User Reviews

Ostensibly a film for adolescents, Holes is a film with too much plot and, at two hours long, not enough time to tell it in. Despite that, it is refreshingly original and offers some satisfying performances from both younger and older members of the cast.

Stanley Yelnats (Shia LaBeouf) is wrongly convicted of stealing a pair of trainers and sentenced to eighteen months at Camp Green Lake, a boy's detention centre deep in the desert where he and the other inmates spend each day digging 5ft deep by 5ft wide holes beneath the scorching sun. The camp's warden (Sigourney Weaver) aided by her henchmen Mr. Sir (Jon Voight) and Dr. Pendanski (Tim Blake Nelson) claim such treatment is character building but, of course, have an ulterior motive.

Saddled with a sometimes intrusive and usually inappropriate soundtrack, Holes looks like a music video at times and, because of the wealth of information it has to fit into its running time, contains a convoluted structure featuring repeated flashbacks and, sometimes, even flashbacks within flashbacks. All this suggests a requirement for the viewer to be familiar with screenwriter Louis Sachar's novel on which it is based, but this isn't necessarily the case. The film's story can be followed by anyone who hasn't read the book, but there's a depth of characterisation that is sorely missing from the film that anyone who knows the novel would presumably be able to draw on to fill in the gaps.

Most of the real personalities belong to the adult characters. The triumvirate of Weaver, Voight and Nelson stray dangerously close to parody at times but manage somehow to avoid the obvious pitfalls and entertain while giving us reasonably hissable villains. Our young heroes, Stanley and Zero (Khleo Thomas), work well together and writer Sachar builds a largely adversarial relationship between the inmates that would be as recognisable on the school playground as it is in a detention camp.

Perhaps the story's main failing is the impression it gives of just being too clever. Every story has to tie up its loose ends, but the more strands the story has – and this one has many – the more contrived the ending appears when they are finally all neatly pulled together. But at least it's different from much of the media offered to teenagers today in that it offers a thoughtful and intelligent story, and it is obvious that both Sachar and director Andrew Davis have put a lot of care and attention to detail into the telling of this tale.

I really liked the book, it was a well written one and easy to read and understand. This film adaptation does have some flaws but it was much better than I expected it to be. The film looks very beautiful, the photography is excellent throughout, even in the flashbacks, and the music was great. The screenplay is fairly faithful to the book, and is consistently engaging. The performances from everybody involved are very good, Shia LeBoeuf I actually found quite likable in this movie, and Tim Blake Nelson is fun to watch too. Patricia Arquette is given little to do, and while her character was necessary, I just felt that they could have cast somebody else that fitted the character a tad better, though I liked her chemistry with Sam the onion man, wonderfully played by Psych star Dule Hill. Sigourney Weaver looks beautiful, and seems to be relishing her role as the warden, but my favourite is Jon Voigt. He was absolutely hilarious as Mr Sir. My only other complaint of the movie, other than Patricia Arquette was some slow moments in the middle half, where little of interest happens. On the whole, it is an enjoyable and engaging film. 8/10 Bethany Cox

A very unexpected Disney gem about friendship. This is basically about a group of kids digging holes. Sounds boring right? well luckily we get a western side story to keep the movie rolling. It may start off slow but in the end you can't help but feel like you have spent your time very nicely.

This is the first movie i saw with Shia Labeouf in it and i must say that he is turning into a excellent actor. He was great in this movie along with Khleo Thomas. Rounding off the great performances was Sigourney Weaver and Patricia Arquette.

I recommend it. It was a pleasure to watch but it did get boring at times but comes out good in the end.

7/10

When I first saw Disney made this movie I wasn't too thrilled watching it because I rarely enjoy those movies. But with Holes it was totally different, it was pleasant to watch, with good acting and a decent story. Seeing Shia LaBeouf acting at that age shows you he already had good acting skills when he was a kid. Jon Voight was to me the best actor in this movie playing Mr.Sir. Sigourney Weaver at 54 still looks amazing and even though she has not the biggest role she was still pleasant to watch. The story isn't too far fetched and is entertaining enough to never get bored. So all in all Disney can make movies worth watching, and not only for kids, even if most of the actors are kids.

Holes is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It appears to be a simple Disney kids film, but turns into so much more. Of course, that's where it's dragged down: when it tries to be a Disney film. At times it has quality of older films that are PG because there's not much offensive material in it, but at times it seems like a film fit for a Disney audience. When I went into Holes, I expected the script to be mutilated from the book, even though it's written by the author Louis Sachar. However, it's similar to the book, except with both a few welcome differences and a few unwelcome ones.

At times, Holes has some very believable, palpable drama. You could feel along with the characters, no matter how undeveloped they were. However, Disney couldn't make a movie that was very good for the ENTIRE movie. Nope, they had to through in some scatological humor, much revolving around a character with the nickname of `Armpit'. Also, the film relied too much on flashback for most of the movie. It had uneven cuts, with much of the time in the middle of the movie revolving around the flashback, with not enough time at the present time. Although Holes wouldn't have worked without flashback, there was just too much of it (and it did a Fight Club: a flashback in a flashback).

The plot revolves around Stanley Yelnats IV (Shia LaBeouf). Every man in his family is named Stanley because it is Yelnats backwards. For some reason, this didn't work in the movie. He's accused for stealing shoes donated to an orphanage by baseball star Clyde Livingston (Rick Fox), while they just hit him on the head. Stanley thinks they fell from the sky. When he goes to court, Stanley chooses between prison or Camp Green Lake. Because his family is poor (his father is working on an invention to cure the smell of shoes), and he's never been to camp before, he chooses Camp Green Lake. Instead of an actual camp, however, they have to dig a five by five hole every day to `build character'. But is there some ulterior motive?

Holes is a very enjoyable movie, with part drama, part comedy (however crude and PG it may be), part thriller, part action. I liked to go along with Stanley, and the other denizens at the camp. However, there are a few fatal mistakes. First off, Sachar took out the most important part of Stanley's character development. In the book, Stanley was an overweight and teased kid, which helps with his change throughout the book. However, here he's a scrawny kid, and it doesn't help out his character. Also, at the end, Sachar tries to wrap everything up in a nice little package and express ship it to our hearts, while in the book `you have to fill in the holes yourself.' It wasn't that hard to do in the book, so why would movie audiences have a tough time?

The acting was good from the adult players, who include Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, Tim Blake Nelson, Henry Winkler, Siobhan Fallon, Patricia Arquette, and Eartha Kitt, who plays wacky fortuneteller Madame Zeroni. I really like Nelson, and he reminded me of his role in O Brother, Where Art Thou, although I haven't seen that movie for a long time. Weaver seemed obligated to do this film, while Winkler needed the role. All of them were good. I recognized Fallon as Beatrice from Men in Black, she has a distinctive voice. Overall, I would say Holes is a good movie, but you will like it more if you haven't read the book.

My rating: 6/10

Rated PG for violence, mild language and some thematic elements.

Holes is a fable about the past and the way it affects the present lives of at least three people. One of them I will name, the other two are mysteries and will remain so. Holes is a story about Stanley Yelnats IV. He is unlucky in life. Unlucky in fact characterizes the fates of most of the Yelnats men and has been since exploits of Stanley IV's `no good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather.' Those particular exploits cursed the family's men to many an ill-fated turn. It is during just such a turn that we meet Stanley IV. He has been accused, falsely, of stealing a pair of baseball shoes, freshly donated to a homeless shelter auction, by a famous baseball player. He is given the option of jail, or he can go to a character building camp. `I've never been to camp before,' says Stanley. With that the Judge enthusiastically sends him off to Camp Green Lake.

Camp Green Lake is an odd place, with an odd philosophy, `If you take a bad boy, make him dig a hole every day in the hot sun, it will turn him into a good boy.' We learn this little pearl of wisdom from Mr. Sir (John Voight) one of the camp's `counselors.' We get the impression right away that he is a dangerous man. He at least wears his attitude honestly; he doesn't think he is nice. The camp's guidance councilor, Mr. Pendanski (Tim Blake Nelson) is a different matter entirely. He acts the part of the caring sensitive counselor, but he quick, quicker than anyone else in authority to unleash the most cruel verbal barbs at his charges. The Warden has a decided capacity for meanness, but other than that she is a mystery. These three rule Camp Green Lake, a place that has no lake. It is just a dry dusty desert filled with holes, five feet deep and five feet wide. Its local fauna, seem only to be the vultures, and dangerous poisonous yellow-spotted lizards. Green Lake seems is, in many ways, a haunted place.

Holes works in spite of the strange setting, and the strange story, because it understands people. Specifically because it is honest in the way it deals with the inmates of Camp Green Lake. The movie captures the way boys interact with one another perfectly. It captures the way boys can bully each other, they way they can win admiration, the way they fight with one another, and the way boys ally themselves along the age line. It is this well nuanced core that makes everything else in the film believable. What is also refreshing about this film the good nature of its main character. He does not believe in a family curse, he is not bitter about the infamous exploits of his `no good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather.' In fact he loves hearing the story. Stanley IV is not bitter about the past, and determined not let it affect him in the way it has affected his father and grandfather. There is at times a lot of sadness in the film, but not a lot wallowing angsty silliness. And that is refreshing.

Holes is an intelligent, insightful and witty family movie. It entertains, and not in any cheap way. It is not a comedy, though it has its laughs. It dares to be compelling, where many family movies tend to play it safe and conventional. As such it transcends the family movie genera and simply becomes a good film that everyone can enjoy. I give it a 10.

I was initially drawn to this movie because I very much enjoy Shia LaBeouf's style of acting. I had absolutely no experience with the YA novel of the same name, so I had no idea what to expect in terms of plot/characters. What I found was just a fun movie that can be enjoyed by the entire family.

For a basic plot summary, "Holes" tells the story of Stanley (LaBeouf), who is wrongly-accused of stealing an expensive pair of shoes and as such shipped off to a boys work camp. Led by Mr. Sir (Jon Voight) and The Warden (Sigourney Weaver), the camp makes each boy dig a large hole in the desert each day in order to "build character". Through the use of flashbacks, however, viewers begin to piece together information suggestion that Mr. Sir and The Warden may have an ulterior motive for the holes.

To me, the main draw of this movie (and what ultimately gives it its charm) is the flashbacks that are used to flesh out the backstory of the Stanley Yelnats family and the area where the work camp has been constructed. At first, viewers will wonder what the heck all the flashbacks mean and might even get a bit confused as to how they relate to each other. As the narrative continues, though, the plot lines begin to weave together to form a satisfying conclusion that "we probably should have seem coming" much earlier than we actually do.

Of course, children who watch the film will be more attuned to the events of the work camp itself, the crazy antics of Mr. Sir, and the jocular camaraderie present throughout. Even for adults, though, there is enough mystery surrounding the proceedings that things never seem juvenile enough to zone out.

Overall, "Holes" is a fun little movie that can be enjoyed by a wide range of audiences. I'm sure that pre-knowledge of its novel counterpart lends even a deeper understanding to the movie's plot and central characters.

HOLES is not your average Disney stuff- it's very, very fun, even for adults who usually cringe at the cutesy, focus-group designed "family entertainment" that Uncle Walt's studio passes off as live-action. Perhaps the secret of this film's success is in its faithfulness to the original book, which is a little bit darker than your average kid stuff. The action begins when Stanley Yelnats is sent to a boys' prison camp, where all the inmates are forced to dig holes under the desert sun as a form of rehibilitation. But as the story progresses, Stanley's tale becomes interwoven with that of a legendary treasure, and this adventure becomes ten times more fun than any Disney movie about an all-boy prison camp has any right to be. Jon Voight is especially nasty and colorful, and Sigourney Weaver is beautiful, as always.

Oh, Holes... one of my favorite books of all time. I first read the book in 8th grade for a book report and thought, "Oh, my God, this is so good!" I loved it, and read it three times more! When I heard that this movie was going to be made, and with Shia LaBeouf in it as well, I was so excited. Well, my wait is over, I went on opening night, and the theatre was packed! My friends and I had to split up it was so crowded.

I was very impressed with this movie. All the characters were great, and very memorable. I enjoyed the way they did the flashbacks. Since it has been over 3 years now since I last read the book, I still questioned things, and wondered, "Hmmm....what? OH YEAH!" This is the best kid's movie... which to me, it shouldn't be one... cause I loved it, and I'm 17. Great job, Disney... great job, Shia! Holes... no holes to fuss about... 8/10.

I couldn't keep from commenting after reading the very short "Not bad" commentary. This movie is much better than just not bad. The acting is stellar, even from the children in the cast, who don't play cute or anything else but act just like my son's friends. The movie is smart and expects it's audience to be as well. The double back flash story lines are imaginative and contribute to the story rather than act as time filler. I watched this movie with my kids and then I watched it again by myself a few days later. If you have kids and are sick to death of movies that inspire a diabetic coma with their syrupy sweetness, then check out "Holes." My 6-year-old enjoyed it as much as my 11-year-old, and my husband and I enjoyed it as much as the two of them. How many movies can you say that about?

This film is an entertaining, fun and quality film. The film very cleverly follows the guidelines if the book, and tries to stick to the exact lines. The actors are all suitable, and you would expect them to be the part. They use some famous actors which give a great effect on the film. The graphics is a bit dodgy in some parts, and there are quite a few mistakes throughout the film. There is no such thing as a Yellow Spotted Lizard, for example. The camp is not as gruesome as explained in the book, and they tend not to show the goings on in the camp as much as the book. All of his group are mentioned a lot in the book, but are not in the film. Overall, a great film for a rainy afternoon

If anyone can figure out the meaning of this film, please don't bother telling me.

How the f...... heck this became a Disney family film I have no idea. Nor do I have any idea what the actual purpose of this film was. Truthfully I don't. I even watched it a second time to make sure I didn't miss any symbolism or meaningful message. No, 'Hole' is completely devoid of any entertainment or meaning.

The Plot: Shia LaBeouf stars... Oh who are they kidding? Nothing really "stars" Shia LaBeouf... as his usual annoyingly nervous and clumsy self whom is wrongfully convicted of stealing a pair of tennis shoes and given the cruel and unusual punishment of joining a chain gang to dig holes in the desert. Where is this? Singapore? Yes, that's the premise of the light hearted Disney romp, juvenile offenders being sadistically punished with inhumane desert conditions and being forced to dig holes in the middle of the desert.

But the holes lead to something interesting right? WRONG! They're just holes! The meat of the film is sadists Sigourney Weaver and Jon Voight tormenting their juvenile prisoners. This isn't even done in fun or funny way like 'Cool Hand Luke' where the prisoners found inventive ways to have fun. These poor kids are just tormented for fun! Sigourney Weaver even uses snake venom as nail polish so her mere slap sends people into death spasms! That's Disney.

The realistic pain of the victims isn't even funny in ways that at least the ultra violent prison films 'S.S. Hell Camp' and 'Rikki Oh' were funny.

The film's run time is dragged out to 2.5 hours via flashbacks to Shia LaBeouf's "pig thieving" great grandfather whom cursed the family, and scenes of Patricia Arquette catching jungle fever in the wild west. WTF these scenes have to do with the hole digging chain gang is beyond me.

The ending is truly tacked on as Roma Mafia pulls up in a black Jaguar as LaBeouf's attorney and manages to single handedly free the entire camp and arrest all the guards as LaBeouf digs up a chest with AT&T shares worth millions. Talk about a tacked on ending to wrap things up in under five minutes.

'Holes' really isn't that bad. The acting is solid and the production quality is above average. I just didn't see the point of the whole film.

Wrongly convicted of stealing a pair of trainers, Stanley gets sent to a young offenders camp in the desert where the boys are made to dig holes each day – not to get anywhere or achieve anything but just to build character. Under the strict supervision of the mean Mr Sir and the warden, the boys are put through strict daily regimes as punishment. While digging, Stanley finds some artifacts that allude the town and people who used to be in this desert area – a history that the warden has a particular interest in. So while Stanley's story moves forward, the history of the town and in particular outlaw Kate Barlow is told in flashback.

Like many viewers I had hoped that Holes would be better because of the cast but also the fact that it does generally does have a good reputation. Here and there across the film I could see elements of what I was hoping for in the characters, the development of the darker themes, the expansion on genre clichés and so on. Sadly though for the most part the film is a rather uneven mess that never really satisfied me as a film. The ideas are good but somehow it has not been pulled together into a final product that works as a coherent product. The tone is as uneven as the material and it does drift around unevenly and doesn't flow forward as a good narrative.

It does has its moments and I did like it here and there but ultimately I was left a tad disappointed by it. The cast must have seen something in it because of the sheer volume of well-known faces. Risen star LaBeouf is roundly good and his strong performance did make it feel more of a shame that the material hadn't come under him in support. Voight is hammy and only works part of the time while Weaver is not a character I understood and it affected how good I thought she was. Nelson was OK but the adult cast do tend to be out-acted by some of the kids – in particular Thomas, Jefferson and a few others.

Holes has its moments and it does have good elements to it but it fails to pull them all together effectively into a satisfying story with a consistent tone to it. As a result the film is pretty messy and hard to really get into or stick with. A shame but at best Holes is a so-so family film.

The reviews were pretty good for HOLES, so decided to go see it. It was a cute movie and typical of a lot of Disney movies. It is a shame to see John Voit in this type of Red Neck role, and it just seems that it was a few years ago that he was the Midnight Cowboy. How time flies. The theater was full of kids, and I think this was definetly a kids movie.

1st watched 7/5/2003 - 7 out of 10(Dir-Andrew Davis): Well-played out strange story about a boy who gets hit on the head with a pair of `stolen' tennis shoes and is sent to a juvenile camp where their primary purpose is to dig holes for the Warden(played by Sigourney Weaver) who is looking for lost treasure that she thinks is intended for her family. The boy who got hit in the head with the flying footwear is one part of a family who feels that they have been under a curse because of something that an ancester forgot to do for a fortune teller. Yes, if you think this is confusing I have just begun. What makes this movie work is the uniqueness of each character and the way they are explored. The author of the original book also wrote this screenplay and it shows because he has packed a lot into this 2 hours(showing his pride for his original work) and not intending for it's message to get lost. The message, I will leave for others to determine by watching the movie. All-in-all this was a delightful departure for the Walt Disney company despite the fact that we do get the feel-good ending expected from them. It seems that the screenwriter & director were given a lot of freedom to explore all the characters the way a novel normally would, which makes for a very unique film-going experience. Although I haven't told you much about the movie, I hope I've enticed you to try this one out. The wonderful storytelling and the excellent cast makes it very worthwhile.

And I'm serious! Truly one of the most fantastic films I have ever had the pleasure of watching. What's so wonderful is that very rarely does a good book turn into a movie that is not only good, but if possible better than the novel it was based on. Perhaps in the case of Lord of the Rings and Trainspotting, but it is a rare occurrence indeed. But I think that the fact that Louis Sachar was involved from the beginning helped masses, so that the film sticks close to the story but takes it even further. This film has many elements that make it what it is:

1. A unique, original story with a good mix of fun and humour, but a mature edge. 2. Brilliant actors. Adults and kids alike, these actors know how to bring the story to life and deliver their lines with enthusiasm and style without going overboard, as sometimes happen with kids movies. 3. Breathtaking scenery. And it doesn't matter if it's real or CGI, the setting in itself is a masterpiece. I especially love the image of the holes from a birds eye view. 4. A talented director who breathes life into the book and turns it into technicolour genius. The transitions in time work well and capture the steady climax from the book, leading up to the twists throughout the film. 5. Louis Sachar! The guy who had me reading a book nonstop from start to finish so that I couldn't put it down. He makes sure that the script sticks to the book, with new bits added in to make it even better. 6. And speaking of the script! The one-liners in this are smart, funny and unpatronising. But there are also parts to make you smile, make you cry, and tug at your heartstrings to make you love this story all the more. 7. Beautiful soundtrack. There's not a song in this film that I haven't fallen for, and that's something considering I'm supposed to be a punk-rocker. The songs link to the story well and add extra jazz to the overall style of the film. If you're going to buy the film, I recommend you buy the soundtrack too, especially for "If Only", which centres around the story and contains the chorus from the book.

I do not work for the people who made Holes, by the way, I'm just a fan, plugging my favourite film and giving it the review it deserves. If you haven't seen it, do it. Now. This very instant. Go!

Clever, well acted, intriguing tale - zero is great. A rainy day film to dwell on your life.

Holes, the novel, was forced on me in an education course. I didn't think I would like a children's novel; plus, the other couple of books I was forced to read for the class were really bad. But, to my surprise, I absolutely loved Holes. It really is one of the most perfectly written novels I've ever read. I think it has the rare quality that makes it appeal to pre-teens, teenagers, and adults. Everyone who reads it, I think, will walk away a better person. While I can't quite say that for the film, I am happy to say that they got it mostly right. I don't think viewers of the film will walk away as enriched, but they will certainly be entertained, without the side effect of being stupider when they sat down. It is an intelligent story, and it's very well told. I think it moves a tad too quickly. The novel takes more time in developing the characters. And the flashbacks come in and out so quickly that they don't have too much time to register. The interracial romance in the past feels more cliché and trite than it does in the novel. And the ending, which ties together all the loose threads, seems very ridiculous. It's exactly the same in the novel, but there's a sense of the absurd that doesn't quite exist in the film. It works a lot better. I also don't like the multitude of pop songs. I wish Disney didn't feel it such a necessity to sell soundtracks. The cast is across-the-board excellent, from the young kids to the old pros. Jon Voight is especially great. Not quite sure why we need Catwoman and the Fonze, though. 9/10.

This is one of my favorite films of all time. I read the book and liked it, but this movie expands on everything the book made famous. The acting is fantastic, especially from Jon Voight, who plays Mr. Sir, a very evil character. This film has a certain way of storytelling that keeps you hooked throughout, until the end where everything is pulled together for a great ending. I also love the way this is directed, by flashing back and forth between the modern day and Stanley's ancestors' stories. The story was written by Louis Sachar, yes, but it seems that this story is made for film, and Andrew Davis does a great job directing it. I definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys good movies.

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.