This is topic Thirteen in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000647

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 09-21-2003, 03:39 PM:
 
AMC Hamilton, 9/20, 4:45 PM matinee. Hall #7, attendance 5.

What is it with movies that get mucho hype from getting entered into Sundance? Thirteen is one of them. It's the most pointless picture I've seen this year, mainstream or arthouse!

13-year-old girl grows up in L.A. She lives with her single mom, dresses skimpier than Britney Spears, acts out her own version of Fight Club, does all kinds of Thirteen is said to "keep it real" but comes off contrived. Holly Hunter had to turn herself into trailer trash as the girl's mom -- that's not gonna add career luster.

As if that weren't enough, Thirteen is shot on video (a la Full Frontal) with jump-cut editing (any Bruckheimer movie) and a washed-out look. Thanks to digital editing the color is even erased in some parts for effect. We're supposed to ooooh and aaaaah about this because it's by a first-time director. Doesn't matter. Thirteen is a godawful mess.

Presentation: Image was as described above. Sound (Dolby) was low enough to be intelligible. AMC included the trailer for Pieces of April -- which was also shot on video and looked better than the feature.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 09-22-2003, 05:17 PM:
 
I think it was shot on Super 16
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 09-23-2003, 02:28 PM:
 
It was shot on hand held DV cam's in a single month. Now thats some hard work! Whew!

And yes, Pieces of April was also shot on DVcam. In fact I believe that about 40 percent of the films submitted to this years Sundance film festival were all shot on video. Sounds like it needs a name change to Sundance video!

Dave
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-23-2003, 02:34 PM:
 
"Reality Television" on a big screen.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 09-25-2003, 05:50 PM:
 
Where do you guys get the DVCam thing? I read in one review it was 16MM and even imdb indicates 16MM.

Update: I went to see 13. And it is definitely 16MM. I don't know how some experienced guys here mistook it for DVCam. THe graininess obvious in the first 10 minutes is clearly 16MM. I don't even need imdb to tell me that. Now if they used some DVCam for some scenes with 16MM, that is a different issue.
The washed out look was intentional.

As far as the movie, it was watchable. But it really breaks no new ground. I don't understand the fuss. Kids the movie has done it. BLack and White has done it(though Black and White was a terrible movie because of a lack of focus even if some of the individual scenes in it were done well). Bully has done it albeit with an older age group(but who look as old as these kids). And that final scene where she screams all alone is downright stupid.

I felt uncomfortable that they had the main girl do some of those makeout scenes(I wouldn't have given her permission if I was the real life parent). It was different with Nikki Reed since she has already done much worse in real life and cowrote the script. If you are going to make a movie that uncomfortable to watch, then the movie better be really good and not just above average.

As far as the realism, I didn't think it was unrealistic at all. Some people told me recently they thought it was unrealistic. B.S. Stand outside some multiplexes, even in rich suburbs, and you will hear conversations that are worse than what you hear in this movie.

[ 02-03-2004, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Pravin Ratnam ]
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 09-26-2003, 08:06 AM:
 
The lady from the Game, Deborah Kara Unger, looked scary in this movie. She looked like a senior citizen.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-26-2003, 08:47 AM:
 
I was referring to the "reality television" look of some features shot using DV.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 09-28-2003, 02:12 PM:
 
My problem with movies like this that portray itself as "realistic" is that the characters are involved with everything (fights, drugs, sex etc.). Now I grew up knowing a lot of bad kids but they would be divided into groups. You would have the wanna be violent gangbanagers, the stoners or dopeheads, the tramps, etc. And although these kids would be involved in one or two of these things, I NEVER seen or heard of anyone who was involved in everything at once.

So in order for a movie to realistically protray all the bad things that kids are involved in, the movie would have to have 15 different characters and since no movie would be able to pull that off, what they end up doing is having their one or two characters unrealistically involved in every bad vice imaginable. Then you have the audience leaving the theater with the false inpression that these characters represent the American youth when in fact the characters in the movie were composit characters at best.
 

---

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 02-02-2004, 06:03 PM:
 
How is it watchable? Its jumping around so damn much it gave me a headache.

and you guys thought torque sucked...

Josh
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-02-2004, 06:08 PM:
 

quote:

---

I don't know how some experienced guys here mistook it for DVCam.

---