Everything is as in life: everyday problems and love distract from the meaninglessness of existence. And you run again. But the finish is one. For everyone.
At the very beginning of the picture, the author poses the main question: what is the point? Why do anything if everything goes to hell anyway and you die? In the critical moments of life, all this is seen differently, and no matter how much you laugh now reading this, but perhaps someday you will understand. Maybe not. -
Of course. The universe is so vast that absolutely nothing matters. Any action.
On their deathbed, people only regret that they did not live as they wanted. Impossible personal happiness. But what can happiness be with such constant thoughts? Love remains; it is true happiness. But only true and healthy.
Thus, the only thing that will help you to forget and escape from the finiteness and meaninglessness of existence is love. Rescue mechanisms for reproduction, working since antiquity.
The main character returned to reality just when he fell in love: he realized that he was not alone in his loneliness. But it's just hormones and the instinct of procreation make you move on.
You are running like a squirrel in a wheel.
Why?
This question is asked by the hero throughout the film. In recent years, the problem of the crisis of young people embarking on a difficult journey in search of themselves has become increasingly urgent. But what is it? Ordinary teenage rebellion? Fashion trends of the time? Crisis due to lack of attention and misunderstanding from others? Or a response to the ever-accelerating and increasingly complex conditions of life in which those who find themselves faster survive?
The authors of “Homework” actually created not just a film about young people. It's more than that. They themselves did a great job and tried to answer all these questions, looked into the inner world of their heroes, perceived what was happening through their eyes. It's worth a lot. And if in the same “It is good to be quieter” shows more external surroundings, then what kind of world surrounds young people and how they try to adapt to it in order to find themselves, then here it is something else. The problem is not what surrounds us; it is actually ourselves. And the words that were not said in time, the actions that were not done, the care that was not shown about those who are really important to us and surround us – all this shapes our world, our future. And it doesn’t matter how someone reacts to us, what matters is what we did to prove ourselves and win. In the words of one of the heroines – the mother of the protagonist – a woman is actually very wise, but entangled in her own problems: “You need to protect your happiness, try to keep it, be very attentive.”
There is everything here: pain and misunderstanding, rebelliousness and lies (primarily about yourself), close loud discos and evening gatherings, a lot of drinking and vomiting on the sidewalk, talk about sex and tender, still quite childish views. Behind all this lies the story of two people – Sally and George. They are very different, like two planets, but at the same time with the same problems. She is uninhibited, with ultramodern looks, he is modest and shy. He is seeking the easy way in life, he is disappointed in life and does not expect anything from it. Both have parents who don’t understand them, and don’t seem to notice at all, a complete lack of awareness of what to do in the future and a lack of understanding of what the present is for. And both have absolutely no one to lean on. In this situation, Sally and George find each other, but are afraid to admit that they are not only connected by friendship. The girl is more open and constantly speaks hints, George is afraid to admit even to himself. There is also a failed artist, the third link in the triangle that will eventually become the catalyst.
I loved Gavin Viesen's view of New York City, mostly nocturnal. And even if they are not numerous, but very picturesque. It seems to me that one of the ideas of the creators was to show the power of this city, its attractive essence. No wonder George, wandering the streets of New York, finally finds himself. And Sally wants to run away from him, although in the end she makes her choice. Remember, in Peter FM, something like that. It is interesting that even such a “concrete city” can be so alluring and attractive.
The film is very important, especially in understanding the theme of youth. We once thought that this was the problem of American schools, that we would never face such a threat (remember the many jokes and speeches of parodiists), but look at modern schools. Not superficially, get to the bottom of it.
“I was much better than I am now. I was happy, open and curious. But I knew it would all end. I was sad when I realized things would change and I would be different, probably worse. It's like nostalgia, and I was depressing.
After watching the film, a joyful and bright mood remained, the similarity with “It’s good to be quieter” pleased. Judging by the title and annotation, I expected to see an ordinary film built on relationships with classmates and pastime in class. But here, school is only one side that creates a homework problem for George that he doesn't think is important. But the school gives the origins of other aspects of his life: friendship with Sally, acquaintance with the artist, passion for drawing.
The original title "The Art of Getting By" can be translated as "the art of making ends meet", which characterizes the story of not only the main character, but also other characters. Although homework was mentioned throughout the film and in the end played an important role in solving problems, so the Russian version is perfect.
George’s reasoning is interesting to listen to, his opinions are justified, and in general the hero is impressed. In the teenage characters really believe, emotions and actions look natural, despite the fact that many parts of the plot are not very realistic and banal.
Also, while watching, I constantly paid attention to the pleasant music , which sets the right mood and is well-chosen for the situation. In general, the film exceeded my expectations, so I did not regret watching.
7 out of 10
The phenomenon of criticism in the history of European art arose in the period of Romanticism. It was assumed that the author creates his work unconsciously and is therefore unable to make objective / correct / true / measured, etc. judgments about it; to reveal the meaning of the artistic work and give it a conscious assessment is the task of the critic.
Is it not an easy task to write a response to a film seen in the context of postmodernism/post-post-modernism/metamodernism? Thrilled with reservations, you remember that they also appeared and spread in the early 19th century.
I often come across reviews accusing ' authors' that de ' is not realistic', ' yes, not so my peacock fell in love with maroushu' or ' well, a modern guy can not be horrified and want to touch a girl as something magical, like experiencing the eternal' (p.s. third option, of course, no one writes).
Here, the presupposition of authors ' is obvious; reviews that art should be realistic, meet modern realities; even better, if some socially significant problems are solved, innovative solutions for laying the railway are proposed. Usually the paintings themselves are labeled as 'romantic'.
Some say the film is for once; others say it is banal. But I have not met anyone who would stop watching this film; turned off in the beginning, in the middle.
How does the movie capture? To write about a movie, you have to be outside of it. A review of a film can only be given by someone who does not live in the film, does not experience it anymore. The problem here is that it is a reflection. Any reflection is carried out with the help of language, which is mediated by discourse, in which the author & #39 is located. Discourse dictates rules. I will assume that it is when the viewer tries to say something about the film, to say something clearly for others, including in the space of the speech expressed, his speech and impressions are mediated by the rules of discourse, which at this moment are actualized. He subjects his impressions to the evaluation of culture and gives an answer that is already mediated by culture. In summary, it is impossible to express impressions about the film, or more broadly, about art, without mediating them with an assessment of others, an assessment of culture. In this sense, I often see in reviews the self-criticism of the author. In this sense, when you watch a movie, read a book, look at pictures, etc., you should not try to tell something, say something already during the experience of this. Speak only if speech tears you to shreds; only if you can say you are not speaking. Then you have poetic moments, my friend. Be more careful with yourself: a poet does not have unpoetic watches.
Back to the movie. The plot speaks for itself. The film is fascinating because it is a dream. The dream of authors, creators. The audience is living a dream. Watching the film, and not trying to say it, the viewer dreams. I read all sorts of reviews in which the causticity of the syllable was a negative assessment of dreaminess, dreams as such. When such films are called banal, the common place is precisely that it is a dream.
The sad thing about all films of this genre is that usually as a dream there is some socially approved way of acting, which depends only on the discourse ' creators'. So this is just propaganda. In this sense, these films are only projects of life for their viewers. That is why so often you hear ' this does not happen ' from ' the pessimists and realists who have seen everything in life '.
Should I watch this movie? As you wish, according to the results of the review. Such films are cathartic in their purpose. For some, these are outdoor movies.
However, the last thing to do after watching a movie is to have hopes that tomorrow you will do everything right, he/she will do everything right; that everything will get better and the swallow will nest under your window. It is not necessary to make plans for the future after watching a dream film, it is not necessary to maintain the overflowing will, determination to act. Note: in such films ' hero-losers' are not able to foresee future events and not by their will to complete the storyline. According to the plot, they carry Fortune, an analogue of the ancient Greek goddess Tyuhe. This goddess is not so much luck as a lot, chance. Chance, not the will of the hero, decides the question of the plot.
The only sad thing is that I have never seen a tragedy film; the difference in tragedy is that troubles and adversity are accidental, not luck.
How much did I dream of watching a movie? 8 out of 10 on average; 6 to 10 out of 10
5 years after the premiere of this film, we can safely assume that the author’s project Gavin Viesen was not a successful start to his career. Critics called the film "second-rate", the fees are meager, and even at Sundance it was only one of 115 premieres of the year and nothing more. But is the movie that bad? I don't think so.
I won’t list the shortcomings long. Now let’s talk about the most valuable merit of the film – the subtext. To understand this, it is not even necessary to watch the film - just casually read the reviews. Everyone saw their philosophy, their main question and their main answer. I didn’t see anything except a little melodrama. For me, this movie is a story of choice. Viesen immerses the characters in a situation where they have to choose a model of behavior, and then tells the consequences, bringing the plot to the next choice, and so on until the very end, when the last phrase of the film was the words “I don’t know”. But at the same time, the picture is also about love, teenage problems, self-determination, family values, friendship, art - oh, Gavin, stuffed so stuffed. Even overdid it.
And here comes the main drawback of this film – fantastic. For all those philosophical attempts that are laid in the script, the timing situation is clearly more than an hour and a half. Ridley Scott's got 3 hours in the latest movies to muzzle a basic biblical truth, while Viesen has an independent project, by the way. It turns out that what is happening on the screen is so unlike reality.
Separately, I want to highlight the operator’s work. I have had a lot of aesthetic pleasure, thank you.
P.S.: George’s graduation picture turned out very cool, I paused for 5 minutes. That's how I paint!
A typical teenage love story. The main place of action and the place where the main characters will meet is the school. This is all very banal. But the main character is far from ordinary, which makes the film probably unique in its kind. Of course, many people don’t do their homework, but I don’t think anyone else explains it the way George does.
Main characters:
George Highmore, a high school student who once realized that we were all going to die and there was no point in doing homework. He goes to school just so he doesn't get kicked out and all he does in class is draw, no matter what class he's in. And he paints pretty well, by the way. The only thing he ate in the whole movie was cereal and milk. He probably smokes. He drinks a little. Misanthropus by nature.
Sally (Emma Roberts) is a schoolgirl. She's a regular schoolgirl. He smokes, hangs out with friends, and does his homework. Not much is said about her as George, but we learn that her mother gave birth to her at 16 and her father was a trucker.
Acting game:
The actors played their roles very well. As usual, Freddie Highmore got used to the role quite well.
Bottom line:
It’s an interesting film, I’ve watched it twice and I can say it’s a great story. The main character is unusual and it is quite cool.
Although most people have a bad attitude towards the film (mostly I have seen a lot of exclamations, allegedly Sally is too promiscuous, to put it mildly), I think this is a very interesting picture, perhaps it is due to the fact that this topic is close to me.
9 out of 10
Stunningly kind, gentle, sincere and open film. "Homework." George, the protagonist, struck me with his equanimity and sometimes overwhelming honesty. And then there's a completely calm argument for your position. Why do anything if everything is broken? And everyone will die sooner or later? Over the entire existence of the Earth, more than 10 billion people have been born, each of whom has either already died or will die in the not so distant future. If the script is known in advance, why watch the movie? For example, you read a book, you know all the secrets and even the fact that the killer is a butler, and you still go to the movies for the adaptation. You know why? Because you're wondering how it's going to be. I'm curious. And here's a lifetime, yes, in the end we're all going to die, but isn't it interesting what happens before that moment? It will only take a second and maybe a decade. And none of us know how we get from point A to point B. In the film, George realized that there are people around who live. A mother who needs him, his firmness, his presence. He also realized that what is true is worth living.
Especially if it's your first love. Especially if to the “false licentious girl” (here – with a very soft and smiling smile). The worst sins in the world were committed for love. And there's love in George's life. He's in love with art, he's in love with Sally, he's in love with his mom, he's in love with the teachers who gave so much and demanded so little in return. Very bright film, very sincere and clean. And the main character? In such a sincere and damn smart and talented guy it is impossible not to fall in love, no one can resist, so the film is the same - it is impossible to resist. I remember the actor as a boy — in August Rush, and even earlier in the story of the miniputes. Here it also appears special, unusual and absolutely real. He is very good at playing honesty and life inside. Maybe not play? Maybe Freddie Heimer really is. He's too charming not to like his movies. It was only for this that I got to know one of the people on Earth who made me watch August Rush for the first time. There's no grades here. Just emotions, calmness and a smile. And happiness for the main characters. If you feel subtly and you are not afraid to decide on one of the most important actions, recognizing the inconsistency of your views, then you will find a little happiness watching “Homework” with Freddie Haimer and Emma Roberts in the lead roles. By the way. Google tells me it's tragicomedy, and it's independent cinema. How can you stand now? Director Gavin Viesen with his own script. Behind him there is another short film, and the film “Charker”, which should be released in 2016, and J. K. Simpson announced in the title role.
10 out of 10
I do not like to read reviews before watching the film, and I am very glad that I did not do it now: there are very few reviews that contradict my opinion.
I started watching this film as a simple household melodrama, I would even say typical ' New York' film about love. But then something inside of me got excited and started empathizing with Josh. I will not talk about the scenery, cinematography, director’s work and other things that are not basic for this film. Yes, I think in this case, the quality of them was eclipsed by the plot and play of the actors (mostly the actor, but more on that later).
I'm 17, I'm finishing 11th grade this year, and for me, more than anyone, the subject of this film is close. Like Josh, I find it hard to find the motivation to work. It's just as hard to love and to be wrong. I think the relationship of the main characters, with its apparent simplicity, perfectly illustrates the relationship of different people to love as such. Josh doesn't want to be simple, fast and romantic. He thinks too much.
Freddie Highmore fits perfectly into this role of a closed and thoughtful young artist, and Emma Roberts, although she was accused of falsehood, also plays her role, in my opinion, almost flawlessly.
It’s not about homework (so I’m very confused about adaptation). This is a film about youth, and so what I personally find in it overshadows all the shortcomings of its implementation.
Decide, work, love and make a choice. For those who have already done so, remember: it is never too late to change everything. Nothing is impossible.
The film is on the verge of empathy and indifference.
I’ve been postponing this movie for a long time, but there came a time when I had to watch it. The film maneuvers on the verge of empathy with the main character and absolute indifference to what is happening. Many topics are not disclosed, for example, the relationship of the main character and his “mentor” in art, the relationship of the main character and his drawing teacher and much more are not disclosed. The film tries to show the feelings of a creative teenager that he is downtrodden, that he is wonderful that he does not communicate with anyone and does not do homework.
The cast is not exactly selected, not quite accurately guessed with the images of the characters and types of actors, for example, the main character was not a pretty teenager with a cute smile and frowning rough guy. It seems to me that the director and those who selected the actors just wanted to score the film with a more less famous face, take at least a young artist played by Michael Angarano, he is not at all appropriate here.
In general, the film as a whole would be good if the authors and the director did not try, as always, to cram famous faces on the cover of the film.
5 out of 10
The beginning of the film seemed intriguing - all these speeches about the meaninglessness of the world, about birth and death alone and so on. But what's next?
So, we see a typical school, typical teenagers with typical hormones, typical hangouts, typical parenting brawls à la "I'm such a complicated teenager with a rich inner world, and mom/dad doesn't understand me" - the basis of most films for teenagers. But what's next?
The main character is a rebel who expresses all his protest by not doing his homework, justifying it by spending time more productively. How? No way. Yes, he has a natural talent, but he does not try to develop it, does not try to somehow realize himself in life, because there is no meaning in life at all.
The environment of our protagonist. Sally is a girl who doesn’t represent anything, just as strange as George. Throughout the film, she acts like a typical, sorry, woman who doesn't know what she wants. George is actually doing the same thing. Nothing clearing conversations, ostentatious resentment, running from one guy to another without expressing any feelings on his face. The annotation reads "Sally's complicated girl." Where, I'm sorry, is its complexity? If it consists in the fact that she goes to parties and rubs with a bunch of different guys and roughly does homework, then this is not a difficulty, but what is called “mother did not look.” I did not see anything in her that would make her a person - neither special interests, nor hobbies, nor, especially, intelligent thoughts.
Teachers. This is a separate topic, really. The literature teacher calmly endures the daily lack of homework and says George has more potential than other students. The drawing teacher, swearing at the mat, the director who pretends that he cares, although he clearly does not care, as well as George's parents.
In general, all the characters are terribly boring, phrases are stamped and do not express anything, actions are illogical, the expression of at least some feelings I saw only in George’s mother.
Well, at the end of the day, the movie isn't that bad. Good camera work, beautiful views of the city, good music. A film with a claim to atmosphericity, but it is like candy: the wrapper is beautiful, but the filling is tasteless. Fresh.
Conclusion: as they say, “begin for health...” At first there was some hint of ideological depth, but it quickly disappeared, and there was a porridge in which they mixed all the things that in theory should excite young minds: a glass of scenes from school life, a spoonful of love, a little isolation and teenage experiences, flavored with uncertainty and light melancholy. Yes, there is such a period in life, but I am convinced that the film should teach something. In this film, the logic is completely absent, I did not see any message in it, and therefore
5 out of 10
There are people who, even at twenty-five, will behave like children who will not play around. (c)
The subject of growing up is very difficult to think about. It has long been known that children can dream on a large scale and regardless of all the factors that adults think are significant. And the question immediately arises: “Is it worth growing up?” After all, entering the adult world, a person loses the ability to dream. A routine life begins that ends only with death. George - the main character of this story, reminded a little boy lost in adulthood. He was not introverted, he was selfish, self-confident, and lived as if he were completely alone. And to be honest, he was unbearably annoying with this behavior. Looking at him in my head, another question arises: “Maybe it is still worth growing up?” George looked pathetic, but did not elicit sympathy. At the beginning of the film, he said, Why study if we all die? In order to go to another world, you must first live. This little boy forgot the main thing, sinking into problems that he invented himself. That’s probably why I don’t feel good.
For me, the romantic line didn't help him grow up. He may say the opposite, but Sally rather opened the world to his future, but did not become a trigger for a real man to grow out of a little boy. But that doesn’t make romance superfluous in this story. It is gradual, emerging on real friendship, recognition and only in the finale the main characters realize who they are to each other. That’s what I liked – the writer made the main emphasis not on George’s love experiences, but on his understanding of life, when everything collapsed right before his eyes. Then love faded into the background and for the first time in the whole film I fell in love with the main character. I saw a man in the boy and smiled at such a sudden turn. From a pathetic guy, he became a real adult boy on whom you can and should rely.
The topic of friendship was also touched upon. Maybe it doesn’t seem like the main thing, but for me, this part was the most exciting. George is a misanthrope and so watching him suddenly realize he is no longer alone is beautiful and makes him smile. The audience is shown an artist who was able to find something special in the boy’s soul and begins to feel that this is a real friendship. Until the two heroes go to the art gallery. Yes, they are completely different and it does not unite them, but rather the opposite. From this, the final moments are so wonderful, when the main character is waiting for the decision of his future fate. Friends are always known in difficult times and George was able to find them.
As for the film itself, it’s monotonous and, to be honest, it’s not my type. I prefer the speaker, and here and fall asleep not long, but immediately I want to refute the previous phrase – did not want to sleep. I was afraid to miss just a word or the smallest details, so I just stared at the screen, never going anywhere throughout the film. It's wonderful that such a calm story could keep the tension going until the final. I couldn’t help but cry.
Freddie Highmore will always be for me a little boy with an incredibly cute appearance, from which it is difficult to look away. He may be older than me, and he doesn't look so amazing, but there's a certain charm in him and this really childish look that I don't see anyone else in him. He's a great actor, it's nice to watch him and I'm really glad there's so much of him in this story.
9 out of 10
And again, returning to the main question: Is it worth growing up? And yes, definitely should. Only, even as an adult, do not stop dreaming, because this is the most important thing a person can do.
By the way, I started watching the film only because of Emma Roberts, it begins to seem that these are the majority here. I began to look, despite the ambiguous assessments and frightening reviews of critics. It's hard to say I'm sorry.
The camera work is extremely good, the picture is very pleasant, warm and a little soothing. It makes no sense to talk about the scenery, because the scenery can be counted on the fingers of one hand, but this is not at all a minus of the film - thanks to this, you quickly "domesticated" in the life of the main character.
The film from the first minutes immerses in the atmosphere of slowness of what is happening and concentrates on 2 obvious characters of the film performed by Emma and Freddie, who perfectly succeeded. I will talk about the plot separately, but watching them in one frame is great. Their play is at a decent level, and the play of secondary characters at least does not prevent you from enjoying the previous ones.
Unfortunately, the story did not work as well as all of the above. The episode raised the problem of becoming an unusual, gifted teenager George with a difficult character as a person and a useful member of society, and the relationship with Sally was something of a pleasant plot edge. But surprisingly, gradually this storyline is almost completely replaced by the romantic component. In the end, as they say, neither fish nor meat. And if it turned out relatively smoothly to unleash the plot with the choice of my place in life, the romantic line left me with a feeling of irritation and bewilderment.
Despite all the flaws, the film holds and leaves for some time after watching in a certain mood of easy happiness and peace. But it’s the merit of the main actors and Gavin Viesen as a director, but not a screenwriter who, I think, got the most out of his script.
The film “Homework” is just a brilliant invention of the director, for which he is personally grateful.
The story of the film is unusual and original, makes you think about life. Excellent cast, in which the actors gave 100%.
Freddie Highmore – I think I didn’t appreciate his talent, he’s just a great actor, in this film he tried to fame.
Emma Roberts is a talented actress, in my opinion this is her only decent role in her entire career.
Elizabeth Reeser is an amazing and very beautiful actress. Her character Charlotte tried to become a caring mother.
In conclusion, I want to add that the love of a guy, regardless of his character, temperament, shyness and other factors, falls in love, changes dramatically.
Based on the title of the film - 'Homework' and genres of melodrama and drama, I expected to see another snotty film in pink tones about school love, betrayal and so on. But I was wrong. It may not be a masterpiece, but it is definitely worth watching. I liked the plausibility. The protagonist is so sincere in his feelings that you yourself begin to believe in everything that happens there.
I enjoyed the soundtracks, really well selected. Also landscapes, chic beauty of New York perfectly complement the image.
The cast was delighted. Freddie Highmore is perfect for the role of a lonely guy with oddities (this is my opinion). I find it difficult to play a smart, talented boy and a non-homeworking schoolboy, and he did it perfectly. I really like his image.
Emma Roberts is a perfect fit for the role of a neutral girl. I think there is one in every movie.
In general, the film makes you think about a lot. Not after watching, but from the beginning. I don’t know about the others, but for me personally, the film is motivating and empowering.
Starting watching this movie, you expect to relax and not think about anything serious. Another youth film about love, not tense, kind, such now can not count — I thought. And finally...
I ended up spending time on something that desperately tried to seem like a deep film with a claim to philosophical conclusions. That was the most annoying thing. As noted earlier, dozens of young cute and light films have already been shot like a copier, which, however, did not pretend to be anything else, did not say “We have solved the meaning of life”, in this respect they can even be called honest. While “Homework” – with its clumsy replicas, languid glances of actors tried to pass off its absurdity and emptiness for something worthwhile and weighty. This deliberate “deception” sets the viewer against the film, forcing him to see only the negative and that’s when the problem of images becomes convex, since these images directly press on the eye with their plane (what did she write?).
Such carefree mothers, like Mama Sally, was a shocking discovery in the cinema once a very long time ago, because before that the image of the mother was idealized, from movie mothers did not expect vulgar behavior and frankness, especially in the presence of a friend of the daughter (about tickling). But now it is not new, Charlotte is nothing interesting.
George! What, an introverted boy? Creative person? Poor man, you didn't care about the writers. How the writers spit on the audience! How did the writers feel sorry for themselves and did not work out the image, limiting themselves to the words of the director: “George, you are difficult!” That's it!
And of course, Sally, another girl from an incomplete family, where a frivolous mother with free morals, just forces her daughter to become an adult and responsible.
All you find in Homework is parody, insincerity and incredible bombast! Pseudo depth, pseudo-morality, pseudo-sense, pseudo-... pseudo... pseudo-... The whole film is made under the pseudo sign!
“Why should I study and do my homework if I’m going to die anyway?” thought George, a withdrawn teenager with problems with motivation.
In general, the film from the first second seemed to me too depressing and somehow wrong, clearly unlike other melodramas. But after a while, I realized I was wrong. The idea that we will all die, of course, is not the most positive, but by the middle of the film, the main character loses such thoughts, because love changes people. By the way, as it turned out later, not only George (Freddie Highmore) life is not going well. Sally (Emma Roberts) also has problems, and they are not negligible.
Both got confused. Suddenly, a friendship that grew into something more caused fear and despair. “Someday we’ll be together,” Sally said, but I had a question: why not now? What prevents two pretty and rather stupid young people from stepping over fear and saying those cherished words?
And to be honest, the main character was afraid of everything: afraid of love, afraid of change, afraid of revealing his talent, afraid of life itself. That is why he was in constant depression and tried not to stand out. But soon everything changes and the world makes sense. George finds himself (it turns out that he also has everything in order with motivation), falls in love with the girl of his dreams, finds happiness.
Don’t expect much from the movie. The plot is not new, there is no special sharpness and heat of passions, by the middle of the film you understand that the happy end is inevitable. So what's left? A banal, but interesting story about difficult teenagers.
Despite all the melancholy and grayness of the picture, the film, oddly enough, remain positive impressions.
George (Freddie Highmore) is an almost uninterested, uncommunicative teenager. He has abandoned his studies, does not want to develop his ability to draw and does not want anything from life. You can even say that this young man is already disappointed. Almost according to Bram Stoker:"... twenty-year-old old people and old women wander around the world tiredly.
George has a simple philosophy. As a child, I read the phrase, “We live alone and die alone.” So why waste your life on work, effort, struggle? For illusions? After all, neither friends nor girls, nor conjugation of verbs, nor extraction of the square root and hypotenuse will help me avoid my fate, he says. What can you say about someone who says such words? He's weak, passive and lazy. It's also very impressionable. And lonely.
Perhaps such a characteristic could be given to an adult. But George is a teenager. Hormones are bubbling, everything seems wrong, not the way it should be. The world seems hostile, just like the people around them, who, as the main character thinks, do not understand or accept anything. And then there was the sudden unrequited love for a girl named Sally (Emma Roberts), quarrels with her family and pressure from teachers. In short, a complete set of teenage difficulties. And the protracted transitional age as a consequence.
Only a very strong shake can lead to this kind of depression.
And George shook. It shook hard. Suddenly there was a purpose in his life. The conjugation of verbs, the extraction of the square root and the hypotenuse - all this finally made sense.
Well, does it really need to produce an earthquake in the minds of people to bring them out of a coma and return to a normal life course?
Perhaps the point of this movie is to remind some adults that the lives of their teenage children are more complicated than they seem. That they need attention, need care, need parents who will not allow to slide into the abyss of depression.
This is all wonderful, of course. Only for some reason, these Georges are now becoming more and more, and shakes on them no longer work.
Every time we stay together, we think. We think about life, death, friends, relatives, love and hatred. But the more often we are left alone, the more we think, and constant reflection gradually drives a person into themselves. When I saw the picture, I really thought, Why all this? Why do we live if we die sooner or later? The picture turned out to be deep, penetrating into the very soul of a person who knows firsthand what loneliness is, all-consuming loneliness, loneliness, which covers you from all sides and does not let go for a second.
George is a typical associal introvert, his actions are inexplicable, he keeps all his feelings within himself and with each passing day more and more often asks himself the same question: “Why...?” Meeting Sally changes him a little, he falls in love, but can't admit it. At heart, he is alone and goes through life with one single phrase he learned as a child: “We were born alone and will die alone.”
Sally is the exact opposite of George. Active, open girl, constantly looking for something in life. Although they are very different, but their childhood was about the same, both of them received a powerful emotional outburst, in the form of the departure of one of the parents.
In the middle of the film, the phrase goes, "You're too fast, active for him." This phrase is addressed to Sally when she finally realizes that she is also in love. She may be active, but George’s slowness will help Sally, as the saying goes, “opposites attract.” George would be for Sally the one who would not let her “exceed the speed”, because once you accelerate and you will never be able to return to the previous track.
In the end, the film made a lasting impression on me, which I have not received in a long time. Actors are chosen more conveniently than ever and the choice of Emma Roberts for the main female role is an accurate hit on the target.
If you want to watch a romantic film and not be content with one-off comedies, where everything is simply disfigured by the cliché of films about school love, then the film Homework is for you.
10 out of 10
What is this cute boy doing in such a horrible movie?
'Oh, well, that's it, that's enough, turn this movie off, or I can't press the stop because of this terribly cute actor starring' - these thoughts began to haunt me in the middle of the film and I never reached the final credits. Pathetic American movies don't get it, don't get it, they welcome another flawed creation.
Plot.
Oh, he did. The film begins with the questions that every teenager knows why we should live, because we will all die anyway. I am a teenager and I often think about it. I thought that in this film there will be answers, but, alas, the writers completely hammered out about this topic and reduced everything to the usual banalism, which vomits, like from rotten fish. The plot is bursting at the seams. I don’t know what the characters want. Dialogue is scant, no character is fully revealed. Everything is spontaneous (not unexpected, but spontaneous) and stupid. The impression that not only viewers get acquainted with the life of the heroes, but the heroes themselves get acquainted with it. Finished the phrase of the mother when she was talking to her son: ' Have you already decided who you will be?' For a second it seemed that now she would ask: ' Well, how old are you?'
The cast.
Freddie Highmore (George). The actor’s play largely depends on the script, but in any case, the guy absolutely did not convince. No sympathy, no compassion, no admiration. In my humble opinion, he is not suitable for this role. It's really sweet. He would have played the role of a school star that all girls want, but not the role of a misanthropic boy.
Emma Roberts (Sally). This is the second film I have seen with her. And I can say that Emma is literally haunted by failure in her choice of films. In this film, her role is so poorly written that it is impossible to describe it.
Michael Angarano (Dustin). Perhaps the only virtue of this film is this artist who kind of falls in love with Sally. He looks very much like Harry Oldman, which makes him incredibly sexy. True, even the only advantage has a disadvantage: sometimes it seems as if he has no idea what he is doing. ' You have to be together, it's wrong' - he says, and in his words there is as much confidence as the whales in my bath.
Not only did I not like the movie, I even hated it. Wasted an hour of time. I don't recommend watching. Even those who just want to kill time, take the likeness of a good movie the tenth way.
A typical film whose only purpose is to make money.
I was fascinated by the description of the film: it seemed to be about me. But the acting and their behavior led me to constant confusion. Everything is very, very strange, detached from real life. In this regard, the film can be called romantic. It's all too sweet and depressing. Even parties with booze and loose girls were saturated with the atmosphere of a children's matinee.
Bewilderment was caused by the relationship between the main characters of the film, when an adult boy and a girl behaved like 10-year-old children who were afraid to even take each other by the hand. A sad sight.
Such films would be interesting for children of primary and secondary school age, who are so interested in watching the lives of teenagers. Well, reasonable adults should not watch this movie.
The only reason the film didn’t leave me indifferent was that every five minutes I shouted to the main character: ' You’re fucked up!'
So, the film begins quite interestingly with a small monologue of the main character, a high school student, he is a depressed, always frustrated artist who sincerely does not understand why he should do anything if only one outcome is death. “We live and die alone.” Everything else is an illusion. But then everything changes dramatically, he meets the one and only, and then we see the whole way of his correction and return to life from meeting new people, cleansing the stomach at the exit of the nightclub and to the boring illogical sweet-sweet end.
I did not like the film for a number of reasons, the characters are template and for some reason do not believe at all, I do not know whose flaw here, whether acting or directorial, but looking at the main character, you wonder that you can find such an interesting thing in her, the tears of the main character are as insincere as his quarrels with his mother or teachers (although Highmore himself, as an actor, I like). Even the fight was filmed unconvincingly, which is a little hurtful, because a little tinnitus to the film would not hurt and even brighten my impressions.
The plot, especially the ending, is pulled by the ears, probably at the whim of the director or simply because he did not come up with anything better. In general, a film for teenagers about teenagers, template, fake, not raising and not solving any important problems.
I continued to watch it only from principle and in the hope that I would be offered a solution to those existential problems that arose before the main character, some morality and thought, so, they are not there.
From the positive in the film - good camera work and musical accompaniment.
When the pink childhood dreams are crushed against the gray realities of a cruel life, when the first questions about the meaning of life will be taken by the immature minds of yesterday’s children, and unexplored feelings will be swallowed with their heads, tearing from within and covering at the same time. My childhood is over.
And the world is so complex and beautiful, insanely fascinating and endlessly ruthless will open its arms. Where yesterday’s “you” will no longer exist.
The company Fox searchlight pictures presented the feature film “Homework” or “The Art of Getting by”, in the genre of “other” cinema. This is a modern attempt to tell the story of the turning point, the moment of growing up.
“We live alone and die alone. Everything else is an illusion. So why waste your life on work, effort, or struggle? For illusion... After all, no friends, no girls, no conjugation of verbs, no extraction of the square root of the hypotenuse will not help me avoid my fate. I know how to spend my time better.
This is how George’s story begins.
One day, George realized that the prospect of imminent doom was inevitable, and that his vain attempts were unlikely to change anything. He could not sleep for a long time, realizing the pettiness of his own problems. When, against the background of such an important and terrible discovery, everything around pales. So why do homework, at least it makes no sense.
George's inner fatalist took over the dreamy artist. And only strange doodles, not without charm and obvious talent, bred on the pages of the textbook, a vain echo of an abandoned childhood dream.
He used to be different, maybe less miserable. When the marriage of the parents has not yet fallen apart, confidently declaring that “we lived happily ever after” is just a phrase from the context of a children’s fairy tale. Confirming the inevitability of the death and illusory of everything in the world.
And George, depressed and detached like a phantom, wrapped in a black cloak, left... fatally went into himself.
Until Sally came into his life. Confident, cheerful and easy to communicate. Interested in the strangeness of George Sally opens the ordinary world in a completely different light, awakening it to life. Without darkness there is no light, without sorrow there is joy. And if you think a lot about the future, and not long to go crazy.
But Sally is a temporary companion in the tumultuous flow of life. And George's heart is sure to break in her tender hands, thereby emphasizing the fatality of being.
Depression didn’t make the movie that way. "Homework" looks easy and without haste tells the story of the fatalist George. There is no deep drama, emotions and tears. The slowness of the narrative gradually answers questions such as “why do I need everything”, approaching the denouement of the plot and the choice of the main character. Behind the exterior simplicity and ease of the film lies a profound thought. A story of growing up and difficult choices. Interesting "movie" with a claim to serious cinema.
Homework says that anything is possible in this life if you want to. In spite of the pain and disappointments, we have joy and happiness. But this is deprived of bystanders and temporary fellow travelers of life. Without darkness there is no light, without sorrow there is joy.
Taking off rose-colored glasses and not losing the childhood dream, embarking on the path of growing up, is much easier when there is someone nearby. Especially to comprehend such science as making ends meet and the art of life ("The art of getting by") is very, very difficult, but certainly possible. Who says growing up is easy?
The movie is very strange. Even after watching it, I can’t fully understand it.
On pluses:
I liked the main character in the guise of a closed, not striving for anything, unhappy person who did not understand, ' what he is doing here at all' His tears even made me cry. I also liked the idea of the film, the storyline and the pictures in the film (of course, George). Unfortunately, that's all.
Now on the minuses:
I didn’t like the character played by Emma Roberts. She was nothing in this movie. I don’t even understand what kind of image they wanted to create: the image of a frivolous & #39; a lying and cruel girl & #39; or still a smart, aspiring girl. George's parents made no impression at all. They were some empty, empty images, not embodied in reality. I didn’t even see them in the movie.
In general, I’m skeptical about the film, you can see it, but the film is for once, I don’t think I want to ever watch it. I will probably forget him soon.
The film was completely unimpressive. Whether it is a banal scenario, or in mediocre camera work, or in the bad play of young actors. Freddie Highmore, who gave great hopes as a child (we recall at least “Magic Country”, where he outplayed Depp himself) grew up in an uninteresting actor. With Emma Roberts, too, everything is clear – this girl came to Hollywood not because of outstanding talent.
Perhaps my words will accept, most likely, few, but even if you discard the above, let’s admit that “Homework” is like dozens of paintings with similar scenarios and problems. I didn’t see anything new, unexpected or interesting here. And from films, with an application for philosophicalness, for teenagers, you always expect some kind of morality, albeit not deep, but curious thought. She wasn't here.
The boy who changed his whole outlook because of the girl, and the girl who pretends to be a woman and does not understand herself. The characters turned out to be fake, the story is strained and boring. I don't recommend watching this movie. Simply because it is smooth, unsophisticated and will not give you a smile, no tears, no melancholy in childhood.
4 out of 10
In this wonderful film, aimed at a seemingly teenage audience, philosophical, sometimes uncharacteristic questions are raised. And the most interesting thing is that an attentive viewer will be able to find answers to them! Many questions are reduced to eternal, for example, to the question “What is the meaning of life?”, and the main character finds the answer to it, at least for himself.
The topic of finding yourself in teenage films is not new, but Gavin Viesen considered this problem from a new angle.
The main character (Freddy Highmore) is a young talented person, a teenager who has no peer friends, tormenting himself with serious thoughts about life and its consequences. He has trouble getting motivated to do his homework - he doesn't see the point in doing it.
The main character (Emma Roberts) is a girl without obligations, growing up with a single mother. From childhood, the girl has before her eyes examples of love relationships of a mother who alternately sleeps with various young people. Of course, a girl raised in such a family tradition has no idea of true love. She reduces all feelings to carnal instincts not because she wants it, but because it is so, in her opinion, right.
The love of these heroes is the first. They do not know how to show their feelings, and therefore express them in the way they want, in the way they think is right.
This is an incredibly interesting film that you watch with a sinking heart and in one breath. A stunningly shot picture with deep meaning. Bravo!
This is what the main character says to the headmaster of his school. That is, all such a mysterious misatropic, you realize your detachment from the world, expressing it ... damn it, just that you are not doing homework.
That was the first thought that came up during the whole movie. The second thought was about when it will be over, and maybe it is still worth turning it off and going to bed.
The film has zero potential and a very, very boring plot, although the idea is interesting, albeit new: there is a boy who does not feel the taste for life, who has lost hope and all that, but then he meets a smart cheerful beauty, falls in love with her and - voila - the meaning of life is again found in her arms. And all would be fine, but the beauty of the main character is difficult to call, as well as clever, as well as just thinking special, I don’t know how old the actress is, but she didn’t even look eighteen. A strange friend and at all “pleased” with his teenage reasoning and vatokata mood. In short, I didn’t like the main characters, and I didn’t even like the secondary ones. Mother and stepfather generally behave like fish - very false emotions.
Perhaps in all this incorrectness, slowness and other shortcomings lies the director’s plan. Maybe, but that doesn't make them worth it. For the fact that Highmore climbed out of his skin -
I can’t say that the movie is so poor, but there is almost no reason to smile. Emma Roberts throughout her acting career has not impressed in any film, what can not be said about her aunt (Julia Roberts). This film did not become a springboard to demonstrate the talent of the young star, as always the game of a teenager from a family with difficulties in relations between the older and younger generations was not particularly given to her, throughout the film it felt that this was just a game.
The plot itself was also not impressed with originality, we can say that this is only one of thousands of routine fragments of growing up. Yes, first love is a good reason and interesting for movies and books, but I don’t think there’s much sweat on the script, although I liked George’s stance on life, and I think that’s his attitude and made me not close the browser in the first twenty minutes.
In general, you can watch one time, but I do not see anything tenacious that I want to think about later, perhaps only my skepticism interferes, who knows.
The voiceover, speaking simple truths in the film's introduction, promised a philosophy-filled picture. And everything turned out to be painfully simple: school, first love, conflicts with parents.
Schoolchild George (Freddy Highmore) paints well, has no friends, eats cereal with milk and does not perform homework, because he sees no sense in this: we will all die anyway. A fellow soldier Sally (Emma Roberts) - smokes, lives a carefree life and is quite relaxed with guys. Heroes meet naturally at school, and then love happens naturally.
Claim: The main characters. Freddie Highmore, given his impressive filmography, feels like a fish in the water in any project. Emma Roberts, a girl of “successful genes” acts no less convincingly and creates a beautiful teenage duet with her partner in the picture.
Film lesson: If you really want, you can still do it.
Freddie Highmore, the star of Arthur and the Miniputes and the genius August Rush, has finally been given the adult role. What happened? He failed. No, I think he's a good actor, and I'm not saying that a bad image is entirely his fault. After all, the script of the film is still a slag. Just imagine, an hour and a half in cinematic locations staggers, perhaps, the most spineless, lazy and dull slob, which the author is presented as a gifted artist in the depths of existential crisis. He's got teachers jumping around him, the principal, the golden mother, but he doesn't give a shit. He is deeply unhappy and revels in his suffering. After a while, he meets a young whore who talks, does, but does not think much. All she cares about is partying and scratching in one place. And so, all these characters are trying to interact with each other in some crooked, oblique way, but they don't do a damn thing. It is not possible to even portray someone’s strange lives, because what is happening is absurd. GG enthusiastically draws incomprehensible ugliness, which is quite traditional for American films with such indige children, GYnia starves with starvation eyes at all the men she comes across (acting males are catastrophically few, only two, so it is very difficult for her). The rest of the zoo from small to large jumps on the cylinders around both.
In the end, an unexpected unfounded suddenly happens.
In short, Freddie Highmore looks like a dull wimp here, Emma Roberts is a selfish bitch, even if not a mother. The message to the audience of the authors as if from the primer pushed, before it was nursery. There is no logic in it either. (This is how poor the American education system should be, that you can do all the tasks in a year in three weeks!)
A really strange movie is about nothing, with unsympathetic characters. Only the Submarine is worse.