37 reviews
C.O.G. is my favorite David Sedaris essay, even before I moved to Oregon and recognized some of its landmarks. The movie even begins with one of my favorite speeches from the essay, although the speech is much better on the page.
The story concerns a young man who fantasizes about joining the working class (as in Grapes of Wrath) and travels to Oregon to pick apples, work in an apple sorting factory, and make jade sculptures with a temperamental man who is trying to convert him to Christianity. In the essay, Sedaris, as himself, is state school educated, a stoner, accustomed to menial jobs, and from a working class family. In the movie, David – or Samuel, as he's calling himself – is a smarmy preppy educated at Yale who is first depicted reading Darwin's Origin of Species. When Sedaris makes fun of crazy people on a Greyhound, or working class people at a factory, it is clear that he is making fun of his own expectations, as well as people not far below him in social class. This is quite a contrast to an upper class character looking down on dumb poor people. This is one of the movie's first flaws. And it colors almost everything. What is his true motivation, if he is so jaded and cynical? What is the movie trying to tell us about working people and Christians when it presents us with this character as its hero?
A second flaw is one chief among Hollywood movies, even those intended for the art-house crowd. Though David Sedaris himself, as well as the lead actor, are openly gay, this movie wouldn't want to come out and just say such a thing, why people might flee into the streets. So it teases us with making us believe he might have a female love interest; it does not tell us what the source of the conflict is with his family (it would appear to be his coming out); it doesn't tell us why he is so freaked out by a co-worker's gay advances (is it because he's grossed out by the man or the concept?), or how any of this might impact his potential conversion to Christianity. I'm sure the director has a lofty, annoying explanation for this oversight, but I can count two "so, was he gay?" posts already on the list of five that show up on the main page.
The score, mainly percussion, will be off-putting to many, especially in the first scenes on the bus. And the ending will also confuse. After personal conflicts with many of the characters, how will his opinions and his Christian conversion change? We know IRL that David Sedaris went on to a happy life as a bestselling author. A less vague ending could have shown what the character learned from these experiences, especially since this movie tried so hard to be more sincere than its comedic base.
This movie has some things going for it, but it is philosophically a disappointment.
The story concerns a young man who fantasizes about joining the working class (as in Grapes of Wrath) and travels to Oregon to pick apples, work in an apple sorting factory, and make jade sculptures with a temperamental man who is trying to convert him to Christianity. In the essay, Sedaris, as himself, is state school educated, a stoner, accustomed to menial jobs, and from a working class family. In the movie, David – or Samuel, as he's calling himself – is a smarmy preppy educated at Yale who is first depicted reading Darwin's Origin of Species. When Sedaris makes fun of crazy people on a Greyhound, or working class people at a factory, it is clear that he is making fun of his own expectations, as well as people not far below him in social class. This is quite a contrast to an upper class character looking down on dumb poor people. This is one of the movie's first flaws. And it colors almost everything. What is his true motivation, if he is so jaded and cynical? What is the movie trying to tell us about working people and Christians when it presents us with this character as its hero?
A second flaw is one chief among Hollywood movies, even those intended for the art-house crowd. Though David Sedaris himself, as well as the lead actor, are openly gay, this movie wouldn't want to come out and just say such a thing, why people might flee into the streets. So it teases us with making us believe he might have a female love interest; it does not tell us what the source of the conflict is with his family (it would appear to be his coming out); it doesn't tell us why he is so freaked out by a co-worker's gay advances (is it because he's grossed out by the man or the concept?), or how any of this might impact his potential conversion to Christianity. I'm sure the director has a lofty, annoying explanation for this oversight, but I can count two "so, was he gay?" posts already on the list of five that show up on the main page.
The score, mainly percussion, will be off-putting to many, especially in the first scenes on the bus. And the ending will also confuse. After personal conflicts with many of the characters, how will his opinions and his Christian conversion change? We know IRL that David Sedaris went on to a happy life as a bestselling author. A less vague ending could have shown what the character learned from these experiences, especially since this movie tried so hard to be more sincere than its comedic base.
This movie has some things going for it, but it is philosophically a disappointment.
- cornflakeboy20
- Oct 1, 2013
- Permalink
The movie seems very promising in trailers and even when one starts watching it, almost until the end... when loose ends are left hanging and all of one's hopes for the movie's potential to communicate relevant and illuminating ideas collapse.
Moreover, their referring to many problematic notions and expressions remains unchecked. The use of "retard," "faggot" and "slut" is never explained or condemned. The idea of homosexuality as a sickness--is left unchecked, too; and so are the presentations of immigrant workers as thieves and of menial workers as stupid and not at the level of a college graduate. We are never told or shown how we are supposed to feel about any of these issues. And while the ambiguity of religion is largely okay in a world of various religious convictions (or lack thereof), I don't see how the rest of the topics can responsibly be treated as a matter of contention.
Yet, I loved Jonathan Groff's acting. I also loved the post-graduate attitude, which signified the place from which the emotional journey of the character began. I can really relate to it, too: the way your own struggles and successes make you feel superior to others. Which is why I was hoping David would learn to appreciate people and see them as his equals--which he partly, arguably, maybe did. But then, what was the point of religion? Why the ambiguity surrounding his sexuality? Did he have a problem with his sexual orientation?
I am just confused by the way the movie ended.
Although Jonathan Groff was brilliant, and C.O.G. was mostly well-written and filmed, I felt that it was cut short. Only 10 concluding minutes could clear a lot of my concerns, if included. But, as it stands, the movie is aesthetically, narratively, philosophically and socio-politically unresolved.
Moreover, their referring to many problematic notions and expressions remains unchecked. The use of "retard," "faggot" and "slut" is never explained or condemned. The idea of homosexuality as a sickness--is left unchecked, too; and so are the presentations of immigrant workers as thieves and of menial workers as stupid and not at the level of a college graduate. We are never told or shown how we are supposed to feel about any of these issues. And while the ambiguity of religion is largely okay in a world of various religious convictions (or lack thereof), I don't see how the rest of the topics can responsibly be treated as a matter of contention.
Yet, I loved Jonathan Groff's acting. I also loved the post-graduate attitude, which signified the place from which the emotional journey of the character began. I can really relate to it, too: the way your own struggles and successes make you feel superior to others. Which is why I was hoping David would learn to appreciate people and see them as his equals--which he partly, arguably, maybe did. But then, what was the point of religion? Why the ambiguity surrounding his sexuality? Did he have a problem with his sexual orientation?
I am just confused by the way the movie ended.
Although Jonathan Groff was brilliant, and C.O.G. was mostly well-written and filmed, I felt that it was cut short. Only 10 concluding minutes could clear a lot of my concerns, if included. But, as it stands, the movie is aesthetically, narratively, philosophically and socio-politically unresolved.
- stefarbalova
- Jan 15, 2014
- Permalink
I expected to last 10 minutes and then click off. I thought it would be a comedy. I wound up mesmerized. I approach all films with extreme caution, because I expect either a liberal message, or a Christian one, and I don't want to be manipulated.
This one offered neither. One reviewer mentioned a "nihilist" viewpoint, but I'm not sure about that either, because there were some good people depicted in this film. Hence the world is not hopeless.
The young actor and his older "mentor" were equally great. I rarely say that about anyone. No one could have played their parts any better.
The Oregon scenery was breathtaking, and the music was effective in creating a sense of bewilderment. The decay of the human soul was set amidst the purity of pristine farms, pines, and fog.
The world is a dark place. That doesn't mean everyone is dark and everything is hopeless and doomed. I guarantee you that some factory workers are decent normal people who take pride in their work ethic.
Having said that, the types depicted here were real and do exist in abundance in the real world. That comes as a tough pill to swallow for idealists. We want to believe that the poor are humble and sweet. Actually, many are trash, which is why they stay poor.
And yet we need their labor and their bravery in battle. It's twisted and ironic, but so is the world.
I was expecting this film to trash Christians and Christianity and call them all hypocrites, but that's not what happened. The couple that housed the boy were lovely people, and the church congregants appeared genuinely peaceful and loving.
I could have done without the gay thing, but I think I get it. His mom probably shunned him when he came out, and he felt guilty about who he was, so maybe he thought going out west would change him. Especially with his female friend.
But the gay thing just added a layer of awkwardness to an already awkward situation. Even straight, he would have been a fish out of water.
The final scene was brilliant. His mentor had good and bad within his soul, but ultimately arrogance took over. Christianity often attracts lost souls and sinners, and it's very hard to keep their true nature from rearing its ugly head.
It was a terrific movie. Check it out if you have the patience for character/dialog-driven plots and can tolerate the bleakest view of human nature.
This one offered neither. One reviewer mentioned a "nihilist" viewpoint, but I'm not sure about that either, because there were some good people depicted in this film. Hence the world is not hopeless.
The young actor and his older "mentor" were equally great. I rarely say that about anyone. No one could have played their parts any better.
The Oregon scenery was breathtaking, and the music was effective in creating a sense of bewilderment. The decay of the human soul was set amidst the purity of pristine farms, pines, and fog.
The world is a dark place. That doesn't mean everyone is dark and everything is hopeless and doomed. I guarantee you that some factory workers are decent normal people who take pride in their work ethic.
Having said that, the types depicted here were real and do exist in abundance in the real world. That comes as a tough pill to swallow for idealists. We want to believe that the poor are humble and sweet. Actually, many are trash, which is why they stay poor.
And yet we need their labor and their bravery in battle. It's twisted and ironic, but so is the world.
I was expecting this film to trash Christians and Christianity and call them all hypocrites, but that's not what happened. The couple that housed the boy were lovely people, and the church congregants appeared genuinely peaceful and loving.
I could have done without the gay thing, but I think I get it. His mom probably shunned him when he came out, and he felt guilty about who he was, so maybe he thought going out west would change him. Especially with his female friend.
But the gay thing just added a layer of awkwardness to an already awkward situation. Even straight, he would have been a fish out of water.
The final scene was brilliant. His mentor had good and bad within his soul, but ultimately arrogance took over. Christianity often attracts lost souls and sinners, and it's very hard to keep their true nature from rearing its ugly head.
It was a terrific movie. Check it out if you have the patience for character/dialog-driven plots and can tolerate the bleakest view of human nature.
I was really looking forward to this movie. From the trailers it looked funny, mild and sweet. I thought it was going to be about a young man meeting new people and having positive experiences working at an apple orchard. I was wrong. This movie has a few sweet moments but overall, it is grim and bleak. I cannot emphasize this enough. When it is finished, you are left feeling sad and disappointed in humanity. In simple words: this movie is a downer. Really though, if you are looking for a sweet, light hearted movie, you won't find it here. The best thing I can say about the film is that Jonathan Groff is extremely talented and does a great job, but even he can't save this film.
- violetlucy21
- Oct 11, 2013
- Permalink
- jarrodmcdonald-1
- Jun 3, 2018
- Permalink
Good acting builds tension in this unconventional tale about a spoiled guy trying to "live the simpler life" in a very conservative area... almost everybody he meets will confront him about parts of himself he's not comfortable with to face; and that's more or less the best part of this tranquil movie.
- ganymedes1985
- Apr 23, 2019
- Permalink
Watching this film the first time in 2021. Jonathan Groff is still going strong and still an excellent actor!! I only watched because he was the star and because it was filmed right here in the great state of Oregon!! Not all of us are whack jobs! I read the Amazon Prime review. It said it was a comedy. Not hardly. I chuckled a couple times, but that was as funny as it got. That dude Curly.... Oh my good god!! I mean I'm gay but I'd be freaked out also!!! Decent film but I hated the ending!! I'm more of a happy ending kinda guy. Pride month already. Hope we can do something this year!! Our Bears Club has plans!!
Ken L. Nunnemaker.
Springfield, Oregon. Home of The Simpsons.
Ken L. Nunnemaker.
Springfield, Oregon. Home of The Simpsons.
- fkyoujohnweakland
- Jun 7, 2021
- Permalink
- eric262003
- Jul 15, 2018
- Permalink
I saw this film as part of Frameline 37 in San Francisco. It's ill-conceived right from the start, with a fairly unbelievable plot along with absurd plot details. Strangely, it's full of ersatz emotional depth regarding any important topic (e.g., finding oneself, religious conflict, class wars, sexual coming of age angst, small-town blues). I'd give this film a higher rating if it weren't such a waste of talent, particularly sexy Corry Stoll's. The script starts off with a scatological and absolutely hilarious but totally vacuous and non-contextual bang and continues its vacuous adventure through various contrived setups right until its anti-climatic nihilist end. It's a mushy apple with unattractive worms and I advise not biting.
The instant I saw the boy from Glee on the screen with his college sweater, against a score of staccato claps, I knew this film and the word 'Pretentious' were already entwined till the credits with the muted plucking music.
So as the Backlash B-tch I am, I decided to watch the whole film just to spite that particular stereotype.
God, I'm glad I did! I was born in a religious cult...called C.O.G. So it's kind of unsurprising that I resonated with it. But this film has so much that is human, and raw, and true about it that it has to have some impact on the rest of you. Groff's performance goes from cocky and superior in the most honest portrayal of the usual American postgrad I've seen, to so vulnerable and naive and yearning that my heart felt like it was being crushed. He's as lost, disenfranchised and confused as every other 20-something I know - but it seeps out of his pores and swims in his eyes in a way that's very hard to watch. I guess that's the Millenial Generation, stripped bare and made fun of, yet not looked down on. David is just a boy, not a polarising symbol of a Lost Generation, and the film knows this.
Just a boy. That's why it hurt to see him be taken advantage of, time and again. It hurt even more, for me, to watch him try to find himself and cure his sexual 'sickness' in religion. I have known people like John. They exist. Everyone in this film exists.
I'm not being coherent. This film impacted me that much.
I think you should watch it.
So as the Backlash B-tch I am, I decided to watch the whole film just to spite that particular stereotype.
God, I'm glad I did! I was born in a religious cult...called C.O.G. So it's kind of unsurprising that I resonated with it. But this film has so much that is human, and raw, and true about it that it has to have some impact on the rest of you. Groff's performance goes from cocky and superior in the most honest portrayal of the usual American postgrad I've seen, to so vulnerable and naive and yearning that my heart felt like it was being crushed. He's as lost, disenfranchised and confused as every other 20-something I know - but it seeps out of his pores and swims in his eyes in a way that's very hard to watch. I guess that's the Millenial Generation, stripped bare and made fun of, yet not looked down on. David is just a boy, not a polarising symbol of a Lost Generation, and the film knows this.
Just a boy. That's why it hurt to see him be taken advantage of, time and again. It hurt even more, for me, to watch him try to find himself and cure his sexual 'sickness' in religion. I have known people like John. They exist. Everyone in this film exists.
I'm not being coherent. This film impacted me that much.
I think you should watch it.
- TheInbetweener
- Sep 20, 2013
- Permalink
Even as a gay man, I found this to be the most depressing and unnecessary, not to mention boring, movie that had anything to do with homosexuality in my entire life.
Corey was the only redeeming actor in this film, and his talent was wasted.
Not every gay man goes through turmoil and hell coming out. Not everybody fights within themselves to be who they are. I, for one, was never a victim, never portrayed myself as one, was never bullied, and there are many, many of us like me out there. No wonder straight people have a hard time dealing with gays as long as stories like these continue to be piped out and forced down people's throats. I was so bored I almost fell asleep. Skip it.
Corey was the only redeeming actor in this film, and his talent was wasted.
Not every gay man goes through turmoil and hell coming out. Not everybody fights within themselves to be who they are. I, for one, was never a victim, never portrayed myself as one, was never bullied, and there are many, many of us like me out there. No wonder straight people have a hard time dealing with gays as long as stories like these continue to be piped out and forced down people's throats. I was so bored I almost fell asleep. Skip it.
I'm a fan of Jonathan Groff, but this movie was beyond dreadful and should have never been made. The plot is ridiculous, incomplete, nonsensical ...and story has zero meaning or resolution of anything. The only thing worse were some of the characters.
Why this movie was ever made is beyond me. There was nothing to be told here.
Huge waste of time. Awful!
I'm giving 2 stars simply for Jonathan Groff.
Why this movie was ever made is beyond me. There was nothing to be told here.
Huge waste of time. Awful!
I'm giving 2 stars simply for Jonathan Groff.
Such as waste of time and money. This film has made it into my "worst of the terrible films list" with its awful script, poor acting, stupid dialog uninspired settings, and silly gay theme. We actually never know what the gay hang-up of the protagonist is and how he will deal with it; his new found buddy Curly is so over-the-top it is laughable (pun intended). The COG theme is absurd and must have come from a horrible personal life experience of the writer (please do not subject your viewers to your hang-ups the next time you write a script or short story; get some professional care). The over-acting made me think everyone in this film was actually bi-polar in real life and was just lucky to be off their medications and be around for a screen-test. In addition, makes me never want to eat an apple again. I have seen some pretty bad gay drama film, but this one is rock bottom ...advice to others: Don't waste your time on this junk.
- nzdarwin-575-916261
- Jun 20, 2014
- Permalink
"C.O.G." is the journey of one man based on the real life journey of writer David Sedaris. David (Jonathan Groff) is an academically-minded man in his twenties who has destroyed every relationship with his own arrogance. He's not entirely aware of it, as he thinks he's on a journey with his girlfriend after they read The Grapes of Wrath and decided to get back to nature. But really his ex-girlfriend had no such journey in mind.
Now on his own, he's determined to be true to himself. This involves sharing his nihilistic, anti-religious views with anyone who dares to have a conversation with him, but not being totally open with his homosexuality.
He finds himself working in an orchard which, as you can guess, involves people who have a relationship with God, people on the conservative side who don't get the gay culture, and people who don't like pedantic intellectuals teaching them about real literature. David doesn't fit in very well.
I loved the first half of the film. The more he mocked religion, the more I loved it. But as David finds himself in trouble (due to not fitting in very well and due to his ability to destroy any relationship he has with his arrogance), the film starts taking on a different tune. One which seems to be the exact opposite of what drew people in in the first place.
While it could just be that I didn't get whatever they were trying to say, the second half of the film seems to go against what people would have liked in the first half. Those that would like the messages in the ending probably would have been turned off by David's first anti- religious rant (which comes in the opening scene). And, to me, that would lead to a film with no audience remaining.
"C.O.G." stands for Child of God and you are going to have to have an extremely open mind to all points of view, both pro and anti organized religion and to sexual orientation, to enjoy this film. I appreciate Jonathan Groff taking on a character like this, but I have a feeling I wasn't supposed to have enjoyed his character as much as I did at the beginning as he moves too far away from that in the remainder of the film.
Now on his own, he's determined to be true to himself. This involves sharing his nihilistic, anti-religious views with anyone who dares to have a conversation with him, but not being totally open with his homosexuality.
He finds himself working in an orchard which, as you can guess, involves people who have a relationship with God, people on the conservative side who don't get the gay culture, and people who don't like pedantic intellectuals teaching them about real literature. David doesn't fit in very well.
I loved the first half of the film. The more he mocked religion, the more I loved it. But as David finds himself in trouble (due to not fitting in very well and due to his ability to destroy any relationship he has with his arrogance), the film starts taking on a different tune. One which seems to be the exact opposite of what drew people in in the first place.
While it could just be that I didn't get whatever they were trying to say, the second half of the film seems to go against what people would have liked in the first half. Those that would like the messages in the ending probably would have been turned off by David's first anti- religious rant (which comes in the opening scene). And, to me, that would lead to a film with no audience remaining.
"C.O.G." stands for Child of God and you are going to have to have an extremely open mind to all points of view, both pro and anti organized religion and to sexual orientation, to enjoy this film. I appreciate Jonathan Groff taking on a character like this, but I have a feeling I wasn't supposed to have enjoyed his character as much as I did at the beginning as he moves too far away from that in the remainder of the film.
- napierslogs
- Jan 31, 2014
- Permalink
I knew very little about this film when I went into it except that it was inspired in some way by a David Sedaris essay. It surpassed my expectations in a beautiful and lasting way. It's extraordinarily funny - often in surprising ways. Like Sedaris' writing, things just happen, and it's the protagonist's reactions that allow the audience to enter this world of poignant meaninglessness. The characters and situations can be so absurd at times that you wonder what kind of world this is, how realistic or how exaggerated or how cinematic - but then you realize that life can really be like that... Groff does a stellar job playing with an open-minded and humorous pretentiousness. But what I thought was most impressive was Kyle Patrick Alvarez's subtly-brilliant treatment of both sexuality and religion, both of which are such matter-of-fact gray areas in the film that they leave the viewer wondering without ever asking him to. Great film - definitely catch it when it comes out.
David (Jonathan Groff) takes a break from his ivy league world for an apple picking job. He's a spoiled, self-assured bookworm. His Mexican co-workers don't understand him. His boss Hobbs (Dean Stockwell) barely tolerates his lack of work ethics. Jon (Denis O'Hare) is handing out religious flyers titled COG. His friend Jennifer is suppose to join him but she leaves the job for a new boyfriend. Curly (Corey Stoll) drives the forklift at the apple plant. After an awkward night with Curly, he abandons his job, somebody steals his money, and he only has Jon to help. He stays with Martha (Casey Wilson) and her family. His atheism, his lack of a love life, his sexuality, and his attitude are all challenged.
I think the story is meant to be quirky comical. However that is not the prevailing sense from director Kyle Patrick Alvarez. Groff's character is too much of an annoying know-it-all. After all, that is the character as written but it would be more effective if he does what he does because of clueless kindness. The one great character is played by Corey Stoll. He does a fun disturbing performance. It's too bad that he's only a supporting character, but he's a good one. This never got funny. Sometimes it got disturbing. It may have even gotten profound although that could argued either way. The ending is somewhat truncated which is problematic for some people. I'm not one of them. Movies don't have to be about resolving something. I just didn't get involved in David's journey.
I think the story is meant to be quirky comical. However that is not the prevailing sense from director Kyle Patrick Alvarez. Groff's character is too much of an annoying know-it-all. After all, that is the character as written but it would be more effective if he does what he does because of clueless kindness. The one great character is played by Corey Stoll. He does a fun disturbing performance. It's too bad that he's only a supporting character, but he's a good one. This never got funny. Sometimes it got disturbing. It may have even gotten profound although that could argued either way. The ending is somewhat truncated which is problematic for some people. I'm not one of them. Movies don't have to be about resolving something. I just didn't get involved in David's journey.
- SnoopyStyle
- Oct 10, 2014
- Permalink
- MacTheMovieguy
- Jul 22, 2014
- Permalink
- lanaliliya
- Dec 3, 2018
- Permalink
- ZanderZion
- Aug 11, 2014
- Permalink
As a David Sedaris fan, I went to see this movie kinda fearful that it would not do his essay justice. This movie far surpassed my expectations and made me laugh aloud (as reading any Sedaris piece does). This adaptation of C.O.G. was faithful to the spirit of the Sedaris essay, retaining and even adding to its understated, snarky sense of humor.
Jonathan Groff stars as David, capturing a naïve and irreverent guy fresh out of college perfectly. The film opens with a montage of him rubbing shoulders with a bunch of weirdos on a greyhound until he reaches his destination: Oregon. David plans to work on an apple farm in order to experience what "real people" do. Of course, things don't go as planned and unexpected hilarity ensues.
C.O.G. is one of the best new films that I've seen this year. The style and the soundtrack evoke an eccentric yet slightly bleak mood that I really enjoyed. I find that I relate quite heavily to the post-college feelings of uncertainty and aimlessness that David has in the film as I'm sure many U.S. grads do.
Jonathan Groff stars as David, capturing a naïve and irreverent guy fresh out of college perfectly. The film opens with a montage of him rubbing shoulders with a bunch of weirdos on a greyhound until he reaches his destination: Oregon. David plans to work on an apple farm in order to experience what "real people" do. Of course, things don't go as planned and unexpected hilarity ensues.
C.O.G. is one of the best new films that I've seen this year. The style and the soundtrack evoke an eccentric yet slightly bleak mood that I really enjoyed. I find that I relate quite heavily to the post-college feelings of uncertainty and aimlessness that David has in the film as I'm sure many U.S. grads do.
Quite a deja vu type of story, à la Jack McCandless sort of. The character is the type of guy that will never know what to do, unless somebody tells him 'go there' 'take this job', etc.
However the portrayal of the people he meets are very representative and true; the ladies at the plant, the born-again middle aged man, etc... They are the type of people you meet every day (altough, you might now have this kind of relationship with the latest).
The video and image quality is great; the scenes in the orchard had this touch of realness... Or was it the dialogues in English then Spanish? Overall adjective: tepid.
However the portrayal of the people he meets are very representative and true; the ladies at the plant, the born-again middle aged man, etc... They are the type of people you meet every day (altough, you might now have this kind of relationship with the latest).
The video and image quality is great; the scenes in the orchard had this touch of realness... Or was it the dialogues in English then Spanish? Overall adjective: tepid.