I recently watched Little Athens, and while I love multi-protagonist films (I'm actually writing one at the moment for university), I was rather disappointed with this particular film.
For one, while most (most; not all) of the characters are fairly distinct from one another, they didn't have a lot in the way of redemption in the story. Most of the characters are so rotten in their own ways that it's difficult for a viewer to connect with them in any sort of way. To be honest, the only character in the film that was "likable" was Michael Pena's character. But his character was burdened by the fact that his purpose in the story was never really explained, nor did he seem to have any real purpose other than be in scenes with Jill Ritchie's character so she wouldn't have to monologue.
It is also a tad unbelievable (though, I admit it does happen in the real world these days) to have several 20-something characters all engaging in behavior and shenanigans that would be better attributed to 14-17 year olds. Perhaps this is simply my opinion, but this kind of behavior in characters that we're supposed to like and connect with only makes us like them even less than we already did.
As far as the multi-protagonist, intertwining story goes; I will admit that it is very difficult to write these types of stories and make them "work." Part of the trick is to have the viewer actually believe that these stories should connect somehow. But when you basically go the entire film having these character go through entirely different actions, and then simply have all of them happen to be where the climax of the film transpires, it comes across as being very contrived.
While the film is not a complete travesty, and I did not detest it, I find it difficult to give a one-word summary any higher than "mediocre."
For one, while most (most; not all) of the characters are fairly distinct from one another, they didn't have a lot in the way of redemption in the story. Most of the characters are so rotten in their own ways that it's difficult for a viewer to connect with them in any sort of way. To be honest, the only character in the film that was "likable" was Michael Pena's character. But his character was burdened by the fact that his purpose in the story was never really explained, nor did he seem to have any real purpose other than be in scenes with Jill Ritchie's character so she wouldn't have to monologue.
It is also a tad unbelievable (though, I admit it does happen in the real world these days) to have several 20-something characters all engaging in behavior and shenanigans that would be better attributed to 14-17 year olds. Perhaps this is simply my opinion, but this kind of behavior in characters that we're supposed to like and connect with only makes us like them even less than we already did.
As far as the multi-protagonist, intertwining story goes; I will admit that it is very difficult to write these types of stories and make them "work." Part of the trick is to have the viewer actually believe that these stories should connect somehow. But when you basically go the entire film having these character go through entirely different actions, and then simply have all of them happen to be where the climax of the film transpires, it comes across as being very contrived.
While the film is not a complete travesty, and I did not detest it, I find it difficult to give a one-word summary any higher than "mediocre."