Stoshie
Joined Mar 2005
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings623
Stoshie's rating
Reviews133
Stoshie's rating
This isn't a terrible movie, but is lacking in originality. I think that, given time, director Annie Baker will find her own voice instead of trying to be Greta Gerwig. If she works with Zoe Ziegler again, she'll hopefully stop trying to turn her into the new young Saoirse Ronan, too, and let Zoe act in her own way, as I suspect she can.
The basic plot here has been done, in various ways, in many, many far better movies. Baker tried to stuff too much in here, too. The subplot, if you can call it that, about the mother was incomplete and distracted from what the young girl was going through as she was dealing with the changes she was experiencing. Sure, the relation between the mother and daughter was integral to the film, but seemed incomplete, never resolved. It was never really examined in the depth it could have been. That might have been due to the slow pace of the movie. Too little happened over too much time.
The men in the movie were never really fleshed out, either. Most obvious was "Wayne", who was sort of a good guy, but at the same time, not. We never really got to know anything about him, other than he had a nice daughter.
By sheer coincidence I just saw "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret." a couple of days before I saw "Janet Planet". One could argue they are wildly different movies, but at the same time, they do cover similar topics. "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret." is far better, more entertaining, and more realistic. It's fun. "Janet Planet" is dull in comparison.
But the biggest and most obvious comparison that jumps out at you as you watch "Janet Planet" would be between it and "Lady Bird". They are much more similar films than the one I mentioned above. And "Lady Bird" is much, much better.
As I said, this isn't a terrible film. I look forward to seeing what Baker can do in the future. I'm sure she has a much better film in her.
As an aside, the best song in the movie was "Miracle Man" by Bob Carpenter. Too bad it was associated with the "Wayne" character.
The basic plot here has been done, in various ways, in many, many far better movies. Baker tried to stuff too much in here, too. The subplot, if you can call it that, about the mother was incomplete and distracted from what the young girl was going through as she was dealing with the changes she was experiencing. Sure, the relation between the mother and daughter was integral to the film, but seemed incomplete, never resolved. It was never really examined in the depth it could have been. That might have been due to the slow pace of the movie. Too little happened over too much time.
The men in the movie were never really fleshed out, either. Most obvious was "Wayne", who was sort of a good guy, but at the same time, not. We never really got to know anything about him, other than he had a nice daughter.
By sheer coincidence I just saw "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret." a couple of days before I saw "Janet Planet". One could argue they are wildly different movies, but at the same time, they do cover similar topics. "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret." is far better, more entertaining, and more realistic. It's fun. "Janet Planet" is dull in comparison.
But the biggest and most obvious comparison that jumps out at you as you watch "Janet Planet" would be between it and "Lady Bird". They are much more similar films than the one I mentioned above. And "Lady Bird" is much, much better.
As I said, this isn't a terrible film. I look forward to seeing what Baker can do in the future. I'm sure she has a much better film in her.
As an aside, the best song in the movie was "Miracle Man" by Bob Carpenter. Too bad it was associated with the "Wayne" character.
As so many others have pointed out here, this was basically a kind of remake of the 1983 movie "A Christmas Story". It isn't a bad movie, but it's not one that is likely to become a Christmas tradition for people to watch, like "A Christmas Story" is. Jean Shepherd wrote the story the movie is based on, and co-wrote the screenplay for "A Christmas Story". His comedic touch is unique, and can't be replicated. There are some funny and touching moments here, but anyone who has seen "A Christmas Story" will see the same basic characters, just in a more modern setting, even if it is set in 1988. People who haven't seen the original movie will probably like this more than those who have seen "A Christmas Story".
As an aside, I'd recommend that people find the written works of Jean Shepherd. They are hilarious, though they are set in a different era. That doesn't matter; good writing transcends time and place.
As an aside, I'd recommend that people find the written works of Jean Shepherd. They are hilarious, though they are set in a different era. That doesn't matter; good writing transcends time and place.
This movie clocks in at just over 1 hour, which is a blessing. I would guess this was a student film if it weren't for the somewhat half-decent production values. The actors seem like beginners from some acting school.
Especially bad are the lead actress and the park ranger. Neither come across as authentic. They are both obviously "Acting!". And awkwardly, at that. I can't remember when I last saw acting this bad. They were just reading lines, with no emotion behind them. It actually made me feel bad for the actors, since this will be forever in their credits.
The"third reviewer" here who gave this a bad review (which seems to have disappeared) was right - the 10 star reviews had to come from people involved in the project. No one could possibly find the characters believable. Or the plot, which was predictable. There was no suspense at all. For example when the lead actress looked over the cliff, we all knew what she was going to see. The whole movie was like that.
What is surprising is that the director has some credibility. Why he took this job is a mystery. It must have been for some quick bucks, considering how short the movie is, which means it didn't take long to make.
Especially bad are the lead actress and the park ranger. Neither come across as authentic. They are both obviously "Acting!". And awkwardly, at that. I can't remember when I last saw acting this bad. They were just reading lines, with no emotion behind them. It actually made me feel bad for the actors, since this will be forever in their credits.
The"third reviewer" here who gave this a bad review (which seems to have disappeared) was right - the 10 star reviews had to come from people involved in the project. No one could possibly find the characters believable. Or the plot, which was predictable. There was no suspense at all. For example when the lead actress looked over the cliff, we all knew what she was going to see. The whole movie was like that.
What is surprising is that the director has some credibility. Why he took this job is a mystery. It must have been for some quick bucks, considering how short the movie is, which means it didn't take long to make.