sort of lost interest. I didn't care about the gangsters and in fact, felt the whole trial here was similar to the Simpson case from a year before, where guilty men go free on a murder charge, although here it is the prosecution thwarting justice.
-
lukejbarnett — 5 years ago(September 03, 2020 05:06 AM)
agree, there were at least 3 scenes in the last hour, half that are boring and are not entertaining and shouldn't be in this film because they aren't good and this movie should have nothing but good scenes because this is a great film. one scene was the brother of Rizzo scene with the old guy.
it's not as intense in the second half as it is in the first half. yeah, they should have had a better pace in the second half. if the second half was as good as the first half this film could be one of the best films of the '90s but as it stands it's just a great '90s film and one of the best films of '96.
lukejbarnett