George Washington (2000)

When I see the writer and the director are the same guy I sometimes worry.

This was my first inkling this may not be a great movie. The characters are an odd mix. I like the fact that most of them are just ordinary people. Movies usually go way over the top with casting and outrageous characters. But there are some pretty silly characters in this movie too. Also I got tired of the poor wrong side of the tracks philosophical wise child character that is so pervasive in this film. Most of the adults in the movie have serious defects and the writer's view of the South is questionable. It seems to me he also intends it to be depressing.

Unlike some of the reviews I've read I thought the cast did fairly well. It was the plot, script and direction that made this film impossible.

It's easy to see where the director was going with this film; it's just debatable whether or not it's worth the trip

Fmovies: This may be the worst movie I've ever seen. Billed as an art-school film. If I'd been the prof, it would have gotten an F:

1- Contrived plot. They were trying hard to be weird, macabre, and david-lynchian, but they failed miserably.

2- Bad acting. I had the feeling these non-actors were cajoled into taking the parts, or did so as a personal favor to the film makers. But it may not be their fault, because of...(see 3 below)...

3- Terrible script. The script was so contrived that the actors were laughing even while trying to deliver their inane lines.

3- Cheap use of death, gross-out effects and gross-out events for sensationalistic purposes

4- Poor representation of the South and of NC and of Winston-Salem where the filming took place.

and finally,

5- Anything that can make a film bad that I haven't thought of was probably in the film.

The only reason for anyone to see the film:

Could be shown by a film prof to the film class on how NOT to make a film.

I came to this film with no more knowledge of it than that many critics I trust raved about it. I was sorely disappointed, and my only explanation for the praise it received was that we've been force fed so many banal and unimaginative films from the movie mill in Hollywood that any break from it will be treated like a morsel to the starving. Problem is, while GW is indeed different from the crowd, it isn't particularly original. In fact it reminds me of a vastly inferior Terry Malick film. It attempts to be a poetic, non- linear look at the lives of adolescents in a decaying small north Carolina town, and while beautiful (it is after all 35mm cinemascope), it falls flat, with gratuitous wackiness and non-sequitors. Sometimes these poor kids are forced to spout stuff that sounds like it came from Sartre or Camus. Other times they are allowed to talk like the kids they are. And the adults? Most are ludicrously over-the-top. I felt tortured by the pretentiousness of this thing at 42 minutes, but sat through the other 40 hoping for a payoff. There wasn't much of one. I had no emotional connection to anyone in here because I didn't recognize them as real. What's worse is I really could have. Some of the ideas and situations in here are rich in potential, though left unmined, unrealized. Terry Malick's version of this faux Malick film would have been much better.

George Washington fmovies. I was finally able to watch this movie this afternoon after months of anticipating its arrival in my area. I had read the glowing reviews and eagerly ran to today's matinee. I couldn't have been more disappointed. I have a certain affection for slow paced movies as they give me such a feeling of peace as I watch. Many of the comments in this forum praised the film for its deliberate pace, which indeed was an attribute of this movie. However, the acting was so incredibly bad that it ruined the entire experience. I am totally shocked at the comments at this site praising these actors. Someone used the word improvisational. If that means unplanned or not thought out in advance then I will agree. For whatever reason, this film has managed to somehow mesmerize normally discerning movie goers into thinking that this is a gem... but this diamond in the rough is more like coal. I'd suggest that this director who has obvious potential spend more of his budget on acting on his next try. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!!!!

When I first saw "George Washington" at the L.A. Independent Film Festival, I remarked to a colleague that I wasn't sure if the film was "brilliant," or if it was "a student film." He remarked, in kind, that "it was a brilliant student film." At the time, I agreed. But after repeated viewings of "George Washington," I think I am starting to encounter its sheer sublime brilliance... and in retrospect, it is one of the most beautifully realized films I've ever seen. As a Southerner, I can't recall a film that has better captured the mood of the rural South. The film's languid pacing--set amidst its plush backdrop of swimming pools, the rusted steel of dilapidated factories, children playing in the sun, immense greenery, and diverse ethnic culture--continually transports me back to the South that I experienced growing up. Its operatic photography mixes a complex cinematic chemistry that, for me, feels more and more like a documentary in tone the more I watch it. Yet for all the film's structural "looseness," there is that one story strand that seems to always hit from an unforeseen angle, which softly jerks you back to the story just as you start to think the film is losing focus. The film's pace seems centered on this hypnotic lulling style: the narrative rope slackens almost to the point of no return, until all of a sudden that rope is pulled taut by its sheer weight. Other reviews here accurately describe what "George Washington" is about, so I will defer to them for story description. Unfortunately, in many descriptions here, people (mistakenly) see "randomness" in the film's structure. But the story's elements are just so beautifully and intricately weaved that one can actually leave the film truly wondering if there was any structure to it at all. This is absolutely not a "by chance" occurance. It is the mystifying brilliance of this classical tale: the languid pacing almost fosters Southern-style "forgetfulness" to the point that the story seems to forget about itself and fold inward. All the stories fall into each other so smoothly that it's easy to forget and begin wondering "what happened?" But this style is in fact the film's structure, and is absolutely the intended hypnotic effect, which is so reflective of the mood of Southern culture (if I am allowed to state this so broadly). I've now seen the film about ten times, and I can confidently state that "George Washington"'s immense subtlety in this regard should not be overlooked. There are many examples of backstory that David Gordon-Green (the writer/director) leaves just underneath the surface, waiting to be found. For example, in the relatively minor scene where George visits his imprisoned father, it's amazing to consider just how much that simple scene reveals of George's strange circumstances. Without being obvious and saying directly to the viewer "x happened, now y occurs," we are all of a sudden introduced to George's complex emotional world. We are given an image (but not an explanation) as to why he now lives with Damascus. What's the backstory here? Did George's father murder his mother? We are told nothing directly. But after the incident with Buddy, George is able to come to some sort of terms with his father--who remains silent, smoking a cigarette behind bars. George tells his father that he once didn't believe him, but now believes him... and loves him. The fi

After only writing a few reviews, I promised myself I would not give a film a perfect score too easily, but I cannnot resist. George Washington is truly astonishing and touching piece of cinema. Some people have called one of the best films of the new decade. This is definitely not too far from the truth. As the summary had said it is told very deceptively but we do not know the director has up his sleeve both plot wise and emotionally.

One of the best things about this film is its realism. David Gordon Green captured the essence of how kids today speak. Often we find in the usual "tween" movies that the young kids speak perfect English, always have good posture, speak with a clear voice, and have a wide vocabulary. I sound like one of my teachers. In the real world, this is not how kids actually talk and Mr. Green should be commended for bringing this to the masses.

As many people know, this film has great cinematography and the location is an area rarely seen in movies today. It even rivals Malick's. The opening scenes in particular have great cinematography. They are a hook to the viewers that enchants them to keep watching. The sub-satisfactory location is turned into a beautiful not quite urban or rural town of mystery and intrigue.

Yes, I will say it. This film is very moving. I know I will sound like a sap but it is moving in the true sense of the word. It is never overly sentimental or sappy. It feels so genuine. Few films recently have been so affecting on this level. The film has a very provocative take on redemption I like how the director used amateurs to add even more realism to the movie. The acting was pretty good, too. Stay clear if this movie if you do not have a good attention span (most reviewers are complaining about this). It is drawn out but oh so rewarding. Highly recommended.