Thirteen

Year: 2003

Grade: B

Country: USA

Director: Hardwicke

Review

a cross between “kids” (a very good film) and “tart” (a very bad film). “kids” was sort of the landmark film in terms of films that (honestly) addressed growing up in single parent households or growing up as a “latch-key” kid. “kids” took place in urban nyc and dealt with lower class teens, whereas tart took place in nyc, but deal with the elite. this movie takes place in los angeles and deals with a lower middle class family – they have a home, but don’t have money to burn. the first thirty minutes of the film are pretty awful. in the beginning the film parades all the stereotypes and uses an annoyingly active camera to hype everything within the frame. editing and camera movement are indicative of a pseudo-cinema verite style and, to me, it was way over the top and contrived. think of the bad parts from “dangerous minds” and you’ll get an idea. but, thankfully, the rest of the film got away from the “style over substance” philosophy that the first half hour employed. perhaps the first part of the film was saying “here’s what most films do with this material…” and the second half added “but here’s how it actually is.” or, perhaps, it was just an error of judgment.  at any rate, the last hour of the film really saved it. whereas the first part of the film went over the top with the “urban” music to illustrate the gritty realities of the school yard, the second portion of the film let the realistic actions of the teens speak for themselves. whereas the first part used hand held cameras, excessive editing, and passé zooms to give the feeling that we were part of the action, the second portion let us in by showing us the real vulnerabilities and complexities of the characters. in the denouement (i just had to use that word) the film drops out all the reds in the picture to leave a stark blue look as things unravel completely. it works very well. the epilogue is only a few seconds long, but is appropriate and, i think, a nice cap to the film. in kids the epilogue showed the streets of new york from the view of a moving car and ended with casper saying something like “what the hell happened.” this film’s epilogue says the same thing, but not literally. the protagonist is spinning on a merry-go-round and she lets out a scream as if things are out of control. holly hunter had a strong performance and the others mostly held up their end. i’ve only seen three of the five supporting actress performances, but having looked over the nominations, i think hunter has a good shot at winning. i really wish that the first part of the film was done differently because it almost lost me completely, but the last hour of the film was really good so i’ll give it a . p.s. i think the review on allmovie.com misses the mark, but you be the judge.