Pups

Pups is a movie with both good sides and bad sides. To start with the good news: Great acting by all three major roles. Burt Reynolds does his best. Cameron van Hoy is even better. But Mischa Barton is the best of all and shows that she is very talented. Also very good: The dramatic development during the hostage. Ash seems also a very talented director. But the film is also a failure. The Burt Reynolds part is very unrealistic and badly written. But the worst part of Pups is the extremely simple moral views. The writer/director is telling us "look what happens if parents are away all the time and the media is showing violent movies". This simplistic view is a missed chance. Pups could have been much better.

An excellent film depicting the upsurge of 'meaningless' youth crime and the problems faced by the authorities when having to deal with it (is it OK to shoot children in this situation?).

Maybe not completely realistic but engaging and thought provoking nonetheless.

What struck me most after seeing 'Pups' is how intense the whole experience is - you feel as though you have lived through it. As such, at times it is not a particularly enjoyable film, but thought provoking to say the least - especially in the way it challenges the viewer to evaluate their own motives for seeing the film, practically daring the viewer to enjoy it. Worth watching (if you can stay with it for the whole distance) just for the last 10 seconds. They'll stay with you for a long time.

I respect what Ash was trying to do with this movie, and the guerilla film making style could have worked. To make a great movie, you don't need a huge budget, fancy distribution, or heavy promotions; but you do need a good script.

When you're trying to watch a film that realistically depicts the angst of today's youth, cliche lines like "what about when you touched me down there?" only detract. Trouble is, this film is filled with cliches that tend to take away from the message.

The film also would have done better to just be honest instead of trying to prove it's cool factor. I mean, Kurt Loder??? The idea of having Kurt freaking Loder in a movie sounds more like the idea of a bunch of 50 year old balding executives wearing suits in a boardroom trying to be "hip" and "cool" than that of a director who actually is hip and/or cool. In fact, that pretty much sums up a lot of this film: it tries to be cool instead of just being cool. It almost seems like a big budget film trying to pretend it was made by a young hipster director on a tight budget.

Then, why is the lack of professionalism sorely evident in the lackluster acting and weak script? The kids probably could have done a decent job with more time and coaching, but this seems like it was shot in a single day. The raw talent is there, it just isn't polished. The same can be said for the film making itself...I even saw the boom mic in one shot.

Pups is a decent movie that could have been great. There are seeds of truth in Pups and a fair amount of honesty. You just have to be willing to weed through the cliches, rammed down your throat morality, fake coolness, and Kurt Loder to see it.

Obviously, the studio didn't think much of this movie. The DVD isn't even widescreen. If you want to see a movie that is cool without trying so hard to be, then definitely watch Clerks or Doom Generation. If you want to see an average movie that perhaps offers a glimpse into the angst of teens without telling the full story, Pups is a decent romp. If you can imagine a younger version of SFW, that's pretty much what this movie is.

Oh, by the way....Burt Reynolds, your career called. It said it's jumping off a cliff.

I was about to turn the TV off and go to bed, then I saw some interesting movie on TV about two kids robbing a bank. First off, thank God someone finally casts actual 13 year olds to play 13 year olds (generally speaking, movies cast at least 3-4 years over what the actual age is, therefore high school seniors are 22 year old men and women which make it very hard to believe). The children were great actors for the most part. The message they were trying to say was a bit diluted, because it was obvious the child had a mental issue, and that clouded his own decision making abilities, yet the wheelchair man continually tried to make him out to be a product of the 1990's, and play it off as though he didn't have a choice. This is exactly what the media tries to do, is ignore the fact that the kid has a serious issue and blame it on the video games and the music he listens to. Amazingly, the Kurt Loder interview was intelligent and I don't think his "character" (if you can call it that) tried to reveal that image with the sequence. The very ending sequence was extremely powerful, and I think that should be the message and not who is to blame for the situation--the message should be what CAN happen if we don't change our ways. That's what happens if we don't start parenting responsibly and don't put any effort into raising a child the proper way, and indentifying mental issues before they go too far.