Overall - 7-10
Overall this movie sustains a definite voice, even if the voice is one of greys, not black or white. It is not just roaming all around for 'artistic' reasons.
Acting - 8-10
The acting is very worth while. Can one compare this acting to such gems as Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York, for example? I believe it's difficult to rate the individual actors & actresses per se, but because this movie depends on all of the individual parts working in tandem, then so must the acting be seen as a synergistic art, instead of one or two outstanding monologues.
Screenplay - 10?
I don't know how exactly to rate the screenplay. I can't say I thought it was perfect (the teen dialogue seemed like what adults thought how teens talked), but then, since the movie escaped so many traditional mainstream clichés, it begs the question: what is perfect? I can honestly say that the movie kept it's promise to me, to present itself unflinchingly, blemishes and all. And for that, perhaps, is the best we can hope for, because no movie is perfect to everyone.
Direction - 10?
In this vein, I am using the same ranking as the screenplay, because it is the director's job to bring the screenplay's vision to fruition, and since the director was also a co-writer, the potential for greatness is there, but so is the potential for screwing it all up. I believe the director was very disciplined in keeping focus on the screenplay's intent (his and his co-writer's intent), and not getting carried away in specifics. The truth is, though, that this movie does not aim for the same things most other Hollywood movies aim for (and this movie was made in the LA area, plus one day in Chicago), therefore ranking it in comparison is a little futile.
I'll be short and sweet. First off, everyone compares this movie to Crash, but to me it was more like Traffic. Crash was a little more 'preachy' towards right and wrong, IMHO, while American Gun seems to emphasize the sympathetic perspectives from pro- (dangerous neighborhoods) and anit- (criminal shootings) gun stances, much like Traffic aimed not to validate the pro and cons (Crash?), but just explain them for what they are.
I think it's amazing how much tension is underlying the general idea of gun control. And this movie is pretty professional in presenting an intimate look into all sides. Some people may say that presenting an issue sans opinion is fruitless (see NPR's Talk of the Nation program called Balance vs. Bias in Journalism from April 17, 2006, esp. minute 18:58-19:30), but I believe that works such as this movie provide a clear-headed approach to very emotional issues. This movie accomplishes this mainly, I believe, by focusing on the emotional undercurrents (most very suttle within the movie), such as economic difficulties, familial tensions, teenage frustrations, all within the context not of some polemic diatribe (read: most Kevin Smith movies, West Wing, (sorry)), but through intense acting. That sums it up, because this movie truly sets itself apart with its professional, committed cast.
As an aside, I will mention that I was able to attend a screening of the movie with a Q&A session with the director, Aric Avelino, and he mentioned how this movie was made roughly for 2 million. For those not in the business, this means no one was really paid. It was all done with back-end hopes instead of an up-front salary. Mr. Sutherland, I know, worked for $0.00 (as did I'm sure most all of the expensive talent). The movie was written 5 years ago, Mr. Avelino said, and it took 2 1/2 years to find the financing. After all was said and done, this movie should not have been made. Movies cannot always be made like this, because no one is making money up front, only from profits (and that is a dirty business, but note how one of the production companies is IFC First Take, a video-on-demand distributor, see Crupi, A. "IFC's to Distribute Indie Films Via First Take", Adweek).
So in closing, this movie is more than just a bunch of actors, a plot, and some entertainment movie. It represents a way of making movies, of doing business, and ultimately a vision for what is possible when the public is afforded a quality product without the vices of big-money. My only question to Mr. Avelino is, how will things change when you have a 100 million dollar budget? Will you go the way of Phillip Noyce and drop a 6 million dollar paycheck to make a movie of conscious (look for Landmark Theatres' story about Phillip Noyce with Rabbit Proof Fence)? Who knows what success will breed. Let us hope that Mr. Avelino, and all of us, have the strength to live as true as the characters in his movie.
Overall this movie sustains a definite voice, even if the voice is one of greys, not black or white. It is not just roaming all around for 'artistic' reasons.
Acting - 8-10
The acting is very worth while. Can one compare this acting to such gems as Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York, for example? I believe it's difficult to rate the individual actors & actresses per se, but because this movie depends on all of the individual parts working in tandem, then so must the acting be seen as a synergistic art, instead of one or two outstanding monologues.
Screenplay - 10?
I don't know how exactly to rate the screenplay. I can't say I thought it was perfect (the teen dialogue seemed like what adults thought how teens talked), but then, since the movie escaped so many traditional mainstream clichés, it begs the question: what is perfect? I can honestly say that the movie kept it's promise to me, to present itself unflinchingly, blemishes and all. And for that, perhaps, is the best we can hope for, because no movie is perfect to everyone.
Direction - 10?
In this vein, I am using the same ranking as the screenplay, because it is the director's job to bring the screenplay's vision to fruition, and since the director was also a co-writer, the potential for greatness is there, but so is the potential for screwing it all up. I believe the director was very disciplined in keeping focus on the screenplay's intent (his and his co-writer's intent), and not getting carried away in specifics. The truth is, though, that this movie does not aim for the same things most other Hollywood movies aim for (and this movie was made in the LA area, plus one day in Chicago), therefore ranking it in comparison is a little futile.
I'll be short and sweet. First off, everyone compares this movie to Crash, but to me it was more like Traffic. Crash was a little more 'preachy' towards right and wrong, IMHO, while American Gun seems to emphasize the sympathetic perspectives from pro- (dangerous neighborhoods) and anit- (criminal shootings) gun stances, much like Traffic aimed not to validate the pro and cons (Crash?), but just explain them for what they are.
I think it's amazing how much tension is underlying the general idea of gun control. And this movie is pretty professional in presenting an intimate look into all sides. Some people may say that presenting an issue sans opinion is fruitless (see NPR's Talk of the Nation program called Balance vs. Bias in Journalism from April 17, 2006, esp. minute 18:58-19:30), but I believe that works such as this movie provide a clear-headed approach to very emotional issues. This movie accomplishes this mainly, I believe, by focusing on the emotional undercurrents (most very suttle within the movie), such as economic difficulties, familial tensions, teenage frustrations, all within the context not of some polemic diatribe (read: most Kevin Smith movies, West Wing, (sorry)), but through intense acting. That sums it up, because this movie truly sets itself apart with its professional, committed cast.
As an aside, I will mention that I was able to attend a screening of the movie with a Q&A session with the director, Aric Avelino, and he mentioned how this movie was made roughly for 2 million. For those not in the business, this means no one was really paid. It was all done with back-end hopes instead of an up-front salary. Mr. Sutherland, I know, worked for $0.00 (as did I'm sure most all of the expensive talent). The movie was written 5 years ago, Mr. Avelino said, and it took 2 1/2 years to find the financing. After all was said and done, this movie should not have been made. Movies cannot always be made like this, because no one is making money up front, only from profits (and that is a dirty business, but note how one of the production companies is IFC First Take, a video-on-demand distributor, see Crupi, A. "IFC's to Distribute Indie Films Via First Take", Adweek).
So in closing, this movie is more than just a bunch of actors, a plot, and some entertainment movie. It represents a way of making movies, of doing business, and ultimately a vision for what is possible when the public is afforded a quality product without the vices of big-money. My only question to Mr. Avelino is, how will things change when you have a 100 million dollar budget? Will you go the way of Phillip Noyce and drop a 6 million dollar paycheck to make a movie of conscious (look for Landmark Theatres' story about Phillip Noyce with Rabbit Proof Fence)? Who knows what success will breed. Let us hope that Mr. Avelino, and all of us, have the strength to live as true as the characters in his movie.