The Sweet East

The movie follows a girl named Lillian, who, on a whim, decides to run away and embarks on a journey across America. Along the way, she encounters a series of extreme characters, each representing different facets of society.

Lillian to written to be as apathetic, opinionated, and jaded and for most the movie she remains this way. So I think Lillian serves as a lens through which we observe these encounters, not an actual driver of the plot simply there.

Interestingly, she remains largely unchanged by the experiences she goes through, which for me raises questions about her character's depth. While the diverse individuals she meets have profound stories and perspectives, Lillian's lack of development can make it feel like we're missing out on deeper reflections on these interactions.

This is why the story might have benefited from being a series rather than a standalone film. In a show format, Lillian could have had the space to reflect on her experiences, allowing her character to evolve in response to the people she meets. She doesn't have to change as a person because I think how she was written is also central to the message of the movie but there simply isn't enough breathing room in the movie, and there would have been some wonderfully emotional scenes if there was just the chance to.

Since the director was cameraman on the film Good Time, I had high expectations. But the film was a disappointment. Poorly acted, implausible situations, tedious drawn-out conversations (blah blah blah about Edgar Allan Poe etc).

Magic movie? All in wonderland? Punk fairy tale? None of that. The makers are still all adolescents and it shows, there is no fondness in it. Just Fried Air. I imagine Young people who haven't seen many films yet could probably find it special or so

I'm open to a lot ( I read references to John waters in a review ) but after three quarters of an hour it becomes too much for me, so I quit, life is too short to spend on bad movies like this one.

High school student Lillian (Talia Ryder) and her classmates from South Carolina are on a field trip to Washington, D. C. She sets off on her own to have a series of rambling adventures.

Lillian is the bohemian pixie dream girl, a cousin of the manic pixie dream girl. She's more chilled. She goes on a meandering 70's style journey into outsider America. I'm intrigued by her trip for the first half. She's cute and is that girl. After about an hour, the movie goes off the rails. It does something completely ridiculous. The quirky rambling series of new friends becomes a rather silly random event. At that point, the movie loses me and it never gets me back.

The 17-18 year old high school senior who is the supposedly "picaresque" main character in this flick is utterly obnoxious in her vacant, empty, amoral approach to life. In many ways she seems younger, more like a 13 or 14 year old perhaps who is worried about being seen as "cool" so she constantly degrades absolutely everything as boring. Furthermore, I recall at that age having ethics and even budding political beliefs, while Lillian blankly moves between anarchist, far right, and vaguely leftist groups with zero feeling or development of intellect.

A terrible incident occurs about 3/4 of the way through the film that is almost entirely her own fault. She is much too old to feign ignorance that the people whom she stole from were dangerous or that her bad behavior would result in significant consequences - in this case, death for innocent people whom she's lied to.

I don't find this film amusing, and the character isn't even believable as a young woman in her late teens. I have seen reviews comparing the effect of her character passing through American current events to Forrest Gump unwittingly witnessing 20th century history unfold in front of his naive face. However, Gump was a well-written, expertly acted, and ultimately sweet film about a kind but intellectually disabled man. The Sweet East is just is pretentious nonsense. Not even sure what the director was trying to say, the flick seems to hint that the film makers are guilty of pseudo-intellectual false equivalence comparing disparate 21st century American political views.

This happened and then this happened and after that this happened.

In 1973, a British movie called O Lucky Man was released with a similar story structure. Namely, a protagonist falls from one improbable situation to another whilst passing commentary on the world around us.

In this movie, all sorts of 'thrilling' adventures befall Taila Ryder as she is led from one implausible situation to the next. An activist, ingenue, actress, thief, prisoner, etc. Until its disappointing climax.

Ryder is good as the nonplussed main character, the script seems largely improvised, the plot doesn't exist and the poor quality film stock and directing style made me want to shower after watching it.

It quite good with some reservations.