Osment plays Trevor, a Junior High student with a social studies project: To change the world. He devises the "Pay it Forward" campaign -- to do something for three people, and asking them not to pay it back, but to do something for three more people. His first project: Jerry (Caviezel), a bum Trevor helps back on his feet with allowance money and a place to stay. Of course this freaks his mom out (Hunt), and she immediately rushes to the school to find out what project his teacher (Spacey) could possibly have given him to make him bring a homeless man into the house.
Mohr, meanwhile, is a reporter who is a recipient of a mysteriously kind offer. He vows to trace this "pay it forward" idea back to its origin. (Yes, the story is told in a sort of temporal slingshot, with Mohr representing the "future" parts of the story, and everyone else being the "present" part. Once the two converge, well, the movie comes to a dramatic conclusion.)
Firstly: What a remarkable idea -- in theory. As a cynic-in-training, I can see the fundamental flaw in the otherwise ingeniously simple concept. People just aren't that nice. Sure, they'll let me help them, but how can I be sure they'd pay it forward? Well, that's where faith comes in. And truthfully? It doesn't really matter if they do or not. The statement here is that it has to start somewhere -- why not with me? Or you? Or a seventh grader named Trevor? Truly a notion worthy of a cast such as this.
Secondly: The characters are not perfect. Hunt is an alcoholic mother trying to hold down two jobs just to make ends meet. Her part-time husband, Trevor's father (Jon Bon Jovi), is himself an alcoholic, and abusive at that. Spacey's Eugene Simonet has burns all over his body, the remnants of an early trauma in his own life -- and he wrestles with his own demons. Trevor struggles with the realities of bringing a project like pay it forward to life when he realizes Jerry didn't stay clean and employed, when his other two projects didn't work out. He struggles with his fear of his father, and with the loneliness of having an alcoholic mother.
**Major Spoiler Alert**
Bestly, and most sadly: The "Garden of Eden" that other films might actually deliver never came to pass. Trevor's own experiences lead him to the most brutal reality of all: Sometimes helping others comes at great risk to yourself. While I won't tell you explicitly what happens, it's a lesson he should have learned when he conceived of the idea. Even so, Pay it Forward presents the aftermath with as much positive spirit as one can muster in a situation like this. It's very heartwarming, if tear-coaxing.
**End of Spoiler**
Spacey, Hunt, and Osment all give stellar performances, and the writing is such that I truly fell in love with all three characters. Helen and Kevin had chemistry. Haley and Helen meshed as a mother and son (and kudos on "the reaction shot" early on -- both did excellently). Kevin and Haley -- An obvious teacher/father figure relationship well-portrayed.
Pay it Forward is a special movie with a special cast that deserves special attention. See it.
This movie is rated PG-13 for substance abuse/recover, sexual situations, language, and brief violence. Parental discretion highly advised.
SCORE: 9 Say what you will about the "sap factor", Pay it Forward deals with some issues that truly need to be explored in today's age of desensitized indifference. With a positive message to deliver, and done so with the power of two Oscar winners and an Oscar nominee, you can't help but be caught up in the movement. So rent this movie today -- and then pay it forward. Very Highly Recommended!
There is one question I kept having to ask myself ever since I heard the first rustlings of rumors regarding a re-make of this classic Hitchcock film: "Why?" Seeing movie posters and reading more articles on this shot-for-shot retelling, the question kept popping up in my mind: "Why?" To re-make a bad film to make it better is one thing... to just re-hash a great movie begs one question:
"WHY?"
Gus van Sant delivers an exercise in plagiarism, disguised as filmmaking, with this movie. Using the same shooting script, same schedule -- even refusing advanced screenings -- as Hitchcock did, he claimed to be "delving into the mind of the master."
Excuse me while I laugh. All that Psycho '98 succeeded in doing is that it proved how gullible we are as movie-goers. We'll fall for anything once. As if we don't already know the classic story, it's about a young woman, Marion Crane (played halfway decently by Anne Heche) who steals a large sum of money to be able to go live with her boyfriend. On the way, she stops at (scary music, please) The Bates Motel. She meets up with lonely motel-keeper Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn), who seems shackled by his mother. Do I really need to go on?
Shall we run down the list of problems? First and foremost, we've already seen this movie!!! I have a personal movie-watching philosophy that states that I do not compare the books to the movies while viewing, and I don't compare originals to remakes... But COME ON!! How can you NOT compare them, when van Sant tried to make this one IDENTICAL to its predecessor??
Vaughn as Norman is horrible! He doesn't convey the innocent charm that made the original... Perkins was BORN for the role of Norman. Vaughn comes off as a cold and calculating person (who occasionally tries to stutter), and at NO point did I ever believe he was just trying to protect his mother... (Now, if the re-make had been about a serial killer trying to use his dead mother as an insanity plea, Vaughn would have worked VERY well. His eyes gave off the evil intent during his parlor chat with Marion.)
The ONLY saving grace in this entire parody of a movie-making process was that the shower scene was in color. Red blood works better for me than black blood. I also liked the gaping knife wounds in Marion's back after the deed was done.
Finally, the conclusion was not a shock -- we already KNEW how it ended, for crying out loud! What few changes that were made to the script (to update it, coff coff -- Right, for such an update, the sets all looked like they were from the '60s) lapsed into bouts of tastelessness. (The Peep-hole addition was especially disgusting -- and unnecessary.)
Mr Van Sant... you may have been trying to pay homage to the great Hitchcock, but this movie came off more as a cheap imitation (by Parfums de coeur -- may smell like Psycho, but it sure ain't Psycho) and should be destroyed, all records of its existence erased.
This movie is Rated R for some brief nudity and violence.
SCORE: 1 A pointless waste of time, unless you've never seen the original black and white movie -- and if you haven't seen it, you should. Clever marketing aside, the movie couldn't live up to its own hype, and falls flat on it's celluloid face. Avoid this movie at any cost! Rent the 1960 classic instead!
Return to top
The mistake I made in viewing this movie was having read several reviews before I saw it. These reviews called Pleasantville an allegory of society today. They called it a statement of the status quo. Of course I, being one never to look for a hidden message, scoffed and vowed not to see it that way. I was determined to see this movie as sheer entertainment. Nothing more.
Darn it, they were right.
Hidden inside this enjoyable movie is a message about how intolerant people can be of differences. And of how differences can seep inside the fabric of society and actually change the status quo.
Tobey MacGuire and Reese Witherspoon are David and Jennifer, a brother and sister who are as different as night and day. He likes an old 1950s show called Pleasantville -- knows it backwards and forwards, and wishes his life was like what the show depicts. One fateful night, a 24-hour marathon of the show is being broadcast on a TV Land-like cable network. She, on the other hand, is vixenish, and has her sights set on a "hunky" guy from school. She has invited him over to watch a concert on MTV. While fighting over the remote control (battle for which show they'll watch), it is flung against the wall and broken.
Enter Don Knotts, a mysterious "TV Repair Man", who just happens by. Once he discovers that David is a Pleasantville fan, he gives them a new remote -- one that will change their lives. Once more fighting for control of the television, they are zapped into the show. (He says it in the promo -- "We're in Pleasantville?")
What I was expecting, even after reading these blasted reviews, was a comedy about her disrupting their lives with her definitely un-'50s attitude, and him trying (in vain) to repair the damage she does. Boy, was I wrong! She does, indeed, disrupt them -- but he realizes it's just what this town needs. Color starts popping up in the black-and-white town. Even people start to colorize.... all because of new ideas, new experiences... people will NOT be content merely to be. They want a purpose. They want to explore. (Well, not me, of course... I just want to watch movies.)
Some of the black-and-whites are afraid of what the "coloreds" represent -- change. Because of this, new "laws" are passed that dictate what people can do, listen to, where they can go, etc. Violence and separatism erupt -- chaos ensues. It really is an interesting movie.
There's a powerful message in this movie. (Several, really, if you look deep enough.) And some excellent performances by the likes of Witherspoon (who goes through a complete character tranformation!), William H Macy, JT Walsh, Jeff Bridges, and Joan Allen. Just looking at the promos, you wouldn't expect much from this movie... I didn't, that's for sure.
Check it out. You might be surprised.
This movie is rated PG-13 for language and some sexuality.
SCORE: 8 This is one of the few times I've actually enjoyed a "hidden meaning" movie for its meaning. Being the type that goes to movies purely for entertainment, I was amazed at how colorful (forgive the pun) everything -- and everyone -- was. A wonderfully woven story, it's sure to bring lightness to your heart, and maybe even a tear to your eye. Highly Recommended! Return to top
An affair: Emily (Gwyneth Paltrow) is romantically involved with David (Viggo Mortensen) behind husband Steven's (Michael Douglas) back.
A plot: Jealous and powerful Steven finds out about the affair and hires David to kill Emily. (Did we mention Steven is rich?)
The twist: The murder attempt fails, and the would-be killer becomes the victim. SURPRISE! It's not David!
The intrigue: Now three suspicious people are eyeing each other to see who's going to make the first / next move. Emily knows Steven knows about the affair. Would he hire someone to kill her? Steven knows David knows Steven did it. Would he betray Steven and spill the beans? David knows he can get more money from Steven if he plays his cards right. Will Steven go for it, or will Steven hire someone ELSE to kill David?
In a remake of the classic Dial M For Murder, we are taken on a trip into the mind of a devious man. Douglas is frighteningly convincing as Steven, from the subtle looks of contempt he throws to Paltrow, to the downright ranting he gives to Mortensen. The plot will twist and turn until you're not quite sure how it will end.
However, the downside of this thing is a question: Is Emily really that stupid? First she thinks that her husband won't know of her affair (and you can see in his eyes that he does), and then after the attempt on her life, all of the evidence is glaring at her ("Hey," it yells, "Steven hired this guy to kill you and guess what? He hired your lover!"). Still she does not see it.
I really should not say too much more about this movie, for fear of plot spoiling. So I'll close now with this: Despite Paltrow's "dumb blond"-ishness, the movie is very very good.
This movie is rated R for language, sexual situations and violence.
SCORE: 8 Top notch suspense combines with excellent acting and a gripping story to make a slam-bang movie. Though the premise was a little shaky, the finished product is a worthy view. Recommended!