IMDb user comments for
Go (1999)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 40:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

398 comments in total

---

31 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :-
A wonderful wild ride; sometimes too clever, sometimes not enough, 29 aprile 1999

Author: Kekoa Kaluhiokalani da Columbus, Oh

"Go" reads like a very very good sophomore offering by a very very good up-and-coming director. You can almost see a bright future for everyone involved in the film, from the director (Doug Liman) to the screenwriter (John August) to all of the young actors. The script is clearly the winner, with witty dialogue and a convoluted plotline (or plotlines, depending on how you view it) centered around a dozen or so GenX-er Los Angelenos on Christmas Eve. The film slickly moves you from one plotline to the next, as you follow one minor disaster leading to other minor disasters.

The film being a "sophomore offering," of course, has some drawbacks. Yes, it is tangentially derivative of "Pulp Fiction." And yes, it does scrounge a bit from this teen flick and that. In some cases, certain plotlines wrap up too neatly, and in other cases the plotlines don't converge nearly as neatly enough. But what the film may lack in originality it certainly makes up for with style and quirks.

The real discovery in all this is the cast. Sarah Polly stands out (listen to her mild Canadian accent slip through once in a while) as the world-weary checkout gal who's first and only foray into drug-dealing unleashes a legion of trouble for her. Desmond Askew (wonderfully punny name) is this Pulp Fiction's Tim Roth, glib and cocky as his well-ordered world whirls and crumbles around him in a neatly choreographed disaster. As the sinister drug supplier, Timothy Olyphant is particularly menacing, exuding equal amounts of danger and innocence, sexiness and insecurity. The characters in "Go" never become cardboard parodies of themselves, and they never dissolve into charicatures of themselves for the sake of plot or atmosphere.

So watch the film, soak in the plot, atmosphere, and the characters. At the risk of sounding glib myself, by all means "Go."

---

23 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Sit down & strap yourself in for this wild ride, 25 agosto 1999
Author: Adriane Simo (adriane7@mindspring.com) da chandler, az

One of the best this year! A wild ride that is hard to not compare to "Pulp Fiction", but if you didn't like Pulp, you won't like Go. I loved both, so this is a treat! Doug Liman had directed a worthy follow-up to Swingers, in the eyes of 7 kids and a drug deal gone way bad. The funniest moments come from Desmond Askew and Taye Diggs in Las Vegas. Never once is this movie dull. Watch with an open mind and a wild imagination!

---

16 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Offbeat, Fun and Energetic, 1 settembre 2006

Author: warmtrooper da Berkeley, CA

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I initially thought this was some teen movie, coming-of-age party stuff. But instead, it proved to be a clever, complex, funny and quirky dark comedy about some ravers who get into trouble. And the music soundtrack was outstanding!

The plot of this movie is that you experience the same night from 3 different points of view--after a drug deal has gone wrong. But all 3 views are not in the same location. It's not complicated, but the pacing and energy of this movie, and quirky happenings, scenarios and characters (especially William Fichtner, my favorite) keep you guessing as to what is going on. Of course, the 3 paths meet at odd times, and things are not what they seem.

This movie is for adults, trust me. It's smart, fun and very hip. See it. And did I mention the music soundtrack is outstanding? 8pts.

---

13 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
It didn't make too much sense at first, but I loved it when it was finished., 1 aprile 2005

Author: Philip Van der Veken da Tessenderlo, Belgium

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

There are several kinds of movies that I like, but they almost all have one thing in common: they have something special to offer. In this case it is the way the story was brought to the audience. The story is told over and over again, each time from the perspective of a different character. The fact that the story is told over and over again in isn't new. If you know the German movie 'Lola Rennt', than you've seen it before. The main difference between these two movies is that this time the story remains the same and the characters change, while in the German movie it was exactly the opposite of that.

It starts with Simon Baines who wants to go to Las Vegas with his friends, but who normally has to work in a 24-hour grocery store. His colleague Ronna takes over his shift, when two guys, named Adam and Zack, walk in asking to score some dope from Simon. Because Simon isn't around anymore Ronna decides to sell them some drugs herself and asks her friends Claire and Mannie to help her buying some stuff from the local drug dealer Todd Gains. But the drug deal was set up by a narcotics agent called Burke who forced Adam and Zack to cooperate. Ronna soon finds out something is wrong and flushes the drugs trough the toilet. Normally she would return it to the drug dealer, but because she hasn't got it anymore she has to try to fool him with phony drugs. In the mean time Simon's adventures with his best friend Marcus hit an unfortunate turn during a trip to a strip club in Las Vegas and Adam and Zack end up spending Christmas Eve with Burke and his wife Irene before being able to drive to a rave, where Ronna is dealing some more "drugs". When they arrive at the rave, the guys accidentally hit Ronna with their car and leave her for dead. Nearby, Mannie nearly gets an overdose and Claire gets more friendly with a vengeful Todd who is now looking for Ronna.

At first I didn't like this movie all too much, mainly because I didn't see the reason why so many information was left out. It didn't make too much sense really. But I gave it a chance and watched it completely and only then I fully understood the story. Even though it has some flaws, I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I loved the way the story was told and the good combination of humor and crime. All in all this is a movie that is worth more than just a watch. I loved it and give it an 8/10.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Unbearable Lightness of Going, 16 agosto 2002
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) da Virginia Beach

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Spoilers herein.

I'm coming to this film late in the comment stream, which means that critics and commentors have beaten to death the `Pulp Fiction' comparisons. Yes, this has parallel stories, time folding (but not the time shuffling of `Pulp'), black and white shuffling, guns drugs and ironic violence, diner scenes and a hip perspective. But to me that is less central than the relationship of the shape to the style.

Tarantino's method is from comic books, his manipulation of the narrative deliberately has nothing at all to with the narrative itself. That's the point, that emptiness. `Go' is the opposite. It takes much of the same stylistic manipulation of narrative and turns it all to the service of the movie: the film capriciously meanders like the small lives of these kids. Now, that's not a very heavy notion to settle on, but it is cinematically profound in linking the point of the movie to the unrolling of the images.

In other words, if you love the visual grammar of film, you'll love this. If instead you prefer using the art of filmmaking to display the emptiness of film, you'll like `Pulp.' They are as different as can be. `Go' follows the tradition of Hitchcock and Welles where the `story' is centered in the images. `Pulp' follows a wholly contradictory world defined by the `new wave' where every image is ironic and deliberately doesn't rest in the story but runs contrary to it.

At some point, every serious film viewer will confront this choice. It is a matter of whether you will let yourself `go' with the flow or always maintain a smug distance.

The writer understands this, and makes it explicit with `story C' which features two actors. They are enlisted in an enterprise of `moviedom' in real life where they are wired for sound and videoed. More, their master engages them in forced commerce. This is mirrored in story B with the lap dance `show' and more faintly in A with the selling in the store and the rave. All these kids are engaged in indentured but shameless sales of the movie to us.

I have a very short list of actors who are worth watching regardless of the context. Cate Blancett, Kate Winslet, and Julianne Moore are the actresses I follow because of their ability to present more than one personae at a time. Sarah Polley is close to being on that list, but not for the same reason. She -- or her advisors -- has made some very intelligent choices, placing her in central roles in some very alternative projects. These are films that require -- even in the watching -- a deliberate shift in thinking about what film is. In each, she has appeared with radically different acting styles, always entirely apt. It shows that she understands what these rather subversive projects are all about. Privately, her politics seems amazingly unsophisticated, but her deliberate plasticity on screen shows a remarkable ability.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Fun Movie, 29 agosto 2000
Author: kclark-7 da BC, Canada

I liked this movie well enough to watch it twice. I waited 'til it came out on video, but made sure to see it, because it stars Sarah Polley, who I've been a fan of since her "Road to Avonlea" days. This is not a serious movie. It's fun, upbeat, quick, and for those with short attention spans. I liked it. I didn't think it was as incredible as some say, but enjoyable enough to watch it twice. So many people have compared it to Pulp Fiction. Frankly, the only similarity I see between the two, is the "jumping around timelines". Which I like. Good movie to watch, just don't bother trying to analyze it - you won't come up with much.

---

10 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
A story told in many parts..., 15 settembre 1999

Author: Rick Peach (beefsmack@webtv.net) da USA

Go is very fresh and fun film. The cast is great and the direction fom Doug Liman is very solid. I liked the way the story was told in this film and I really enjoyed Jay Mohr and Scott Wolf's story as a small dark comedy. Katie Holmes is very good and Sarah Polley excels in her role. I couldn't help but think of Pulp Fiction while watching this film. Liman has directed a very tight film. The young people in this film have some serious problems, but all in all, a very good movie.

---

12 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
GO see it, 12 aprile 1999
Author: Matthew Ignoffo (mermatt@webtv.net) da Eatontown, NJ, USA

The title is apt -- the film is on the go most of the time with little chance to catch your breath. This is an odd but entertaining film that can be described as RASHOMON meets PULP FICTION. But it is better than PULP FICTION because of its clearer sense of humor, irony, and coherent story telling.

We get the stories of several people on an very un-Christmasy messy Christmas Eve. Each story is told from someone's perspective and the stories all interconnect at a decidedly un-Christmasy rave full of loud music, drugs, people looking for other people, mistaken identities, and the other ingredients of a wild comedy. Though some people may find it offensive, as a satire and updated film noir, it is hilarious.

---

7 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Rather Shallow, 14 settembre 2003

Author: Theo Robertson da Isle Of Bute , Scotland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I saw this last night and I was going to praise it to the sky straight after seeing it , but it was 2.30 am in the morning , I was tired so I decided to review GO the next day . Now that I`ve had some sleep I`m starting to ask myself why I liked it so much because I can hardly remember a thing about it

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

GO is PULP FICTION for the MTV generation . It`s the same story told from three different viewpoints , the viewpoints from Ronna , Simon and a couple of gay actors called Adam & Zack but the more I think about the story from memory less than 24 hours after seeing it the more it falls apart , I didn`t have this problem with PULP FICTION . Correct me if I`m wrong but isn`t there something wrong with the time frame here ? After Ronna leaves Adam & Zack`s house , sells the drugs while Adam & Zack are having Christmas dinner and having Adam & Zack turn up at the club only to have them run her over there seems to be a time descrepincy , not to mention the ridiculous coincidence of being run over by two characters she met earlier the same . There`s another scene of ridiculous coincidence of having Simon turn up at drug dealer`s Todd`s house where some mafia types from Las Vegas Simon has upset are waiting for him . Couldn`t Simon have phoned Todd instead of turning up at the house ? This also leads to a scene I disliked of the Vegas mafia giving Simon a sore arm . Come on you p*ss off the mafia and they just give you a flesh wound ? Has no one seen GOODFELLAS then ?

There are a few amusing moments in John August`s script but much of the credit for making GO an entertaining film belongs to director Doug Liman . However it should be pointed out that much of this success is down to a great soundtrack and it`s the easiest thing in film making to use a soundtrack to give a scene impact . Todd tells Ronna to lift up her blouse to make sure she`s not wired by cops , Todd turns up the sound of his CD player and Angel by Massive Attack explodes onto the sound system as the camera spins 360 degrees around Ronna a few times . Great scene , but one that is very easy to achieve . Liman also makes good use of tracks by Leftfield and Fatboy Slim

I do remember enjoying GO at the time but I`m convinced that it`s a shallow film , and it wasn`t untill I looked up their profiles on this site that I found out Liman directed THE BOURNE IDENTITY while August wrote the screenplay to the CHARLIE`S ANGELS movies . This lends even more weight to my conviction

---

16 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
A barely passable Pulp Fiction for the club goers, 19 ottobre 2003
Author: bob the moo da Birmingham, UK

Three interweaving stories occur one Christmas Eve in Los Angeles. Ronna is working at a supermarket when she gets involved in a small drug buy which goes sour and leaves her in debt to a dealer. Simon is with his buddies in Las Vegas, experiencing all matter of good stuff but things begin to spin out of control. Meanwhile Adam and Zack, two actors forced by cop Burke to set-up the sting operation on Ronna, try to get out of the charge of possession he has over them.

Tarantino has a lot to answer for. His Pulp Fiction spawned a good handful of `intertwined stories' type films, some of which were OK but some of which were poor. Go is one which manages to be OK without ever getting better than that. The plot links the stories very tenuously at times (the link to Simon's Vegas trip is very, very unlikely) and it doesn't quite hang together as cleverly as PF managed to. The lack of strong characters makes the film a little hard to really get into – some chapters are good (Ronna's opening segment) while others rely on energy and speed (Vegas), others are just a little strange and don't totally fit in.

The film has a bemused air to it and is passable enough to justify watching. However it never feels that the stories add up or make the film stronger by being greater than the sum of it's parts. The cast try hard but they have very little to work with in terms of characterisation. One exception is Polley who is good – her performance lifts quite a hollow character. The rest act as the script requires – each seems to be under the impression that any one line of their dialogue will become quoted around the world and at times their performances are just too superficial to talk about.

Overall this is an energetic film if that's what you're after. However it all seems a bit empty and, after a too tidy ending, will leave very little impression. The ties between the stories are of little value in most cases and the film manages to be less than the sum of it's parts – not even equal! It tries hard but essentially the same idea can be seen done much better in Pulp Fiction.

---

---

Page 1 of 40:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Recensione Amazon.com	Voti
Premi	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Dettagli principali	Your user comments
Your vote history