Camp Green Lake's philosophy is "You take a bad boy, make him dig holes all day long in the hot sun, it makes him a good boy." Interesting line, but what does it all mean? Holes is more than about a camp for underprivileged youths, its the key to various secrets that the adults leave untold. Saw this on tape (for VERY cheap) because of a recommendation, now I'm starting to give second thoughts about taking recommendations.
I had such high hopes for this movie. I've seen very few reviews of this movie that are less than positive or negative. I'm not writing a review that is bashing the film, but I am prepared to nitpick and say why I was very disappointed with the execution of the film. Lets but on our mature faces, and lets take criticism like men! Stanley Yelnats (Stanley backwards, played by Shia LeBeouf) is a teenager accused of stealing a pair of basketball shoes that "fell from the sky". He is sent to Camp Green Lake where he must dig holes everyday from dawn till dusk. If he finds anything of suspicion he must report is to one (of the few) camp counselors where they'll give it to the warden. If the warden believes it's something "good" (whatever his standards may be) he will give the boy a day off.
Stanley believes that the reason he was accused of this is because of his "no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather" who cursed the Yelnats generation over 100 years ago. The story is long and odd, but the grandfather named Elya Yelnats falls in love with a women named Myra Menke. Elya befriends an Gypsy women who says that she'll let them marry if Elya carries the woman up to a mountain and sings her a lullaby. Elya disobeys the women, and leaves for a boat to America leaving the Yelnats cursed.
Back at the camp, Stanley takes abuse and hate from every other delinquent at the place. Stanley manages to get a kid named Hector "Zero" Zeroni (Thomas) to speak for the first time, and they soon become very close friends much to the dismay of counselors. Soon, Stan teaches Zero how to read, and uncovers more and more details about the kid to the point where they run away together. But the true mystery has only begun...
Never reading the Louis Sachar novel of the same name, I hear it's pretty loyal to the book which is nice. The film was written by Sachar himself, so there is absolutely no reason why the film should go haywire with new events and characters. I'm sure Louis had the intention of making it pinpoint to the novel, and I'm proud of that.
The problem; why the hell was this released under Disney? Disney didn't seem to water the film down, but whenever my parents saw a "Disney" film in the paper when I was young, they would take me to see it. Plus this film is only PG. This leads you to believe the film is at a family-friendly state. It's okay for kids over the age of maybe ten, but younger kids will feel totally lost I assume.
Which leads to another argument, how is a kid under ten supposed to follow this film? The movie has a number of subplots and flashback scenes, much like The Social Network, a film of much more recent time. With this though, it was almost for me to follow. Imagine a kid in 2003 around the age of six trying to comprehend what it going on.
I was really hoping this would fall under the category of "a true coming of age" film. But no, it falls under "an overly silly, cartoon ride" pretty fast. Over time, Stanley and Zero's relationship grows very brotherly similar to the relationship of the four in Stand By Me, a fantastic teen film. With this, the movie relies on tiresome "saved by the bell" clichés where Stand By Me showed life isn't always good. Stand By Me showed the truth, while Holes shows just a very slim realistic portion of life. It does show life isn't always good for someone, yet it shows it in a fictitious way.
Here's an example if this is a bit confusing, in Stand By Me the kids had crappy parents. In Holes, the kid's grandfather put a curse on the family. Which one sounds like it would be more realistic? I really wanted to like Holes, but the cliché irony, the lack of character development of the other campers, and the corny and silly path it takes makes me regret picking this one up. I do praise LeBeouf and Thomas for a good all around performance, and Sigourney Weaver has a cutthroat warden. There is not enough here for me to recommend this to anyone, but it did try and wound up succeeded in more places than others. But it's just another film ruined by it's silly lines, and goofball antics. There is a time and place for those type of jokes, like the 1995 comedy Tommy Boy. Not a supposedly heartfelt film like Holes.
Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Khleo Thomas, Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, Patricia Arquette, and Tim Blake Nelson. Directed by: Andrew Davis.
I had such high hopes for this movie. I've seen very few reviews of this movie that are less than positive or negative. I'm not writing a review that is bashing the film, but I am prepared to nitpick and say why I was very disappointed with the execution of the film. Lets but on our mature faces, and lets take criticism like men! Stanley Yelnats (Stanley backwards, played by Shia LeBeouf) is a teenager accused of stealing a pair of basketball shoes that "fell from the sky". He is sent to Camp Green Lake where he must dig holes everyday from dawn till dusk. If he finds anything of suspicion he must report is to one (of the few) camp counselors where they'll give it to the warden. If the warden believes it's something "good" (whatever his standards may be) he will give the boy a day off.
Stanley believes that the reason he was accused of this is because of his "no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather" who cursed the Yelnats generation over 100 years ago. The story is long and odd, but the grandfather named Elya Yelnats falls in love with a women named Myra Menke. Elya befriends an Gypsy women who says that she'll let them marry if Elya carries the woman up to a mountain and sings her a lullaby. Elya disobeys the women, and leaves for a boat to America leaving the Yelnats cursed.
Back at the camp, Stanley takes abuse and hate from every other delinquent at the place. Stanley manages to get a kid named Hector "Zero" Zeroni (Thomas) to speak for the first time, and they soon become very close friends much to the dismay of counselors. Soon, Stan teaches Zero how to read, and uncovers more and more details about the kid to the point where they run away together. But the true mystery has only begun...
Never reading the Louis Sachar novel of the same name, I hear it's pretty loyal to the book which is nice. The film was written by Sachar himself, so there is absolutely no reason why the film should go haywire with new events and characters. I'm sure Louis had the intention of making it pinpoint to the novel, and I'm proud of that.
The problem; why the hell was this released under Disney? Disney didn't seem to water the film down, but whenever my parents saw a "Disney" film in the paper when I was young, they would take me to see it. Plus this film is only PG. This leads you to believe the film is at a family-friendly state. It's okay for kids over the age of maybe ten, but younger kids will feel totally lost I assume.
Which leads to another argument, how is a kid under ten supposed to follow this film? The movie has a number of subplots and flashback scenes, much like The Social Network, a film of much more recent time. With this though, it was almost for me to follow. Imagine a kid in 2003 around the age of six trying to comprehend what it going on.
I was really hoping this would fall under the category of "a true coming of age" film. But no, it falls under "an overly silly, cartoon ride" pretty fast. Over time, Stanley and Zero's relationship grows very brotherly similar to the relationship of the four in Stand By Me, a fantastic teen film. With this, the movie relies on tiresome "saved by the bell" clichés where Stand By Me showed life isn't always good. Stand By Me showed the truth, while Holes shows just a very slim realistic portion of life. It does show life isn't always good for someone, yet it shows it in a fictitious way.
Here's an example if this is a bit confusing, in Stand By Me the kids had crappy parents. In Holes, the kid's grandfather put a curse on the family. Which one sounds like it would be more realistic? I really wanted to like Holes, but the cliché irony, the lack of character development of the other campers, and the corny and silly path it takes makes me regret picking this one up. I do praise LeBeouf and Thomas for a good all around performance, and Sigourney Weaver has a cutthroat warden. There is not enough here for me to recommend this to anyone, but it did try and wound up succeeded in more places than others. But it's just another film ruined by it's silly lines, and goofball antics. There is a time and place for those type of jokes, like the 1995 comedy Tommy Boy. Not a supposedly heartfelt film like Holes.
Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Khleo Thomas, Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, Patricia Arquette, and Tim Blake Nelson. Directed by: Andrew Davis.