This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete.
40 Reviews
The main word here is "memorable"
pogostiks13 March 2007
Four Friends is one of those films that you go to without any expectations, only to find yourself knocked for a loop. You sort of file it away, but then you hear the song "Georgia On My Mind" by Ray Charles, and images and vague feelings begin to flicker on the edge of your consciousness, and then you remember this crazy film which made you laugh and cry, almost at the same time.
Why is this film so memorable? First, at least for people who lived through it all, because it captures so well the tenor of the times - its dashed hopes, its successes, its sincerity and above all the emotional roller-coaster ride that leads to a poignant nostalgia. And then, the acting is just so amazing. Danilow, all angst and passion, Georgia, as difficult to grasp as a will 'o the wisp... but enchanting, nevertheless, and Louis, the handicapped room-mate with charm to spare who attacks life with gusto and takes each moment with a wry smile, because he knows only too well that it just might be his last.
How long has it been since you saw a film that made you really care about the people in the story? Even if they were far from perfect? The film presents you with people whose choices are not necessarily commendable, but the film never moralizes, it just allows us to appreciate the human condition in all its variety... even the minor characters have a well-defined personality and a history, which is why this film seems so real even when some of the actions and reactions might seem over the top... because that's the way life is, when you think about it. And why this film engages you with a complexity that is defined by character. Truly an amazing and satisfying experience.
Why is this film so memorable? First, at least for people who lived through it all, because it captures so well the tenor of the times - its dashed hopes, its successes, its sincerity and above all the emotional roller-coaster ride that leads to a poignant nostalgia. And then, the acting is just so amazing. Danilow, all angst and passion, Georgia, as difficult to grasp as a will 'o the wisp... but enchanting, nevertheless, and Louis, the handicapped room-mate with charm to spare who attacks life with gusto and takes each moment with a wry smile, because he knows only too well that it just might be his last.
How long has it been since you saw a film that made you really care about the people in the story? Even if they were far from perfect? The film presents you with people whose choices are not necessarily commendable, but the film never moralizes, it just allows us to appreciate the human condition in all its variety... even the minor characters have a well-defined personality and a history, which is why this film seems so real even when some of the actions and reactions might seem over the top... because that's the way life is, when you think about it. And why this film engages you with a complexity that is defined by character. Truly an amazing and satisfying experience.
A very depressing film if you're not prepared.
mark.waltz29 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Four friends. Who will be left standing as time goes by over a nearly 25 year period? The film starts with the arrival of mother and son in America, father already having settled there from Yugoslavia. The young boy grows up to be Craig Wasson, the main character, and the only one of the friends to really have a big story. He becomes involved with a rich girl from a troubled family which results in a shocking tragedy, something that is easy to see coming because the girl's father is obviously molesting her. He has issues with his own father, an old fashioned European immigrant with old fashioned conservative values, berating his son violently for being a coward and even beating him six months in order to goad him into striking back. It's a very disturbing view of the so-called great generation, with the wives and mothers obviously in the background, as seen being played by two terrific character actresses from the stage and screen, Lois Smith and Elizabeth Lawrence.
The other three friends are Michael Huddleston, Jim Metzler and Jodi Thelen, with the three men all in love with the quirky single mom Thelen who keeps her love from Wasson hidden. The segment of wealthy Julia Murray and possessive dad James Leo Herlihy is certainly creepy, but it gives a very good scene to veteran actress Lois Smith that is quite haunting. Smith went on to great acclaim from already previous a plan, and in her nineties, became the oldest Tony winner ever. Ironically, she had appeared with costar Elizabeth Lawrence on the soap opera "The Doctors" just a few years before. Lawrence took a break from her Emmy nominated role as Myra on "All My Children" to star in this film, and while she appears onscreen quite a bit unfortunately does not get a lot of dialogue.
There really isn't a strong linear storyline, no plot line really to keep the film with a tight structure, so it is basically a character study of one man and his tragedies that recur through his life. Miklos Simon, as Wasson's father, also gives a good performance, but his character is rather dark. This film has so many of those dark moments to it that is certainly not one that people are going to revisit, but it is certainly recommended as a work of art, flawed but a definite time capsule that is sort of on this opportunity. With better structuring and more focus on underdeveloped characters, this could have been a classic, especially under the direction of the genius Arthur Penn.
The other three friends are Michael Huddleston, Jim Metzler and Jodi Thelen, with the three men all in love with the quirky single mom Thelen who keeps her love from Wasson hidden. The segment of wealthy Julia Murray and possessive dad James Leo Herlihy is certainly creepy, but it gives a very good scene to veteran actress Lois Smith that is quite haunting. Smith went on to great acclaim from already previous a plan, and in her nineties, became the oldest Tony winner ever. Ironically, she had appeared with costar Elizabeth Lawrence on the soap opera "The Doctors" just a few years before. Lawrence took a break from her Emmy nominated role as Myra on "All My Children" to star in this film, and while she appears onscreen quite a bit unfortunately does not get a lot of dialogue.
There really isn't a strong linear storyline, no plot line really to keep the film with a tight structure, so it is basically a character study of one man and his tragedies that recur through his life. Miklos Simon, as Wasson's father, also gives a good performance, but his character is rather dark. This film has so many of those dark moments to it that is certainly not one that people are going to revisit, but it is certainly recommended as a work of art, flawed but a definite time capsule that is sort of on this opportunity. With better structuring and more focus on underdeveloped characters, this could have been a classic, especially under the direction of the genius Arthur Penn.
A wonderful must-see film...don't miss this one!
elliottrainbow6 March 2000
This film about four friends coming of age in the 60s is one of my favorite films of all time. The acting and script in this movie are unlike any you will ever see in another film. Jodi Thelen is perhaps the best young actress I have ever seen. She makes Georgia a truly unique, unforgettable character. I have to admit that I fell in love with Georgia AND Jodi after seeing this movie. Some of the dialogue spoken between the characters is like poetry (and some of it is poetry). Craig Wasson (one of my favorite actors...he's a natural actor, never fake) plays Danilo with such passion that's it easy to believe that he is an immigrant that comes to love America. This is on my list of top 10 best films of all time. Anyone who has seen this movie PLEASE write me! I can't find ANYONE around the south who has seen this film, much less anyone who loves it as much as I do.
A POWERFUL FILM ABOUT A TURBULENT ERA
KatMiss3 May 2001
Behind the nostalgic music, we see a young boy get off a train. He is arriving from Yugoslavia to meet his father, a man he has not seen in a decade. At the train station, we meet the man. He never smiles.
Thus, we begin our journey into "Four Friends", Arthur Penn's powerful and amazing film. You may ask why I began my review that way. Well, that is the way the video box describes the film. You may have figured out that the film will be the story of the boy trying to get along with this emotionless man and eventually, he will peel away at his cover and expose the kindness.
Well, if you bought that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You see, modern Hollywood would make that film. Penn has always been an outsider and has never resorted to typical cliched storytelling. He always tells interesting stories about people (his credits include "Bonnie and Clyde", "The Chase", "Alice's Restaurant" and the underrated "Mickey One") and "Four Friends" is no exception.
A typical Hollywood film would focus on the boy who is named Danilo. But Steve Tesich's script only focuses on that for about 4 minutes and then abandons him. We meet the adult Danilo, played by Craig Wasson (whom you may recognize from "Body Double" and "Nightmare on Elm Street 3") and his friends, Tom, David and the passionate Georgia. The movie takes us throughout the Sixties. Now in a lesser film, the events would receive the attention. But in "Four Friends", these events happen, but Penn and Tesich is more concerned with character study than plot and I think the film is better that way. We know the events; we don't need to dwell on them again.
I know I haven't described much of the plot, but I don't know if you can describe "Four Friends". It's not one of those "high-concept" films that can be described in a single sentence. It's a film of many moods and textures. It's also a genuinely emotional experience. The final twenty minutes of this film moved me to tears. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Rarely does a film have such power that it can reduce me to tears. The acting is first rate, especially by Craig Wasson, who seems to be one of the most underused actors working today. This is such a difficult, emotional performance and Wasson pulls it off. He should have received an Oscar for this. Another great performance is by Jodi Thelen, who has an even more difficult role than Wasson. But she handles it extremely well and gives Georgia a certain dignity most Hollywood actresses wouldn't (they'd be too scared to even try; they'd be more concerned with image rather than giving a great performance; that's not what acting is about). She also deserved an Oscar.
"Four Friends" didn't receive much of a push in 1981. Maybe people just didn't have the emotional capacity to handle it. And clueless executives couldn't push it as another "American Graffiti" (it lacks the wallop of "Four Friends"). So they let it die. Too bad, for this is one of the very best films of the 1980s, a decade where more and more slick trash was created and great art like this was without a home. I ask you to give this film a chance.
**** out of 4 stars
Thus, we begin our journey into "Four Friends", Arthur Penn's powerful and amazing film. You may ask why I began my review that way. Well, that is the way the video box describes the film. You may have figured out that the film will be the story of the boy trying to get along with this emotionless man and eventually, he will peel away at his cover and expose the kindness.
Well, if you bought that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You see, modern Hollywood would make that film. Penn has always been an outsider and has never resorted to typical cliched storytelling. He always tells interesting stories about people (his credits include "Bonnie and Clyde", "The Chase", "Alice's Restaurant" and the underrated "Mickey One") and "Four Friends" is no exception.
A typical Hollywood film would focus on the boy who is named Danilo. But Steve Tesich's script only focuses on that for about 4 minutes and then abandons him. We meet the adult Danilo, played by Craig Wasson (whom you may recognize from "Body Double" and "Nightmare on Elm Street 3") and his friends, Tom, David and the passionate Georgia. The movie takes us throughout the Sixties. Now in a lesser film, the events would receive the attention. But in "Four Friends", these events happen, but Penn and Tesich is more concerned with character study than plot and I think the film is better that way. We know the events; we don't need to dwell on them again.
I know I haven't described much of the plot, but I don't know if you can describe "Four Friends". It's not one of those "high-concept" films that can be described in a single sentence. It's a film of many moods and textures. It's also a genuinely emotional experience. The final twenty minutes of this film moved me to tears. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Rarely does a film have such power that it can reduce me to tears. The acting is first rate, especially by Craig Wasson, who seems to be one of the most underused actors working today. This is such a difficult, emotional performance and Wasson pulls it off. He should have received an Oscar for this. Another great performance is by Jodi Thelen, who has an even more difficult role than Wasson. But she handles it extremely well and gives Georgia a certain dignity most Hollywood actresses wouldn't (they'd be too scared to even try; they'd be more concerned with image rather than giving a great performance; that's not what acting is about). She also deserved an Oscar.
"Four Friends" didn't receive much of a push in 1981. Maybe people just didn't have the emotional capacity to handle it. And clueless executives couldn't push it as another "American Graffiti" (it lacks the wallop of "Four Friends"). So they let it die. Too bad, for this is one of the very best films of the 1980s, a decade where more and more slick trash was created and great art like this was without a home. I ask you to give this film a chance.
**** out of 4 stars
One of my top 5 all time favorite films
hdwriter18 January 2006
I haven't seen this film for over 20 years, but it had such an impact on me that I remember sitting through the credits and for several minutes after in complete awe. This is one of the most underrated films of the entire decade in which it was originally released. I just ordered a copy of it on DVD and paid for overnight shipping and can't wait for it to arrive. It is uplifting at times, and also very dark and somewhat disturbing. It's a story of a close-knit band of regular kids growing up in the inner city and makes one feel as though they are actually sitting on the sidelines, rather than watching on a movie screen or television. Hard to explain, but it is something that must be experienced. The story starts at childhood and tracks the lives of the four main characters through high school and as they embark on their separate journeys in life. The entire cast did an incredible job and it's by far the best work of Jodi Thelen's career. I'm hoping that the DVD lives up to my memory and plan on watching it this Friday with a good friend.
Will some company PLEASE make a DVD of this film!???
jim626327 March 2005
Will some company PLEASE make a (good+) DVD of this film!??? Aside from being a wonderful film about relationships and friendships, "Four Friends" is the ONLY film I've ever seen -- And I have, literally, spent *years* of my life watching films! -- that captures the essence of the 60s experience (and I was there!): the idealism, the hope, the freedom, the confusion, the betrayals, and ultimately its upbeat but bittersweet denouement. And all of this is accomplished without being a story about any of the numerous upheavals of that era, although many are just touched upon... as part of the tapestry. But the story is primarily about the characters and their friendship over about 10~15 years... and that those survived and deepened, despite the tragedies of that turbulent decade. Absolutely a joy and must-see film... even if one's not an old hippie!!!
I missed it
pvilleguy10 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie many years ago. Maybe I need to rent it and see it again. The gushing, ecstatic reviews I'm reading here either mean I missed something very special or that only people who thought this to be the equal of the greatest films ever made bothered to write on it. My recollections of this movie are that it was a disappointingly disjointed story given that Arthur Penn was the director (he had previously directed two of my personal favorites, "Bonnie & Clyde" and "Little Big Man") and Steve Tesich the screenwriter. "Coming of age" films portraying "slices of life" can still have coherent, plausible story lines even as they try to weave the mundane into a larger story. This movie was lacking in both coherence and plausibility. Tesich's writing, so crisp and natural in "Breaking Away," seemed self-conscious and even pretentious here, trying to weave the stories of these four into the broader revolutionary changes sweeping the country in the time frame of the film. I thought Craig Wasson as "Danilo" was unfortunate casting -- he was wooden and unable to portray Danilo as a sympathetic character. Then again, maybe that's another problem with the writing. In any event, Danilo did not strike me as sympathetic, just pathetic -- a loser who couldn't move on from the vacuously ethereal Georgia (Jodi Thelen). Good lord, boy, get out some -- she's no prize. I'll try to find time to see this again soon and see what I missed and I will watch with an open mind, but I sure don't recall anything in this movie worth gushing about -- unless it's getting into a brawl with a full stomach.
****POST SCRIPT *****
I finally go around to taking a look at this again. I have to say my original comments stand. The dialogue was wooden and unnatural. THe broader cultural and social references seemed in large measure extraneous to the story. Not a movie I would recommend.
****POST SCRIPT *****
I finally go around to taking a look at this again. I have to say my original comments stand. The dialogue was wooden and unnatural. THe broader cultural and social references seemed in large measure extraneous to the story. Not a movie I would recommend.
Colorless, corny melodrama of the 1960's.
jckruize24 January 2006
Screenwriter Steve Tesich's sophomore effort (following upon the wildly overpraised BREAKING AWAY) is a compendium of clichés, coincidence, and dour melodrama. Perhaps he lived some of this; if so, I'm sorry to say he was inexplicably unable to dramatize any of it convincingly.
In fairness, he's not helped much here by Arthur Penn, a talented director who's done remarkable work in the past (BONNIE AND CLYDE, LITTLE BIG MAN), but fails to inject any energy or verisimilitude into Tesich's narrative.
The cast struggles as best they can but are saddled with weak motivation and dialogue. Sympathies should be reserved particularly for Craig Wasson, whose morose performance presages the impending quick fade of his leading man career, as well as the embarrassingly untethered Jodi Thelen, miscast as the film's extremely unlikely 'femme fatale.'
It all seems longer than it is, and any points made are heavy-handed and obvious. See Arthur Penn's earlier take on the subject of the 60's, the droll and elegiac ALICE'S RESTAURANT; it's everything this one isn't.
In fairness, he's not helped much here by Arthur Penn, a talented director who's done remarkable work in the past (BONNIE AND CLYDE, LITTLE BIG MAN), but fails to inject any energy or verisimilitude into Tesich's narrative.
The cast struggles as best they can but are saddled with weak motivation and dialogue. Sympathies should be reserved particularly for Craig Wasson, whose morose performance presages the impending quick fade of his leading man career, as well as the embarrassingly untethered Jodi Thelen, miscast as the film's extremely unlikely 'femme fatale.'
It all seems longer than it is, and any points made are heavy-handed and obvious. See Arthur Penn's earlier take on the subject of the 60's, the droll and elegiac ALICE'S RESTAURANT; it's everything this one isn't.
Great flick
croabas28 January 2001
This movie is, yes, melodramatic, overdone, super-intense, and at times ridiculous. So what? It is a deep and touching exploration of human relationships that struggles to understand, from the very beginning of adulthood -- from the hopefulness of high school graduation to the emancipation of college graduation -- what it is that makes us individuals. And it takes us to a very disturbing conclusion that all of us -- idealists and cynics -- have to resolve: Life's hard. Real hard. Jodi Thelen is particularly effective as the Isadora Duncan-like free spirit who wants so badly to be taken seriously but can't seem to find an audience that really matters. And Craig Wasson plays a tender soul who clings to dear sanity as the craziness of the '60s wreaks havoc with his mind. See this movie; it reveals a great truth -- about relationships, about this country, about..... you.
AN ALL-TIME FAVORITE MOVIE
shemp4731 December 2000
I was so moved by this film in 1981, I went back to the theater four times to see it again! Something I have never done for another film. No movie evokes the feelings of growing up in the 60's like Four Friends. That it so closely approximated my own experiences in the 60's is probably something that many will share. Jodi Thelen is radiantly beautiful and unforgetable! Why she didn't become a major star after this I will never know. The acting by the entire cast is flawless as is Steve Tisch's script. I always wanted to know how much of the story was autobiographical. But alas, Steve is no longer here to answer that question. I have all but worn out my VHS copy of this great movie! Highly recommended!
Four Friends Another Best Kept Secret
jonathan-33311 August 2005
I first encountered Arthur Penn's "Four Friends" late one night on HBO. Having never heard of it, I expected very little, but watched because I was interested in seeing what a creation by a teaming of Penn and screenwriter Steve Tesich would be like. For the next two hours or so, I sat mesmerized, watching this incredible teaming of talent and the story they wove. A semi-autobiographical tale of a young immigrant to America growing up amidst the turbulence of the 1960s, "Four Friends" follows the story of Danilo, an eastern European immigrant (the brilliant Craig Wasson), from his arrival in the United States through a decade that changed the American landscape. Accompanying Danilo on his journey are his friends Georgia (the radiant Jodi Thelan, in a role that sadly, she has never had the opportunity to equal), Tom (Jim Metzler) and David (Michael Huddleston). "Four Friends" covers way too much territory for me to attempt to explain it here, but if you haven't seen this film, I urge you to find a copy (it's just been released on DVD) and watch it. You won't be disappointed. Tesich's script is wonderfully poignant at times funny, at times incredibly sad, but always fascinating and honest. Penn directs with a sure hand, and an obvious love for the period and the people whose lives we're following. The cast is uniformly superb. This film should have made a major star out of Wasson who is truly one of this country's most wasted talents. Jodi Thelan, not your standard brainless Hollywood sexpot, heats up the screen in a performance that makes the audience fall in love with her character as easily as the characters in the film. Metzler and Huddleston subtle performances could easily be overlooked in the shadow of their co-stars, but they are excellent and help anchor the film. Also superb are Miklos Simon and Elizabeth Lawrence as Danilo's parents, as well as Reed Birney and Lois Smith. I have not been without a copy of "Four Friends" since the day after I first saw it on HBO those many years ago. It has been and remains one of my all-time favorite films for more than 20 years now. I can't recommend it enough and feel, if you give it a chance, you'll feel the same way.
A wonderful film about friendship, love, and the 1960s.
Mephisto-2430 June 2000
A great look at the 60s through the eyes of four friends from their student days in 1960 to their reunion 10 years later - a Yugoslavian immigrant in love with the American dream and struggling to cope with the often violent reality; a prematurely balding undertaker's son; a soldier; and the crazy hippy girl they all love. Good direction and a strong cast do justice to Steve Tesich's brilliant script; the dialogue isn't as snappy as in "Breaking Away", but the themes of growing up and father-son conflict are dealt with just as well, and there are still a few wonderfully comic moments among the shocks and drama.
A disappointing film. Not underrated and not a lost masterpiece.
NumeroOne8 July 2009
I was born in 1984. I grew up in the '90s. And one day, I may grow attached to an appealingly wistful but ultimately mediocre and messy film about that decade.
That's just what FOUR FRIENDS is: a mediocre and messy film about the '60s that, I can imagine, might hold some sentimental value to a person who has been there. But, sentimental value aside, FOUR FRIENDS is an unfortunate misfire of a motion picture.
I've seen Penn's own BONNIE AND CLYDE, as well as countless other American and international films from the 1960s. I've read Joe Boyd's "WHITE BICYCLES: MAKING MUSIC IN THE '60S." I like some '60s musicians that it isn't even trendy to like these days. I like most things to do with that decade, and that is why FOUR FRIENDS was a great disappointment to me.
FOUR FRIENDS begins to reveal its problems early on. Within the first twenty minutes, we hear brief snippets of narration from two different narrators, and the dialogue is so badly mixed that it sounds no different from the narration.
Both of these problems continue: characters abruptly become narrators and then just as abruptly stop narrating. The movie focuses enough on one character (Danilo, a Yugoslavian immigrant played by Craig Wasson) to have a protagonist, but his perspective is constantly undermined by the fact that any character can chime in with narration and then just as soon be forgotten. And the sound mixing remains atrocious throughout. Dialogue is so loud in relation to background noise that sometimes characters don't appear to be speaking in their own voices (It's likely that most of the dialogue in this film was recorded in a studio and dubbed. Dubbed dialogue can become convincing if it is mixed well with the background noise, and even a bad synching job can be hidden by lowering the dialogue and turning up the background; whoever mixed this movie must not have known that).
FOUR FRIENDS bears some similarities to Fellini's AMARCORD; both are sprawling portraits of an era with multiple narrators and an episodic plot.
But in AMARCORD, the camera remains at a considerable distance from the actors, as if to say that we are seeing a portrait of a place more than a portrait of any individuals, and, though it does have a central character, it shifts its focus regularly enough that its lack of focus on a protagonist doesn't bother us. The switching of narrators isn't jarring, for it is consistent with the movie's broad focus.
FOUR FRIENDS, however, is shot in Penn's typical closeup-heavy style, and the script's focus is clearly on Danilo. The film's vision is not as wide as it seems to believe: in a movie called FOUR FRIENDS, we really only get to know one of them (and we don't even get to know him that well), and the three supporting friends are inserted with such inconsistency that it's hard to say whether the movie would have benefited from less of them or more of them. It doesn't give us a complete picture of any characters within its scenes, nor does it convince us that the characters have lives outside of its scenes.
FOUR FRIENDS also wants to capture both the "smaller picture" of the lives of four people as well as the "bigger picture" of the '60s and it fails on this account as well. Most scenes are either too epic or too myopic in scope; when Danilo gets caught up in the times, it is not in relation to any characters but in relation to generic hippies and activists who walk on screen only to abruptly disappear, as if to say, "oh yeah, we forgot to remind you that this movie takes place in the '60s." The beard that Danilo wears during his college years is also highly unconvincing.
In the scenes that do attempt to actually blend the personal and the societal, the action is too heavy-handed to carry any impact: this is the type of movie that explores the generation gap by having a gray-haired minor character engage in a random act of extreme violence that also conveniently works as one of the plots several deus ex machinas.
FOUR FRIENDS wants its characters to outline an era, but it fails to convince us that they even had a life outside of their formally constructed scenes.
That's just what FOUR FRIENDS is: a mediocre and messy film about the '60s that, I can imagine, might hold some sentimental value to a person who has been there. But, sentimental value aside, FOUR FRIENDS is an unfortunate misfire of a motion picture.
I've seen Penn's own BONNIE AND CLYDE, as well as countless other American and international films from the 1960s. I've read Joe Boyd's "WHITE BICYCLES: MAKING MUSIC IN THE '60S." I like some '60s musicians that it isn't even trendy to like these days. I like most things to do with that decade, and that is why FOUR FRIENDS was a great disappointment to me.
FOUR FRIENDS begins to reveal its problems early on. Within the first twenty minutes, we hear brief snippets of narration from two different narrators, and the dialogue is so badly mixed that it sounds no different from the narration.
Both of these problems continue: characters abruptly become narrators and then just as abruptly stop narrating. The movie focuses enough on one character (Danilo, a Yugoslavian immigrant played by Craig Wasson) to have a protagonist, but his perspective is constantly undermined by the fact that any character can chime in with narration and then just as soon be forgotten. And the sound mixing remains atrocious throughout. Dialogue is so loud in relation to background noise that sometimes characters don't appear to be speaking in their own voices (It's likely that most of the dialogue in this film was recorded in a studio and dubbed. Dubbed dialogue can become convincing if it is mixed well with the background noise, and even a bad synching job can be hidden by lowering the dialogue and turning up the background; whoever mixed this movie must not have known that).
FOUR FRIENDS bears some similarities to Fellini's AMARCORD; both are sprawling portraits of an era with multiple narrators and an episodic plot.
But in AMARCORD, the camera remains at a considerable distance from the actors, as if to say that we are seeing a portrait of a place more than a portrait of any individuals, and, though it does have a central character, it shifts its focus regularly enough that its lack of focus on a protagonist doesn't bother us. The switching of narrators isn't jarring, for it is consistent with the movie's broad focus.
FOUR FRIENDS, however, is shot in Penn's typical closeup-heavy style, and the script's focus is clearly on Danilo. The film's vision is not as wide as it seems to believe: in a movie called FOUR FRIENDS, we really only get to know one of them (and we don't even get to know him that well), and the three supporting friends are inserted with such inconsistency that it's hard to say whether the movie would have benefited from less of them or more of them. It doesn't give us a complete picture of any characters within its scenes, nor does it convince us that the characters have lives outside of its scenes.
FOUR FRIENDS also wants to capture both the "smaller picture" of the lives of four people as well as the "bigger picture" of the '60s and it fails on this account as well. Most scenes are either too epic or too myopic in scope; when Danilo gets caught up in the times, it is not in relation to any characters but in relation to generic hippies and activists who walk on screen only to abruptly disappear, as if to say, "oh yeah, we forgot to remind you that this movie takes place in the '60s." The beard that Danilo wears during his college years is also highly unconvincing.
In the scenes that do attempt to actually blend the personal and the societal, the action is too heavy-handed to carry any impact: this is the type of movie that explores the generation gap by having a gray-haired minor character engage in a random act of extreme violence that also conveniently works as one of the plots several deus ex machinas.
FOUR FRIENDS wants its characters to outline an era, but it fails to convince us that they even had a life outside of their formally constructed scenes.
Just wonderful
preppy-314 January 2004
Film follows four friends from the 1950s (when they're in high school) up to 1981. They are Danilo (Craig Wasson) a Yugoslavian immigrant; Georgia (Jodi Thelan) a "free spirit"; David (Michael Huddleston) who has no personality and Tom (Jim Metzler) a big, strong, handsome, rugged guy. All three of them are in love with Georgia but she only loves Danilo. The film mostly focuses on those two--it chronicles their lives, love and attraction to each other over the years. It also gets into Danilo trying to win the love of his tough immigrant father.
I love this film but it's not without its bad points. Thelan's high, squeaky voice is annoying (but you get used to it); the story jumps around very quickly; Tom and David's lives are never explained (Tom shows up with a Vietnamese wife and kids and David has a wife we never meet until the end); some crucial scenes are badly written and there's some obvious pre-release cutting (probably to keep the film at 2 hours).
But everything else is so good you can easily forget the problems. The story is compelling--you really get to know and understand the characters and always get caught up in the lives. With a few exceptions, the script (by Steve Tesich) is good--in fact, Tesich was a Yugoslavian immigrant himself and based much of the script on his own experiences. All the acting is great--especially Thelan and Wasson--also Reed Birney throws in a strong, likable performance as Louie, Danilo's college roommate. And Lois Smith is very interesting in her role. And look quick for Mercedes Ruehl and Glenne Headly!
Basically, it's a real great story about immigrants, coming of age, love of America and covers the 50-80s perfectly.
This film was (unjustly) maligned on its release. The studio didn't know how to advertise it (it IS a hard film to market) and the critics stomped on it (Pauline Kaels' review in "The New Yorker" was particularly harsh). It barely played in theaters (I was lucky enough to catch it in 1981 in its short theatrical run) and has simply disappeared. That's a shame. This is a movie that is just ripe for reissue. I'm not betting on it--but you never know! A definite 10 all the way!
I love this film but it's not without its bad points. Thelan's high, squeaky voice is annoying (but you get used to it); the story jumps around very quickly; Tom and David's lives are never explained (Tom shows up with a Vietnamese wife and kids and David has a wife we never meet until the end); some crucial scenes are badly written and there's some obvious pre-release cutting (probably to keep the film at 2 hours).
But everything else is so good you can easily forget the problems. The story is compelling--you really get to know and understand the characters and always get caught up in the lives. With a few exceptions, the script (by Steve Tesich) is good--in fact, Tesich was a Yugoslavian immigrant himself and based much of the script on his own experiences. All the acting is great--especially Thelan and Wasson--also Reed Birney throws in a strong, likable performance as Louie, Danilo's college roommate. And Lois Smith is very interesting in her role. And look quick for Mercedes Ruehl and Glenne Headly!
Basically, it's a real great story about immigrants, coming of age, love of America and covers the 50-80s perfectly.
This film was (unjustly) maligned on its release. The studio didn't know how to advertise it (it IS a hard film to market) and the critics stomped on it (Pauline Kaels' review in "The New Yorker" was particularly harsh). It barely played in theaters (I was lucky enough to catch it in 1981 in its short theatrical run) and has simply disappeared. That's a shame. This is a movie that is just ripe for reissue. I'm not betting on it--but you never know! A definite 10 all the way!
A Disaster
LeeRoss12 March 2011
I came very close to walking out of this incredible mess when I saw it during its original release. The story is not only ridiculous, it is nauseating. The dialog is stiff and unnatural and the plot is from another universe where people might possibly behave like they do in this opus. I squirmed through every single second and stayed only out of respect for the director and it was raining hard outside the theater. There is not one likable character in this film and not one of them seems to be sane. An atrocious script and a sad failure for Arthur Penn. From the grosses recorded here, I seem only one of a handful of people to suffer through this in a theater and even after nearly 30 years I recall the pain as if it were only yesterday and want to return to that box office and demand my money back! How anyone could enjoy this junk is beyond me. It doesn't even qualify as a film that is unpleasant but offers a growth experience and reflects some aspect of the human condition. After all these years, I needed so much to get this off my chest and express my utter outrage and contempt for a movie so bad that whenever I hear it mentioned I am overcome by nausea.
All-Time Argument Starter
Putzberger30 August 2008
Were the 60s a non-stop blast of idealism, hedonism and self-exploration? Were they a violent, divisive cataclysm that heralded America's decline? Well, this movie makes both points. And what's more, it makes them brilliantly, probably because it was made by one of the greatest directors (Arthur Penn) and screenwriters (Steve Tesich) in film history. Because of the talent involved, you never notice how epic and improbable this story is: four kids from a grimy Midwestern town (think Tesich' hometown of East Chicago, Indiana) experience every major social upheaval of the 1960s, from the civil rights movement to the Summer of Love to (of course) Vietnam. But what could be soapy, sappy and overblown in the hands of lesser filmmakers (think Zemeckis) is art thanks to messrs Penn and Tesich. Some of the images are so indelible that the dialog becomes superfluous: in an excellent sequence near the start of the film, teens bat around a beach ball with a picture of JFK and Jackie, so we know it's the 60s. When the protagonist sees the girl he loves having sex with his best friend, his eyes meet hers, so their estrangement is established without a word. And later, in a disturbing single shot, a bunch of white kids around a bonfire start pounding on a smaller group of black kids, shattering the idyll forever. Still, Tesich is a smart enough to understand that he's writing for an impressionistic film so he keeps his script minimal to the point of cryptic -- entire relationships start and end in three lines (what happens to Danilo's college roommate Louie will have you laughing and crying at the same time). After many travails and terrors, the movie ends on an unresolved but hopeful note and you're actually satisfied by the slight unease since that's how life works, and this film is a pretty effective albeit rather heightened approximation of how memory and experience actually function.
So why weren't there Oscars galore for this picture? Why isn't it heralded as a modern classic? Well, part of the problem is the cast of young unknowns, all of whom are excellent but couldn't get busted in Hollywood. (It's just as well -- better-known actors might have demanded longer, more floridly written scenes that would have thrown the film hopelessly off balance.) Another problem is the film's ambiguity -- neither Penn nor Tesich seem inclined to judge their characters, and modern filmgoers tend to get headaches when they're asked to make up their own minds. I know this firsthand, since this is the first "art" film I saw with friends, and we loved it so much and discussed it so long afterwards (we were pretentious teenagers so we had the time) that we couldn't help but rave about it to a hippie-dippy couple we knew, who LOATHED it for its lack of overt moralism. And finally, there's the character of sweet Georgia, the elusive object of desire for the other three friends. Georgia is a free spirit who idolizes Isadora Duncan, and she wanders across the 1960s having all kinds of different experiences, and despite some trauma she emerges more or less intact. Lots of people resent that, which is why mediocre films that torture and kill adventurous women (think "Forrest Gump") win Oscars while masterpieces like this can't get released on DVD. Find it, watch it, love it or hate it, one way or another you will be affected.
So why weren't there Oscars galore for this picture? Why isn't it heralded as a modern classic? Well, part of the problem is the cast of young unknowns, all of whom are excellent but couldn't get busted in Hollywood. (It's just as well -- better-known actors might have demanded longer, more floridly written scenes that would have thrown the film hopelessly off balance.) Another problem is the film's ambiguity -- neither Penn nor Tesich seem inclined to judge their characters, and modern filmgoers tend to get headaches when they're asked to make up their own minds. I know this firsthand, since this is the first "art" film I saw with friends, and we loved it so much and discussed it so long afterwards (we were pretentious teenagers so we had the time) that we couldn't help but rave about it to a hippie-dippy couple we knew, who LOATHED it for its lack of overt moralism. And finally, there's the character of sweet Georgia, the elusive object of desire for the other three friends. Georgia is a free spirit who idolizes Isadora Duncan, and she wanders across the 1960s having all kinds of different experiences, and despite some trauma she emerges more or less intact. Lots of people resent that, which is why mediocre films that torture and kill adventurous women (think "Forrest Gump") win Oscars while masterpieces like this can't get released on DVD. Find it, watch it, love it or hate it, one way or another you will be affected.
Great film, vastly underrated by IMDb's rating "adjustments"
me2222 April 2005
Unfortunately, many great films on IMDb such as this one have their scores "adjusted" by IMDb. This is truly a fine and intriguing film by the accomplished director of Bonnie and Clyde, Little Big Man, Night Moves, Mickey One, and The Chase.
If you click in the user rating area, you'll see that the actual median for Four Friends is 7.6. However, IMDb has "adjusted" (dumbed down?) the rating to 6.4.
Per IMDb: "IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it....The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective." In other words, we won't disclose our methods, so you can't question how we arrived at the score! What a shame to see fine thought-provoking films like Four Friends fare no better than lame formulaic comedies due to IMDb's "filters".
If you click in the user rating area, you'll see that the actual median for Four Friends is 7.6. However, IMDb has "adjusted" (dumbed down?) the rating to 6.4.
Per IMDb: "IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it....The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective." In other words, we won't disclose our methods, so you can't question how we arrived at the score! What a shame to see fine thought-provoking films like Four Friends fare no better than lame formulaic comedies due to IMDb's "filters".
Accurate portrayal of struggles of youth
fbucheit3 May 2001
This may be one of the best movies I have ever seen. It has anything but a trite plot, and leaves one wondering which way it will go next. It is an interesting portrayal of the struggles of youth, youth who are interested in more than immediate gratification, youth who show some concern about the desires and needs of others.
"Four Friends" is an old friend.
kwanjin24 January 2002
A wonderful movie about people. I first saw Four Friends when it was originally shown in theatres and I've seen it many times since. If I'm not watching it when it's on TV, I'll get together with friends and rent it. Invariably, the people I've watched this movie with find it enjoyable. It deals with friends from childhood to adulthood, in the 50's and 60's. It's very funny and touching, dealing with first love (and first sex), racism, war, politics- the whole 60's shebang. It can also be quite dramatic. If you enjoy movies about people, this one is definitely worth the time.
TERRIBLE DATE MOVIE!!
wckempner1 April 2019
I still remember this movie as wanting to be something and then turning into something else. I still remember the scene where some kind of female apparition is with Jodi Thelen and she tries to stop it from driving out of a fifth story parking garage. killing herself and horrifying Jodi's character.. Some of it was sweet, and then some of it genuinely disturbing. I took a first date to it, and we were both kind of stunned. It was our last date (lol). Probably okay to watch by yourself, but no need to see it again for me.
A very special, secretive film...
variants28 July 1999
FOUR FRIENDS was first billed on HBO in 82 as a sleeper hit. Having heard the term 'sleeper' when 14, back then - I was anxious to see one. (!) Boy - was I surprised! That film! I hadn't really fallen in love with a non-special effects film outside of TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE - much less a 'hippy flick'...but having had grown up with a couple of hippies - I understood the power behind Mr. Penn's film. FOUR FRIENDS is definitely one of a kind. The script is so personable - and that cast!!! Craig Wasson defines Danilo Prozor SO well! He just personifies the 'writer type' to a tee - both smart and clumsy (the scene at the window...) and strong yet so very vulnerable. For me - he captures what it's like to be so taken with agirl that it lasts over a decade...and I have always found solace in the character - and in the film. Throughout the 80's FOUR FRIENDS was a partner in crime to me - and I caught the movie whenever I could on HBO - even if I had to stay up until 5AM! And still, always at the end - there is a sense of loss when all those wonderful characters part from the viewers on the beach. Jodi Thelen personifies "that girl" to the hilt - it is so hard not to be charmed by her. This movie really stands the test of time. Every once and a while I check out my video of it...or show a friend...and it STILL gets a solid reaction. I've known women who absolutely fall in love with Georgia! So many levels..! Just an incredible little 60's piece of humanity. Very special, very magical. I recently found THE NOVELIZATION of FOUR FRIENDS by Robert Grossbach - and it's even more detailed that the movie! Actual dates of events, etc. A real find! And what's more - haha - I found the novel while thumbing around in a used book store...in Omaha, NE of ALL places!!! Guess you have to have an eye for her! When I was in L.A. in 92 working as an extra - I went into a ruddy lil memorbilia shop - and there were a TON of stills from the film!!! Unfortunately - I was broke and couldn't indulge...but boy, those photos of Georgia and the guys all together just went right through me! I met director Joe Sergant on the set of SKYLARK in Emporia, KS in summer of 92...and we spoke about FOUR FRIENDS - very cool! Also...working at a video store in Omaha in 98 - waited on a female who was a relative of Jim Metzler..! Told her to pass the word on that there was some kid in Omaha who was just fanatical about the film - and had gotten the utmost out of it. Once again - the movie captures everything that's in Danilo's character's heart...great, great work --- one of mssrs Tesich and Penn's finest efforts. Steve Tesich is sorely missed. An incredible writer. "Isadora Duncan!!!"
- C.
THE WORST OF TIMES IN THE WORST OF FILMS
talula10601 June 2019
This has to be one of the worst I've seen in awhile. The directing, the writing, the acting was all SO BAD. I expected much more from the guy who directed Bonnie and Clyde and Alice's Restaurant. What happened to him in the 80s? He fell asleep at the wheel or else got really really nostalgic for the past.
A lot of this film felt like there were scenes missing. Every character was a prototype rather than a real person. The confused sensitive artist, the good son who does what his parents want, the free spirit. The characters are the same from beginning to end. Nobody changes or grows. Things happen to them but they are the exact same as they always were which is wholly unrealistic. The parents are all monochromatic and might as well be speaking like the parents from Charlie Brown. None of them understand anything and are confrontational with their kids. The generation gap is wider than the Grand Canyon and Penn is not going to let us forget it.
Danilo's father is a hardworking, stoic, silent type who out of nowhere starts beating on him at the kitchen table. He's suddenly a caricature of an immigrant parent who wants to toughen up his kid. Oh and his kid looks to be about 45 years old in the scene even though he's supposed to be a teenager. The father came to America to escape communism in Yugoslavia NOT to make a better life for his family. That's a key point because when his son wants to go to college, his father tells him no because he and his mother work very hard scrubbing floors and the kid should too. What kind of father would escape communism and risk it all to move to America only to hold his kid down and discourage an education? The answer is NO FATHER would do that. None. If all he wanted was hard work at a crappy job, why didn't he stay in the communist bloc? Another adult criticizes those who don't want to fight for their country. Another adult forces his son to work in the family business. Parents just don't understand, right Will Smith? None of these adults have any real emotion and are simply projecting generalizations from the time period.
In another scene, a bunch of teenage kids are dancing on the beach. There are some black kids there who are part of the group. Suddenly, a few of the kids inexplicably start hurling racial slurs at the black and Jewish kids and fighting with them. It's as though the director was holding up a sign saying, "the Civil Rights Movement is coming!!! It was so heavy handed as to be ridiculous. The writer seemed determined to pack in every single event of the 60s regardless if it made sense to the story.
The film is about four baby boomers growing up during the turbulent 60s. They take turns narrating which is fine but out of nowhere, the director has a short narration by the mother of one of the kids. She says something vague about autumn coming early and is never heard from again. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a story about young people should not incorporate the ramblings of one of their parents. The widening generation gap was also something that came out of the 60s and you would think the director would have recognized that.
The acting is probably the most egregious thing about this picture that made it really awful. All of the four friends and their parents come off as amateur summer stock players at best, attention seeking children at worst. The actor playing Danilo and the one playing Georgia are probably the worst of the bunch. Georgia waves her arms, yells her lines, and screws up her face into exaggerated, silent movie actress expressions. She's extremely physical in everything she does and is embarrassingly asexual despite her best efforts at trying to be a seductress. Her drama teacher in high school must have told her that acting begins with the body because she is constantly widening her eyes, exaggerating the movement of her mouth, and waving her arms in her attempts to seem like a carefree dreamer. At one point, she dramatically sings Hit the Road Jack to a steel executive visiting for Career Day. She's staring him down with this serious look on her face that is so silly that I had to avert my eyes out of sympathy for her.
The actor playing Danilo also shouts his lines and waves his arms. His dialogue is extremely unrealistic as it is for all of the characters. At one point, he's at loose ends about what to do with his life and throws himself on his bed yelling, "I must be insane." Then his roommate starts chanting slang terms for the female anatomy and they both start abusing themselves with girlie magazines. Who does this? I realize it's supposed to be the end of the repression of the early 60s but this was just ridiculous. They behaved as though they were in a monastery. The roommate seemed gay at times which may have been accidental or may not have been. They were at college so why didn't they go out and meet some women or maybe even call an escort service? Also, the actor playing Danilo looked way too old to be a teenage college student. The light kept bouncing off his receding hairline, a reminder that he was probably closer to 50 than 20. His girlfriend looks old enough to be his mother. As he gets older, he "grows" a wispy beard that looks like he pasted it on for Halloween. It's comical how awful and phony this beard looks. The makeup artist should have been fired the minute she put that on his face. It's one of those ironic pointy jobs that artistic cafe dwellers used to wear. See how the times are CHANGING???
Does the director really believe that nobody was having sex at this point in history? Especially in a college in Chicago? That everyone was as innocent as is portrayed here? He lived through this period so how could he make a film that was so unbelievably phony and maudlin? Why couldn't he cast some actors who knew what they were doing? None of the storylines rang true. Though some of the tidbits thrown in could have and probably did happen, most of the story was cloaked in sentimentalism and melodrama. None of the character motivations made much sense because they were nothing more than plot devices to tell the overarching story of the changing times. There was a loss of innocence so the director showed us nothing but naive innocence among four friends. They were all goody goody kids who never did anything wrong until the politics of the time dictated they completely change. There was no nuance whatsoever.
The foreshadowing was done with a hammer so we wouldn't miss it. One of the friends joins the army and as he's shipping out, Danilo says, "it would be just like you to get yourself killed in a war." That's right folks. Vietnam is coming though the characters don't know it but the viewers do, don't we? Since we know very little about this character, I guess we'll have to take Danilo's word for it that his crazy friend would do something silly like go die in a war. What does that even MEAN? As the friend is leaving he says dramatically, "maybe I'll never see you again," as he stares off into the distance. Then just so we don't think it's too much, he says, "but maybe I will!" Who on earth approved this script?
Remember Georgia the carefree girl who danced around and had sex before anyone else? She's going to be a HIPPY!! Just for good measure let's put her in a red wedding dress and get her pregnant out of wedlock. She's so carefree that during natural childbirth, she's laughing and mugging for her friend who is taking video of the blessed event. She's such a happy girl that squeezing a baby out of her womb isn't even painful to her. GIMME A BREAK ALREADY!
Everyone dies at once in this film. This is somewhat clever in that the director was probably trying to mirror the reality of the 60s with all the assassinations. He takes it too far again when he has a character dress like Jackie Kennedy, complete with sunglasses inside the house. There's a love story tacked on for good measure that nobody cares about and then the movie thankfully ends.
I love this time period, especially the music and the culture. This is perhaps why this film made me so angry. It could have been done so much better if the director had allowed some realism into his characters.
A lot of this film felt like there were scenes missing. Every character was a prototype rather than a real person. The confused sensitive artist, the good son who does what his parents want, the free spirit. The characters are the same from beginning to end. Nobody changes or grows. Things happen to them but they are the exact same as they always were which is wholly unrealistic. The parents are all monochromatic and might as well be speaking like the parents from Charlie Brown. None of them understand anything and are confrontational with their kids. The generation gap is wider than the Grand Canyon and Penn is not going to let us forget it.
Danilo's father is a hardworking, stoic, silent type who out of nowhere starts beating on him at the kitchen table. He's suddenly a caricature of an immigrant parent who wants to toughen up his kid. Oh and his kid looks to be about 45 years old in the scene even though he's supposed to be a teenager. The father came to America to escape communism in Yugoslavia NOT to make a better life for his family. That's a key point because when his son wants to go to college, his father tells him no because he and his mother work very hard scrubbing floors and the kid should too. What kind of father would escape communism and risk it all to move to America only to hold his kid down and discourage an education? The answer is NO FATHER would do that. None. If all he wanted was hard work at a crappy job, why didn't he stay in the communist bloc? Another adult criticizes those who don't want to fight for their country. Another adult forces his son to work in the family business. Parents just don't understand, right Will Smith? None of these adults have any real emotion and are simply projecting generalizations from the time period.
In another scene, a bunch of teenage kids are dancing on the beach. There are some black kids there who are part of the group. Suddenly, a few of the kids inexplicably start hurling racial slurs at the black and Jewish kids and fighting with them. It's as though the director was holding up a sign saying, "the Civil Rights Movement is coming!!! It was so heavy handed as to be ridiculous. The writer seemed determined to pack in every single event of the 60s regardless if it made sense to the story.
The film is about four baby boomers growing up during the turbulent 60s. They take turns narrating which is fine but out of nowhere, the director has a short narration by the mother of one of the kids. She says something vague about autumn coming early and is never heard from again. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a story about young people should not incorporate the ramblings of one of their parents. The widening generation gap was also something that came out of the 60s and you would think the director would have recognized that.
The acting is probably the most egregious thing about this picture that made it really awful. All of the four friends and their parents come off as amateur summer stock players at best, attention seeking children at worst. The actor playing Danilo and the one playing Georgia are probably the worst of the bunch. Georgia waves her arms, yells her lines, and screws up her face into exaggerated, silent movie actress expressions. She's extremely physical in everything she does and is embarrassingly asexual despite her best efforts at trying to be a seductress. Her drama teacher in high school must have told her that acting begins with the body because she is constantly widening her eyes, exaggerating the movement of her mouth, and waving her arms in her attempts to seem like a carefree dreamer. At one point, she dramatically sings Hit the Road Jack to a steel executive visiting for Career Day. She's staring him down with this serious look on her face that is so silly that I had to avert my eyes out of sympathy for her.
The actor playing Danilo also shouts his lines and waves his arms. His dialogue is extremely unrealistic as it is for all of the characters. At one point, he's at loose ends about what to do with his life and throws himself on his bed yelling, "I must be insane." Then his roommate starts chanting slang terms for the female anatomy and they both start abusing themselves with girlie magazines. Who does this? I realize it's supposed to be the end of the repression of the early 60s but this was just ridiculous. They behaved as though they were in a monastery. The roommate seemed gay at times which may have been accidental or may not have been. They were at college so why didn't they go out and meet some women or maybe even call an escort service? Also, the actor playing Danilo looked way too old to be a teenage college student. The light kept bouncing off his receding hairline, a reminder that he was probably closer to 50 than 20. His girlfriend looks old enough to be his mother. As he gets older, he "grows" a wispy beard that looks like he pasted it on for Halloween. It's comical how awful and phony this beard looks. The makeup artist should have been fired the minute she put that on his face. It's one of those ironic pointy jobs that artistic cafe dwellers used to wear. See how the times are CHANGING???
Does the director really believe that nobody was having sex at this point in history? Especially in a college in Chicago? That everyone was as innocent as is portrayed here? He lived through this period so how could he make a film that was so unbelievably phony and maudlin? Why couldn't he cast some actors who knew what they were doing? None of the storylines rang true. Though some of the tidbits thrown in could have and probably did happen, most of the story was cloaked in sentimentalism and melodrama. None of the character motivations made much sense because they were nothing more than plot devices to tell the overarching story of the changing times. There was a loss of innocence so the director showed us nothing but naive innocence among four friends. They were all goody goody kids who never did anything wrong until the politics of the time dictated they completely change. There was no nuance whatsoever.
The foreshadowing was done with a hammer so we wouldn't miss it. One of the friends joins the army and as he's shipping out, Danilo says, "it would be just like you to get yourself killed in a war." That's right folks. Vietnam is coming though the characters don't know it but the viewers do, don't we? Since we know very little about this character, I guess we'll have to take Danilo's word for it that his crazy friend would do something silly like go die in a war. What does that even MEAN? As the friend is leaving he says dramatically, "maybe I'll never see you again," as he stares off into the distance. Then just so we don't think it's too much, he says, "but maybe I will!" Who on earth approved this script?
Remember Georgia the carefree girl who danced around and had sex before anyone else? She's going to be a HIPPY!! Just for good measure let's put her in a red wedding dress and get her pregnant out of wedlock. She's so carefree that during natural childbirth, she's laughing and mugging for her friend who is taking video of the blessed event. She's such a happy girl that squeezing a baby out of her womb isn't even painful to her. GIMME A BREAK ALREADY!
Everyone dies at once in this film. This is somewhat clever in that the director was probably trying to mirror the reality of the 60s with all the assassinations. He takes it too far again when he has a character dress like Jackie Kennedy, complete with sunglasses inside the house. There's a love story tacked on for good measure that nobody cares about and then the movie thankfully ends.
I love this time period, especially the music and the culture. This is perhaps why this film made me so angry. It could have been done so much better if the director had allowed some realism into his characters.
an 'all in one' movie
jesperhgh23 November 2004
The first time i saw this movie, i did'nt notice. The second time i saw this movie i hated Jodi Thelen. The third time i saw this movie i began to understand Danilo. The fourth time i saw this movie i already loved Jody Thelen. The fifth time i saw this movie i understood why Danilo loves Georgia Miles. The sixth time i saw this movie i had to see it again. The seventh time i saw this movie i saw it was about me. And i have loved it ever since.
Four Friends is about (surprise) friendship, and it could have been a 'sugar sweet' and 'violins when neded' film, but it's not !!
In Four Friends i think all human needs (death and love) are covered.
Summary: A Great Movie !!
Four Friends is about (surprise) friendship, and it could have been a 'sugar sweet' and 'violins when neded' film, but it's not !!
In Four Friends i think all human needs (death and love) are covered.
Summary: A Great Movie !!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
