Yosemite (2015) is a solid coming of age film that goes too far off track. I was really enjoying Yosemite for the first 30 minutes or so. After a while, the film became misguided and lost my interest. The cinematography is nice, and I loved the retro aspect felt throughout. The acting is great. James Franco is good, but he only shows up for the first 20 minutes and then vanishes. But at times, the directing seems vague. Some scenes feel out of place, and the story becomes nebulous. The film is obviously inspired by "Stand By Me", but it lacks the charm and humour. 'Yosemite' is certainly not a bad film. However, it does gradually lose focus,and in the process, loses the audience's interest.
9 Reviews
Did not find James Franco's childhood all that interesting.
subxerogravity19 January 2016
Sometimes Yosemite felt like the equivalent of watching paint dry.
It's suppose to create some type of emotion in me, but I did not catch it. despite understanding the story of the tree boys that dominate the movie.
But there came a point for me were I just was not emotionally invested enough in what I saw on the screen.
I wanted to like it too, but it falls very short of the goal it tries to accomplish. A little too dead pan.
It's impressive that putting James Franco on the poster was enough to get this thing released in the tiny theater I saw it in, but it's not entertaining enough as a movie for nothing too happen. it's too real and true to the source material that did not transfer over too well.
Maybe works better as the book it was based on. I like Franco's other novel turned movie Palo Alto better
It's suppose to create some type of emotion in me, but I did not catch it. despite understanding the story of the tree boys that dominate the movie.
But there came a point for me were I just was not emotionally invested enough in what I saw on the screen.
I wanted to like it too, but it falls very short of the goal it tries to accomplish. A little too dead pan.
It's impressive that putting James Franco on the poster was enough to get this thing released in the tiny theater I saw it in, but it's not entertaining enough as a movie for nothing too happen. it's too real and true to the source material that did not transfer over too well.
Maybe works better as the book it was based on. I like Franco's other novel turned movie Palo Alto better
Some Good Moments But Not Enough
larrys323 February 2016
Set in 1985 in the city of Palo Alto, California,this movie written and directed by Gabrielle Demeesterre, is based on 2 short stories from James Franco's 2013 book "A California Childhood". Upon reading the premise of the film, I wondered if it it would compare in any way to Rob Reiner's 1986 classic "Stand By Me",but it really doesn't compare, like very few, if any movies could.
The story revolves around the coming-of-age adventures of 3 fifth graders Chris (Everett Meckler), Joe (Alec Mansky), and Ted (Calum John), who are all newcomers to the silver screen. The boys are trying to cope with friendships, broken families, the death of loved ones, missing family pets, as well as an encroachment on Palo Alto by mountain lions, who are feeling the pinch of expanding cities into their natural habitats and thus have been entering neighborhoods looking for water and food.
Although this indie maintains a good sense of foreboding throughout, it never seems to actualize enough dramatic tension to be engrossing. Also, there are some plot elements that remain too ambiguous, such as the actual intentions of the young man Henry (Henry Hopper), who rather creepily befriends Joe and invites him to his house to read comic books.
All in all, I thought this movie has some good moments, but there weren't enough of them to cohere into an absorbing and enjoyable film.
The story revolves around the coming-of-age adventures of 3 fifth graders Chris (Everett Meckler), Joe (Alec Mansky), and Ted (Calum John), who are all newcomers to the silver screen. The boys are trying to cope with friendships, broken families, the death of loved ones, missing family pets, as well as an encroachment on Palo Alto by mountain lions, who are feeling the pinch of expanding cities into their natural habitats and thus have been entering neighborhoods looking for water and food.
Although this indie maintains a good sense of foreboding throughout, it never seems to actualize enough dramatic tension to be engrossing. Also, there are some plot elements that remain too ambiguous, such as the actual intentions of the young man Henry (Henry Hopper), who rather creepily befriends Joe and invites him to his house to read comic books.
All in all, I thought this movie has some good moments, but there weren't enough of them to cohere into an absorbing and enjoyable film.
Beautiful but does not speak to viewers
Gordon-1110 March 2016
This film tells the story of three children who goes to the same class in school in a suburban part of Palo Alto, where lions roam and threaten the safety of people.
"Yosemite" has good camera with, good lighting and good visual presentation of scenes. The technical aspects are great, but there's no content. All we see in the first segment is three people walking around in a beautiful national park. The second segment shows an unlikely friendship between a boy and an adult male, but that's pretty uneventful to the point of boredom. The third story is slightly more happening, but it is still rather dull and boring. Maybe the film is of personal significance to the director and producers, and this personal meaning doesn't translate across to the viewers.
"Yosemite" has good camera with, good lighting and good visual presentation of scenes. The technical aspects are great, but there's no content. All we see in the first segment is three people walking around in a beautiful national park. The second segment shows an unlikely friendship between a boy and an adult male, but that's pretty uneventful to the point of boredom. The third story is slightly more happening, but it is still rather dull and boring. Maybe the film is of personal significance to the director and producers, and this personal meaning doesn't translate across to the viewers.
A Blurred Mess
kitcolfort2 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Let me start by saying, I'm glad I didn't pay to see this movie. I found it to watch online and given the rating another website had given it, I went ahead for it thinking that it couldn't be awful. And it wasn't awful - just wasn't good either.
Yosemite has effectively blurred the lines of it's acts, there's no distinction between the first, second and third. The direction of the film is awful, to say the least. Instead of having interlacing story lines between three different boys, it blurs them and leaves you asking whose who.
The film is supposedly about three boys, unfolding Palo Alto as a mountain lion is apparently loose. The mountain lion isn't even mentioned till three-quarters the way through the movie, and only shows up briefly for one scene, only a body even.
Yosemite tries to be an artistic film, when it falls flat in places it shouldn't.
Yosemite has effectively blurred the lines of it's acts, there's no distinction between the first, second and third. The direction of the film is awful, to say the least. Instead of having interlacing story lines between three different boys, it blurs them and leaves you asking whose who.
The film is supposedly about three boys, unfolding Palo Alto as a mountain lion is apparently loose. The mountain lion isn't even mentioned till three-quarters the way through the movie, and only shows up briefly for one scene, only a body even.
Yosemite tries to be an artistic film, when it falls flat in places it shouldn't.
Umm
graphicspittz18714 April 2018
The view of a mother
doriadealcacer-640-912344 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is very interesting if you see it through my eyes. I was surprised of how lucky the kids were to stay alive, or not abused. Parents failed to take proper care of them. Even the father played by James is so careless, he put his kids in unnecessary danger, I think. The other parents are absent or distracted. None of them are really thinking about them. I don't mean to be overprotective, no way, but there is a line between careless and careful. The beautiful kid that goes to the young man´s house is in danger. The little brother pushed by his older brother is so scary, and the father is so innocent or negligent or in denial, something not good for the kids anyway. And the three boys with a gun hunting a lion, that finds him and then by a stupid error, got saved of being attacked, wow, I was thinking about the close they were of a tragedy. Parents don't do their job, as if they have something more important to do. At the end, that's all that matters, if something happens to your son, you will hardly recover from it.
If this is autobiographical, I send my love to James . I am very happy that he is alive. I like him very much, that's why I saw this movie.
Subtext and suspense maketh the plot
gelineeweenie27 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Yosemite is a delicate story about three 5th graders growing up in 1985 in Palo Alto, where a mountain lion is on the loose. It's simple plot may seem incomplete at first, but with some imagination the film is a rich exploration of our own constructed fears.
The film allows you to fill in the space with details. It's pace surrenders control over to the viewer, to allow the mind to create suspense where there is none, subtext where it just doesn't exist. Demeestere and Franko play on our darkest fears of protecting our children and pit off parenting in 1985 against the backdrop of helicopter parenting today and even the most free range parent will find themselves in agony at the thought of what might happen to these children. Were the children in any danger, or have we created these horrors in our mind?
The film strews clues that the viewer can't help but to try and piece together with our own worst fears, and this is where the film excels and becomes complete. Demeestere seems to know that we will fill in the blanks and lays out the traps that we inevitably fall into. She exploits the fact that we have been conditioned to place fear at every turn so what is a simple story about boys doing what boys do holds us in suspense. The mountain lion is a fitting metaphor for this misplaced fear. In the end we end up killing it, reminding us that we are the predators damaging the world and our children with our fear.
The film allows you to fill in the space with details. It's pace surrenders control over to the viewer, to allow the mind to create suspense where there is none, subtext where it just doesn't exist. Demeestere and Franko play on our darkest fears of protecting our children and pit off parenting in 1985 against the backdrop of helicopter parenting today and even the most free range parent will find themselves in agony at the thought of what might happen to these children. Were the children in any danger, or have we created these horrors in our mind?
The film strews clues that the viewer can't help but to try and piece together with our own worst fears, and this is where the film excels and becomes complete. Demeestere seems to know that we will fill in the blanks and lays out the traps that we inevitably fall into. She exploits the fact that we have been conditioned to place fear at every turn so what is a simple story about boys doing what boys do holds us in suspense. The mountain lion is a fitting metaphor for this misplaced fear. In the end we end up killing it, reminding us that we are the predators damaging the world and our children with our fear.
Good, yet really confusing emotional movie
benghill17 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
There were two things I was thinking throughout this movie. "Poor Joe" and " Why are Chris and Ted such dicks?".
The first story is about Chris, a privileged boy with a loving father who want to spend time with him. When they go hiking, he pushes his little brother onto the rocks for no reason. They get lost, then find their way home.
The second story is about Joe, a kind, yet depressed kid. He is unfairly accused of stealing gum at the store. He seems to have no adults in his life that he can trust other than the complete stranger who he goes home with. The man is supposed to be nice, but taking a little kid home with you is a felony. At school, Joe has a one-sided conflict with his "best friend" Ted. Ted seems to verbally and physically bully Joe by pinching him in his private parts. Joe fights back after he is provoked. They say it is just a game, but Joe clearly doesn't like it and Ted doesn't care. Ted continues to do it and gets Joe in trouble twice. For some reason Joe is blamed for this by the school and by Ted's mother. Ted doesn't even care that his "best friend" lost his brother or that his father left.
The final story is about Ted. His main conflict is that he and Joe aren't friends anymore and he thinks he is the victim. He can't understand how physically bullying someone, getting him in trouble twice, blaming him, calling him a very hurtful nickname, and not being there when he is depressed might end a friendship. I know these are ten year old boys and being mean is their way of communicating, but how are we supposed to believe that these boys are friends. Ted starts hanging out with Chris as his rebound friend, who is a jerk to Joe for some reason. He wasn't even part of the conflict. The three "friends" are brought together when they decide to hunt a mountain lion. They fight over the gun and Joe gets shot. Only then does Ted actually seem to care about Joe. At the end of the movie they become friends again, though it is unclear why. Ted never apologizes to Joe, even for nearly killing him.
The moral of this story, some friendships can be very harmful. PLEASE COMMENT BELOW. I WANT FEEDBACK. I don't think I fully interpreted this movie correctly. If I did, it deserves a much lower rating. What do you think?
The first story is about Chris, a privileged boy with a loving father who want to spend time with him. When they go hiking, he pushes his little brother onto the rocks for no reason. They get lost, then find their way home.
The second story is about Joe, a kind, yet depressed kid. He is unfairly accused of stealing gum at the store. He seems to have no adults in his life that he can trust other than the complete stranger who he goes home with. The man is supposed to be nice, but taking a little kid home with you is a felony. At school, Joe has a one-sided conflict with his "best friend" Ted. Ted seems to verbally and physically bully Joe by pinching him in his private parts. Joe fights back after he is provoked. They say it is just a game, but Joe clearly doesn't like it and Ted doesn't care. Ted continues to do it and gets Joe in trouble twice. For some reason Joe is blamed for this by the school and by Ted's mother. Ted doesn't even care that his "best friend" lost his brother or that his father left.
The final story is about Ted. His main conflict is that he and Joe aren't friends anymore and he thinks he is the victim. He can't understand how physically bullying someone, getting him in trouble twice, blaming him, calling him a very hurtful nickname, and not being there when he is depressed might end a friendship. I know these are ten year old boys and being mean is their way of communicating, but how are we supposed to believe that these boys are friends. Ted starts hanging out with Chris as his rebound friend, who is a jerk to Joe for some reason. He wasn't even part of the conflict. The three "friends" are brought together when they decide to hunt a mountain lion. They fight over the gun and Joe gets shot. Only then does Ted actually seem to care about Joe. At the end of the movie they become friends again, though it is unclear why. Ted never apologizes to Joe, even for nearly killing him.
The moral of this story, some friendships can be very harmful. PLEASE COMMENT BELOW. I WANT FEEDBACK. I don't think I fully interpreted this movie correctly. If I did, it deserves a much lower rating. What do you think?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
