Perturbadas

This movie was often times painful to watch, and it's not because of its "moving" subject matter. It's possible the filmmakers aren't at fault, here, because when you make a movie about irritating people, don't be surprised that the viewers will find themselves irritated. But if you take on a film that'll make people's brains hemorrhage, you probably deserve to be booed.

Honestly, though, after seeing this piece of crap, I'm surprised Stephen Gaghan can still get work in Hollywood. Likewise for Hathaway, who does a respectable job with a vastly mundane script. Not so kudos to Bijou Philips, for whom playing trash isn't exactly a huge stretch or test of acting ability, nor to Freddy Rodriguez, who, to make his speech more threatening, actually slows himself down so much that he starts. Speaking. In. Fragments. Of the trio, though, he may be the most surprising transformation, especially since he's so squeaky on "Six Feet Under." It was unexpected, but it may have been a casting mistake. Instead of appearing threatening, he looks more like he has Short Man's Syndrome, since Hathaway has a head of height on him, and may appear more menacing therefore. I know I shouldn't be so astounded, but it stupefies me still, how far Hollywood will go to make the worst casting decisions in the name of getting someone proximately famous for the DVD cover. Oy...

I think the most irksome thing about "Havoc" is that, in the end, it's a vacuous morality tale. They had a chance to make something of the examination of bored, rich teenagers who want to be poor on purpose, but they instead glazed over it. No one involved has long-lasting suffering. It's like the whole thing was just a bad dream, which is, I suppose, a fitting description of a night spent watching "Havoc," a most aptly-titled film. The most disappointing aspect of the whole deal is that the personal responsibility lesson isn't given enough gravity. Bored, unlikable, upper-class adolescents get in a wee bit of trouble with a Latin gang of their own accord? My cup overfloweth. Honest to God, if I have to hear another person defend an individual's actions on the basis of the "It's only your fault until you get hurt; then, you can blame someone else" line, I'm going to implode. And guess what "Havoc" does?

Bottom line: if you're looking for half-naked girls, you've hit the jackpot. Also, if you're a teenager and you're looking for some kind of searing expose of the "Gee, I think I'll go join a gang today" lifestyle, you, too, are in luck. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you find yourself vomiting uncontrollably and crying for your mother during the ninety minutes of the train wreck called "Havoc."

OK. I just saw this tonight for the first time. I don't care what you others say, the acting was good, the production was good. Now, Anne was a bad choice for the lead because she does look a little old for the role, but other than that, it was a good film. Let me tell you why, if I may. I grew up in the hood. Not what little preppy white kids consider the hood, but the actual hood. I am talking about drive-bys, gang wars, drug dealers on the corners and at every bus stop. It might bother people, but this was an accurate portrayal of the ghetto. This showed the stereotype of suburban white youth. No, not all white kids are whiggers with attitudes that they can't back up. Just like not all Latinos are rock dealers. But, please you must recognize that this is showing stereotypes and nothing more. Remember, we wouldn't have stereotypes if there wasn't a lot of truth behind it. White kids, especially affluent ones, are fountains of cynicism. They have no direction in life. Therefore, a great many of them turn into what this film shows. Latinos, those from areas like my own, often do gang up and its very common for them to sell rock and reef. Its not racism, and its not an attack on a culture, its the truth, painful as it might be. If you actually watched this film closely, and had an open point of view, you'd see that the only thing in this movie that lacks credibility, is Anne's age.

Negative comments about this film need to be tempered by the sad story surrounding its making. The script was written by a 17-year old girl named Jessica Kaplan. No, It's not Citizen Kane, but it is an extraordinary piece of work for a teenager. And most sadly, she perished in an airplane crash at the age of 21. The film is dedicated to her memory.

As to the film's merits, it is by my count the 1,464th variation of Rebel Without A Cause, which I think said all that needed to be said on the subject. Did you know that adolescents often find society empty and pointless? And that they do stupid things by way of rebelling against it, in hopes of dispelling their angst and finding something more meaningful? Yes, it's true. In this version of that old chestnut, the rebels are a particularly spoiled group of high school students living in Hollywood. To find something they consider "real", they form youth gangs in imitation of the poor folk in East L.A. And then they actually go there, at first to buy drugs; but then rich girls Anne Hatahway and Bijou Phillips try to get involved in the local Hispanic gang scene. Some pretty modest mayhem ensues.

The East L.A. people are awfully sanitized and not very believable. Nobody is addicted to anything. Nobody is desperate. Nobody appears to be poor. These are basically solid middle class folk, devoted to family, who have a few surface quirks and who happen to sell crack cocaine instead of, say, life insurance.

Is it my imagination or does the gorgeous Bijou Phillips always play exactly the same role -- a sexually eager girl who gets in over her head, discovering the hard way that yes, she has limits? That's the role she plays here, and she is fine (as is lead Anne Hatahway). But I wonder whether that is her entire repertoire. Perhaps she will branch out someday.

Somewhere on this planet, there must be some group of people more deserving of sympathy than affluent Hollywood teenagers. So I found myself wondering why this film had been made. The young scriptwriter should not be held accountable, but you would think older people would know better.

Allison Lang (Anne Hathaway) is from the upper class white neighborhood of Pacific Palisades. Her parents (Michael Biehn, Laura San Giacomo) are divorced and she's not connecting with them. Her boyfriend Toby is a Wigger and a poser. He takes her and her friend Emily (Bijou Phillips) to the bad side of L.A. They try to buy drugs and get rolled by Hector (Freddy Rodríguez). Even with Toby's cowardice, she is excited by the incident and returns to the spot the next night with Emily, Amanda (Shiri Appleby) and Sasha (Alexis Dziena). She finds Hector again as she falls further and further into his dangerous world.

This is a souped-up afterschool special. I don't particularly find these characters that compelling. The girls could do whatever the hell they want for all I care. It starts with the idiotic posing from Toby. It brings up an interesting casting choice. It's crazy looking back that Mike Vogel got the bigger role while Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Channing Tatum are cast as his friends. The other problematic casting choice is Freddy Rodríguez. I can't buy him as a gang leader especially since he's a foot shorter than Anne Hathaway. He's definitely not hard enough and there's a bit of Napoleon going on here. Hathaway is good in this movie and keeps it compelling. She's really the major bright spot in this.

The film "Closer" (2004) was never meant to be liked, just revealing. I felt the same vibe resonate throughout the eighty-six minutes of Havoc. It's not at all meant to be a film you'll necessarily respect, favor, prefer, or like--the film is simply meant to show you the stupidity of the rap/gang culture. The emptiness, the lack of emotion and integrity that is showcased throughout the generation. A previous review stated that all the actors were terrible in this film, that there was no plot, and virtually nothing in the movie in the first place. I agree to an extent; there is no plot in the lifestyle, no purpose. However, I believe the actors actually gave surprising performances, Joseph Gordon-Lewitt the most convincing; I didn't even recognize him for a moment. The filming was well done with a few gag-me exceptions; most angles were appropriate for the scenes (though the sexual situations *definitely* could have used a little more imagination).

Overall, there could have been more to the film than what we're left with. This could be attributed to the death of the original screenwriter in 2003, or it could be the director's execution. However, I still stand by my opinion that it's worth watching, but that you probably won't desire to see it again.