Following the death of his wife Audrey, John Munn moves with his two sons, mid-teen Chris Munn and adolescent Tim Munn, to a pig farm in rural Drees County, Georgia, where they lead a ... See full summary »
Two highway road workers spend the summer of 1988 away from their city lives. The isolated landscape becomes a place of misadventure as the men find themselves at odds with each other and the women they left behind.
Set in a small town in North Carolina, George Washington is the story of a tight-knit multi-racial group of working-class kids caught in a tragic lie. After a twelve-year-old girl breaks up with her boyfriend for a sensitive, deeply introspective thirteen-year-old boy named George, a bizarre series of events and an innocent cover-up launches their insular group on individual quests for redemption.Written by
Nearly all of the actors in the film were non-professionals that had been hand-picked by David Gordon Green through random circumstances. The most interesting of these circumstances was how Green met with actor Donald Holden, who played George Richardson. Green has said that he met with Donald Holden on a beach near where he lived at the time and simply asked him to be in the film. See more »
It is stated early in the film that Buddy is 13 years old, yet on his missing sign, it says he is only 10. See more »
Can you keep a secret? I'm not a good person. I don't think nice things.
See more »
George Washington is one of the most upsetting film experiences I've ever had. The reason for this is not what you might expect. It was not bad. A bad film isn't exactly annoying. What is annoying is inconsistency. It is as if it were written and directed by Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jeckyl's parts are the great parts, of which there are numerous. In fact, many individual scenes have an utterly profound power, almost knocking me down. But here comes Mr. Hyde! About 1/3 of the scenes of the entire film are awful in every aspect. They clash so horribly with the great scenes that it basically kills the film dead.
Actually, I think the good parts and bad parts can be identified further. I think I know which aspects were sorely lacking in the film.
The film's story is great. I could imagine reading it in a novel and finding it quite compelling. The script, though, lacked a huge part: the dialogue. The dialogue ranges from not bad to terrible. Fundamentally, the dialogue is problematic in the same way as the Terrence Malick film The Thin Red Line. In that film, we here narration of a grand poetical quality coming from these soldiers. It's as if there are two characters: the actual ones, and the fantastically poetic ones. George Washington is the same way, except for one major flaw: these deeply poetic and philosophical musings that these young kids come up with are neither very poetic nor very philosophical. They're all extraordinarily hackneyed, in fact. And to boot, all actors in the film except for one of the kids are HORRENDOUS actors, both in dialogue delivery and in gesticulations. The kid who plays George, arguably the main character, is the best.
There is one monologue in the film that I feel the need to just attack ferociously to demonstrate the lowest depths of this film. George's uncle, who has adopted him, is particularly cruel to animals, especially dogs. He admits to killing a dog to his nephew, and then proceeds to tell George the root of this psychological problem. It seems that when he was a young kid, 6 I think, a big dog came up to him and started humping his leg. He tried to overpower the darn thing, but it was too big and knocked him down. It "humped [him] all over [his] body." So he went home and got a drill to kill the dog, but that dog was gone. COME ON!!! This is incredibly silly. I cannot think of a sillier event than being raped by a dog!!! Jeeze, I almost threw things at the screen that was so terrible!
This is one of those movies that I would love to see someone remake, cutting the bad things, thickening the rest of the story (the themes in the film, while potent, are often tenuously held together). I bet a really compelling film could be made with just the existing footage. One thing I do have to say, though, is watch out for this director! This film may have been a failure (and that is only in my opinion, of course), but there is so much worth in it that I think if the director matured, he might produce a real masterpiece. I will give it a 6/10 because of the good things in it. Really, though, the film falls pretty flat by the end.
8 of 15 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this