Comments on: Youth In Revolt Review

By: Lex

Lex — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 05:40:48 +0000

This review is way off the mark. I feel the audience member writing the review should have taken the time to develop a sense of humor before embarking upon the film; thus, it would have made much more sense.

By: asher_faye

asher_faye — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:16:53 +0000

i just imagined the whole movie as a stop-motion movie. somehow that made me feel a little better. weird, huh?

By: asher_faye

asher_faye — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:16:53 +0000

i just imagined the whole movie as a stop-motion movie. somehow that made me feel a little better. weird, huh?

By: Polly_Projectionist

Polly_Projectionist — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:57:18 +0000

I agree – the trailer seemed to have a whole different premise!
The main plot seems to be “16 year old frantically wants to get laid.” Was there more there? Didn't read the book (think book Twisp was only 14. @ 20 or so that would be hard to pull off, even for Cera…)
He keeps looking around & everybody seems to be getting action but him!
I LOVE Michael Cera! Will SOMEBODY give that boy a decent script, though!
His alter-ego is proof that he has talent. He has that dry Bob Newhart kind of style – and he pulls it off!
(I loved him in “The Year One” — haven't seen his other work)
All-in-all I think this is a better movie than it looks like at first glance.

By: buy r4ds

buy r4ds — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:14:17 +0000

As a longtime fan of the book, I really enjoyed the first third of the movie (up until he moved to Ukiah). Even though a lot was obviously cut out, it stayed true to the spirit of the book and characters. As for the reviewers comments about Paul and Trent being introduced too late, and about the random plot twists near the end, this was the consequence of cutting major characters and key plot points from the book out of the movie. I understand the need for this, as the book is over 800 pages. However eliminating the layers of plotting and deception, key characters to the plotline, and turning the month that Nick lived as Carlotta into a few minutes, The rest seemed forced. Paul is much more important in the book, and Trent much more three dimentional. The book is a carefully crafted symphony of Nick's manipulation of all the people around him, and the majority of that was not in the movie.

By: Kofi_Outlaw

Kofi_Outlaw — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:23:41 +0000

I don't think the movie was “dumb,” per se – just that it was trying to be smart without being engaging enough. Many people won't care enough to “get it.”

By: AnglophileClaire

AnglophileClaire — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:44:01 +0000

See, when I was watching the movie I lvoed it. I thought it was brilliant since Nick Twisp is the idealized teenage boy and Sheeni is the idealized girl, and it's how Nick tries so hara and does so much to be with Sheeni. I love a thte end of the movie, when Nick is trying to explain to sheeni why he did all this, he says, “I did this so you wouldn't be alone anymore.” That's perfect because, me being a teenager, feel alone all the time and here comes this guy, not the best or anything but does all this for you, so you're never lonely anymore.

By: gravityrainbow

gravityrainbow — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:08:04 +0000

It's interesting because when the original posters came out Zach Galifianakis' name was not on them until about a month before release. I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the book and the role he plays is incredibly small. Clearly someone over at Dimension thought they needed a boost.

By: Vikinglifeguard

Vikinglifeguard — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:00:19 +0000

I am tired of Michael Cera. He seems to play the same character always. I am glad this got bad reviews because I thought it was going to be bad. If you have to advertise that someone “from the Hangover” is in your film, then that isn't going to go well. You shouldn't have to rely on another popular movie to get people to your movie.

By: neontiger21

neontiger21 — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:20:42 +0000

I absolutely agree with this review. A terrible case of false advertising. Not only was the alternate persona thing hardly a part of the story, the film was advertised as much more of a comedy than it actually was. I also wondered why on earth the depressed friend and the stoner brother were included in the story, as they served no purpose.