A wonderful wild ride; sometimes too clever, sometimes not enough (by Gouda-3)
"Go" reads like a very very good sophomore offering by a very very good up-and-coming director. You can almost see a bright future for everyone involved in the film, from the director Doug Liman to the screenwriter John August to all of the young actors. The script is clearly the winner, with witty dialogue and a convoluted plotline or plotlines, depending on how you view it centered around a dozen or so GenX-er Los Angelenos on Christmas Eve. The film slickly moves you from one plotline to the next, as you follow one minor disaster leading to other minor disasters.The film <more>
being a "sophomore offering," of course, has some drawbacks. Yes, it is tangentially derivative of "Pulp Fiction." And yes, it does scrounge a bit from this teen flick and that. In some cases, certain plotlines wrap up too neatly, and in other cases the plotlines don't converge nearly as neatly enough. But what the film may lack in originality it certainly makes up for with style and quirks.The real discovery in all this is the cast. Sarah Polly stands out listen to her mild Canadian accent slip through once in a while as the world-weary checkout gal who's first and only foray into drug-dealing unleashes a legion of trouble for her. Desmond Askew wonderfully punny name is this Pulp Fiction's Tim Roth, glib and cocky as his well-ordered world whirls and crumbles around him in a neatly choreographed disaster. As the sinister drug supplier, Timothy Olyphant is particularly menacing, exuding equal amounts of danger and innocence, sexiness and insecurity. The characters in "Go" never become cardboard parodies of themselves, and they never dissolve into charicatures of themselves for the sake of plot or atmosphere.So watch the film, soak in the plot, atmosphere, and the characters. At the risk of sounding glib myself, by all means "Go."
I don't know what really makes this movie so great. It could be the outstanding cast, the pitch perfect editing, the quick and funny dialog or maybe some other feature of a movie one could possibly like. The truth is this movie couldn't been done any better. When I watch a movie I usually come up with lots of things, which could have been done better or at least differently. This time I ended up with nothing.What amazes me the most is how they manage to define all the 10+ major characters so well, and they do it in what, less than 100 minutes. Most movies featuring many characters, <more>
fall apart cause there isn't enough screen time to present the differences among them, which just leads to a smear of unrecognizable faces. This doesn't happen with this movie for two reasons: A All characters have at least one scene to really define themselves. B By dividing the the film into three sub-plots you can easily relate each character to a specific sub-plot.The tempo is very fast for 90% of the movie. There are two scenes, which have a significantly slower tempo. Those are the two scenes featuring Katie Holmes and Timothy Olyphant. First in the apartment and later in the coffee-shop. In my opinion those scenes are the best, but there is a lot to choose from so I'm not offended if yours isn't.This movie really shows that even simple and straight forward stories, can be both unpredictable and entertaining, if they are told the right way. Add to this a pumping soundtrack, solid editing and an overall great production in an unpredictably entertaining movie, you will agree with me that Go is one of the best films ever made.
One of my favorite films of all time. Hip, like Pulp Fiction, it's just crazy-insane fun. Not for everyone, due to language and drugs, but I really LOVED it! There are also so MANY cameos of great actors we know and love today. Director Doug Liman has gone on to do HUGE, great movies, such as The Bourne Identity and Mr and Mrs Smith. Here we see some of his early talent. Writer John August writes the Ask the Filmmaker/Ask a Screenwriter column here on IMDb.comJust a great, fun movie, that hasn't seen been seen by as many people as it should.3-14-06 Walt D in LV
A story told in many parts... (by Peach-2)
Go is very fresh and fun film. The cast is great and the direction fom Doug Liman is very solid. I liked the way the story was told in this film and I really enjoyed Jay Mohr and Scott Wolf's story as a small dark comedy. Katie Holmes is very good and Sarah Polley excels in her role. I couldn't help but think of Pulp Fiction while watching this film. Liman has directed a very tight film. The young people in this film have some serious problems, but all in all, a very good movie.
One of the most under appreciated films in history. (by pulporange31)
Go has not gotten even half of the praise it deserves. The script is genius and the fast paced directing and cinematography are totally the reason to see something in the theatre rather than video. And this is not just another "oh this is my favorite movie, so it has to be great" reviews, there are facts. The epic Godfather, ranked as the best movie ever created by a human being, is lucky if it goes for 20 minutes without having the sound lose sync with the mouth movement. Not that I'm totally knocking it. And also, everyone says, "oh Go is the son of Pulp Fiction", <more>
"a lesser Pulp Fiction", but the fact is the it's structure has much more in common with the other Tarantino great Jackie Brown. Rent this to see what great cinema is.
Go is film about a drug deal seen from 3 different perspectives and what mishaps occur along the way. I didnt know what to expect from this film as i didnt remember it even coming out on the cinema but what a pleasant suprise i got! This film is Funny,clever,engrossing and Brilliantly acted and i could not recommend highly enough for someone to watch. Who ever directed this directed this is very clever the way he got 3 different stories from the one big picture, and each story was superb. I loved the reason why the cop was trying to entice the 2 actors back to his house!!!! Not what i was <more>
expecting. If you are hesitating about seeing this DONT , it's brilliant. 9 out of 10.
It didn't make too much sense at first, but I loved it when it was finished. (by philip_vanderveken)
There are several kinds of movies that I like, but they almost all have one thing in common: they have something special to offer. In this case it is the way the story was brought to the audience. The story is told over and over again, each time from the perspective of a different character. The fact that the story is told over and over again in isn't new. If you know the German movie 'Lola Rennt', than you've seen it before. The main difference between these two movies is that this time the story remains the same and the characters change, while in the German movie it was <more>
exactly the opposite of that.It starts with Simon Baines who wants to go to Las Vegas with his friends, but who normally has to work in a 24-hour grocery store. His colleague Ronna takes over his shift, when two guys, named Adam and Zack, walk in asking to score some dope from Simon. Because Simon isn't around anymore Ronna decides to sell them some drugs herself and asks her friends Claire and Mannie to help her buying some stuff from the local drug dealer Todd Gains. But the drug deal was set up by a narcotics agent called Burke who forced Adam and Zack to cooperate. Ronna soon finds out something is wrong and flushes the drugs trough the toilet. Normally she would return it to the drug dealer, but because she hasn't got it anymore she has to try to fool him with phony drugs. In the mean time Simon's adventures with his best friend Marcus hit an unfortunate turn during a trip to a strip club in Las Vegas and Adam and Zack end up spending Christmas Eve with Burke and his wife Irene before being able to drive to a rave, where Ronna is dealing some more "drugs". When they arrive at the rave, the guys accidentally hit Ronna with their car and leave her for dead. Nearby, Mannie nearly gets an overdose and Claire gets more friendly with a vengeful Todd who is now looking for Ronna.At first I didn't like this movie all too much, mainly because I didn't see the reason why so many information was left out. It didn't make too much sense really. But I gave it a chance and watched it completely and only then I fully understood the story. Even though it has some flaws, I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I loved the way the story was told and the good combination of humor and crime. All in all this is a movie that is worth more than just a watch. I loved it and give it an 8/10.
Spoilers herein.I'm coming to this film late in the comment stream, which means that critics and commentors have beaten to death the `Pulp Fiction' comparisons. Yes, this has parallel stories, time folding but not the time shuffling of `Pulp' , black and white shuffling, guns drugs and ironic violence, diner scenes and a hip perspective. But to me that is less central than the relationship of the shape to the style.Tarantino's method is from comic books, his manipulation of the narrative deliberately has nothing at all to with the narrative itself. That's the point, that <more>
emptiness. `Go' is the opposite. It takes much of the same stylistic manipulation of narrative and turns it all to the service of the movie: the film capriciously meanders like the small lives of these kids. Now, that's not a very heavy notion to settle on, but it is cinematically profound in linking the point of the movie to the unrolling of the images.In other words, if you love the visual grammar of film, you'll love this. If instead you prefer using the art of filmmaking to display the emptiness of film, you'll like `Pulp.' They are as different as can be. `Go' follows the tradition of Hitchcock and Welles where the `story' is centered in the images. `Pulp' follows a wholly contradictory world defined by the `new wave' where every image is ironic and deliberately doesn't rest in the story but runs contrary to it.At some point, every serious film viewer will confront this choice. It is a matter of whether you will let yourself `go' with the flow or always maintain a smug distance.The writer understands this, and makes it explicit with `story C' which features two actors. They are enlisted in an enterprise of `moviedom' in real life where they are wired for sound and videoed. More, their master engages them in forced commerce. This is mirrored in story B with the lap dance `show' and more faintly in A with the selling in the store and the rave. All these kids are engaged in indentured but shameless sales of the movie to us.I have a very short list of actors who are worth watching regardless of the context. Cate Blancett, Kate Winslet, and Julianne Moore are the actresses I follow because of their ability to present more than one personae at a time. Sarah Polley is close to being on that list, but not for the same reason. She -- or her advisors -- has made some very intelligent choices, placing her in central roles in some very alternative projects. These are films that require -- even in the watching -- a deliberate shift in thinking about what film is. In each, she has appeared with radically different acting styles, always entirely apt. It shows that she understands what these rather subversive projects are all about. Privately, her politics seems amazingly unsophisticated, but her deliberate plasticity on screen shows a remarkable ability.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
Liman provides his hyperactive style on a crime film centring around youngsters and lowlifes rather than adult gangsters, in what is a carefully observed character piece. (by johnnyboyz)
Go is a surprisingly engrossing, surprisingly nifty little multi-stranded crime film running on inspiration from other crime films of the era; a director's own, kinetic style and a central, focused look at a whole range of troubled, often sleazy, young adults in a modern world full of drugs; debt; dangers and the forced taking on of responsibility. When I first saw Go, I liked it a lot; revisiting it a few years later, I found it just as entertaining; just as interesting and just as engaging as I did before. Everything about the premise for Go screams that it doesn't have a cat's <more>
chance in Hell of working, but the stylised energy combined with the tasteful handling of a lot of different scenes and situations work surprisingly well, and blend to create an experience which most certainly wears you out, but in an oddly refreshing sort of way.The film, in covering an array of different characters but never bombarding nor overwhelming us, manages to deliver on a basis of both narrative and character. It is seamless in its blending of elements of the realistic with the surrealistic, all under a banner of raw energy spanning several hundred miles of which the characters travel within the picture. More recently, we've seen films which take a quick, kinetic and relatively easy-going aesthetic and apply criminal activity to it as a group of youths venture in and around contemporary America in some form. An example might be 2007 film Superbad, which did nothing but crack adolescent jokes, hate women and trivialise delicate and often illegal situations for a crowd. Go knows its place and it knows its genre as study, observations, the progression of character and some pretty frightening scenarios all play out under this same umbrella. Those that laugh at certain parts of Go have completely missed the point.The first of three stories, this and another two of which revolve around those whom aren't usually explored in films of this ilk, sees Sarah Polley's shop worker named Ronna heavily in debt; facing eviction and desperate for money. Her story sees her involved in a drug deal with two other young men and a much elder male, which grows increasingly suspicious as she interacts with them, and eventually sees her have to ditch the drugs she was meant to deal resulting in the angering of dealer Todd Olyphant , whom gave them to her. Ronna's fearless and independent attitude towards the men in her story, in particular Todd whom is financially better off and comes with a real air of menace, presents positive characteristics for the female in this role, as she descends deeper into a situation she brought upon herself through desperation. Ronna's ability to defy her male counterparts in doing what's best for her in avoiding the drug deal sting and being able to fool the dealer as she pulls along a casual and inept male companion, in Mannie Bexton , who'd be lost without her, adds meat and awareness to an unfortunate but otherwise familiar short story.Continuing with the film's theme of debt, and relatively hapless young adults getting themselves into hotter water than they'd like through which they'll come to learn the harsh realities of life that comes with getting involved in the sorts of activity they do, Simon Askew , who's one of Ronna's co-workers, and a group of friends spend some time in Las Vegas. Again, the premise for the short with the accompanying aesthetic suggest it ought not work. Indeed, the trip is given the sort of leery and unnerving build when the group of four interact. In a much lesser work, it would've fallen apart at the seams, but the facing of facts that Las Vegas is a large; intimidating; confusing and dangerous place is gradually filtered through the system of the four. While not necessarily a demonisation of the place itself, it is certainly a reality check for the attitudes the characters share.The study begins with the character of Tiny Meyer telling a story of himself to the others which transpires to have been untrue. He is caught out, made to look a fool and the entire sequence sets the tone for the narrow-minded, adolescent beliefs the characters have and how they'll be caught out. From here, the videos telling the occupants of a hotel room how to gamble downstairs comes across as arduous and confusing, further suggesting that these guy's are out of their depth, while the causality driven mishaps ranging from food-poisoning to casual drug use that leads to hotel fires is apt. Later, theft; misogyny and raging testosterone will put them in further jeopardy with some local strip-club owners which is the climax of all this dangerous, ominous build up.The third story maintains the same consistencies the other two had in terms of study and it's to the the film's credit that the film's concept has not yet worn us out: we're ready for one more. The strand centres on, like the first, usually somewhat marginalised characters for the genre; in this case two homosexual male actors, named Adam Wolf and Zack Mohr , who go on a kind of odyssey which seems to be about the revealing of true feelings and unexplored sexual appetites; highlighted by the actions of a police officer and his wife when around at their house as well as the revelations that arise when they have a conversation with each other, which in turn pushes the film out into a revenge piece of sorts. Go was made at a time when Doug Liman could compliment his all-over-the-place approach to film-making with character and substance; much unlike his 2005, fetishistic firearm flick Mr. and Mrs. Smith; while his most recent work, 2008's Jumper, did not garner much of a positive critical consensus. But Go holds up, knowing what it is but additionally knowing how to explore the lives and characters within without marginalising them nor rendering them too weak, clichéd or unlikeable.