WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

eplromeo8 Even though GEORGE WASHINGTON lacks the star power of the Reel 13 Indies of late (IMAGINARY HEROES, SUNSHINE STATE), it's still a high profile independent film. It's legendary in the industry as the first film from indie auteur David Gordon Green. It also already has its own Criterion Collection Edition on DVD, so Channel 13 can hardly claim to have made a discovery here.As disappointing as it is that Reel 13 has gone away from bringing us films that are new to us (though not that many of them were very good), you have to acknowledge that at the very least, we get an independent film that is wonderfully cinematic and well-crafted. David Gordon Green has a pretty simple formula – not a great deal of extraneous camera movement, realistic characters and scenes that are lyrically cut together with beautifully photographed landscapes. There is a certain poetry to his work that is all his own – a style that he worked to even greater impact with his follow-up film ALL THE REAL GIRLS.As similar as the feel of GEORGE WASHINGTON is to that film, it's narrative is quite different and deals with a handful of young kids in a small, poor town somewhere in the South (Arkansas? NC?) as they deal with tragedy and the unstoppable nature of growing up. The kids, whom I suspect are all untrained actors, are all quite good, albeit playing characters that are perhaps more mature than their respective ages suggest. That aspect, along with the verisimilitude and honesty of the scenes, reminds me a lot of Peter Sollett's work. Not as much RAISING VICTOR VARGAS (which airs on Reel 13 in May) than the short it was based on – FIVE FEET HIGH AND RISING – only Green accomplishes a similar effect without a hand-held camera.There a couple of nitpicky things that keeps GEORGE WASHINGTON from being as effective as the previously mentioned ALL THE REAL GIRLS. For starters, it's a little slow and hard to hear at times. Paul Schneider, who is outstanding in a much more significant role in REAL GIRLS, is more of a distraction here than an asset. His character, ostensibly intended for comic relief, is like a sixth toe on one foot – it doesn't stop you from walking normally, but it's really unnecessary. I also felt the voice-over was also extraneous – as if Green didn't trust us to comprehend his themes. The biggest issue I had with the film, though, is the surreal turn it takes in its last twenty minutes or so. Without giving too much away, it relates to changes in the main kid character, which are personified by a radical shift in wardrobe. While I see the overarching purpose of the choice – to explicate how the character deals with some of his misfortunes – it is a major shift in tone for the piece and stands out like a sore thumb against the quiet beauty of the rest of the film.Still and all, beggars can't be choosers and having sat through some very questionable indie films over the last few months, GEORGE WASHINGTON is a very welcome change.(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

cintact The film seemed quite unoriginal. I'm afraid I was disappointed. So many who have seen it who find the interesting or different must be easily impressed. The director was obviously more influenced by GUMMO(1997, Harmony Korine) than the work of Malick or Herzog, which seemed to inspire GUMMO's tone. To make it more obvious, this film came out only a couple of years after GUMMO. While GEORGE WASHINGTON has a couple of moments worth acknowledging, the film seems rather weak in its entirety. The characters may be a bit more likable, but I'm afraid there was little significance to the narrative once the film began in its direction. Now why has Criterion released this on DVD? I don't understand it. I'm afraid I'm usually a bit skeptical when such a film gets released soon after such an impressionable one makes it mark. I'd much rather prefer the most original and creative one.

Andy (film-critic) David Gordon Green is a master of his trade. While some will argue that George Washington does not depict the best that Green has to offer, I believe that it is a great opening to a new chapter of modern film-making. For George Washington, Green has borrowed techniques that have made such directors as Larry Clark, Harmony Korine, and Terrence Malick infamous in the film community, and transformed them into his very own. George Washington is a perfect example of this. With beautiful narration, exquisite background, and fresh faces that deliver dialogue worthy of both Oscar and recognition, Green gives us a chilling tale that is fraught with realism, desperation, and horror. What immediately pulled me in to this film were the still-shots that defined the culture of the town. These young children are experiencing everything that we have ever encountered in our lives up to that breaking moment of insanity. We are pulled in to the story and direction because Green is able to bring truth to his "fictional" tale. While we all know that this is just another "story", Green send goosebumps down our spine with his passion of realism. For a majority of this film, I found myself questioning the "fictionalization" of this film. What obviously were moments created by the imagination transformed into those that you could see on the streets of small town North Carolina.An element that added to the realism of the background and story were the characters. Green padded his directorial debut with unknowns and was able to command more emotion and dedication than you could see in anything "big-budget" Hollywood. While it was obvious that he was working with child actors (i.e., some delivery was slow, some direction seemed choppy, and for one scene characterization seemed weak), he overcomes the typical stereotypes and brings the best of his imaginary world and that of the children into this film. I loved that when Buddy went mission that Nasia thought that it was because he was still in love with her and could not cope with the emotion. It seemed like a cheap moment of dialogue, but it made complete and utter sense in this film. The actor that played George, Donald Holden, was phenomenal. He brought that sad hero to the surface and we, as audience members, found ourselves rooting for him from the beginning. He was simple, in fact, one could say that was a technique that Green employed to be successful with George Washington, he kept things simple. What made George Washington different than Korine's Gummo is that Green doesn't emphasize the poverty level. While he makes it clear with the surroundings and home-life of George, he doesn't throw it in our faces as a "shock" tactic like Korine does. Not that there is anything wrong with Korine's tactics, I just thought that Green's approach was more subtle. I also draw references to M. Night Shyamalan's vastly underrated Unbreakable due to the subject matter. George Washington is the story about finding heroes in the most unlikely of places. It is the story of how tragedy births the heroes of our lives, and while we should never disregard the tragedy, it does bring to light those that want to change. Unbreakable, released the same year as George Washington, implies the same. One could find a great research topic by comparing these two films side by side.I think I may have zigzagged a bit in that last paragraph, but it just demonstrates my excitement for this film. This is my second time watching George Washington and I think it gets better and better with each viewing. Criterion was correct to add it to their collection of ever-growing films. This is a film about childhood. Rarely in film is it explored with such darkness and honesty. Lately, there have been more films that surround itself around the topic (Chumbscubber, Mean Creek), but for 2000 this was a pivotal film. I was engulfed by the reaction that Green pulled from the different characters. Already I have spoken about George's transformation, but I also loved the insecurity that Vernon began feeling and the truth that Sonya finally saw about her future. It is sad, but extremely real. This film reminded me of a modern Stand By Me.I must end with saying that this is not a film for everyone. If you are not a fan of some of the directors that I have mentioned above, than you may not enjoy George Washington. It is slow, simple, and developed. Green takes images and makes the visuals actually work for him instead of fighting against it. The narration could be annoying for some, but for me it completed this film. I would have enjoyed more time spent with George's Aunt and Uncle due to so much is unknown about them, but that is what makes Green's work superb. I liked this film. For me, it is a prime example of true American film-making. It takes us back to the roots of what cinema should be about. George Washington takes us away from the explosions, the CGI, and the overpaid actors while delivering to us a story that should have shaken the Oscar tree. Criterion was correct to release this film in their collection, and it is correct for you to add it to yours. This is David Gordon Green at his finest!Grade: ***** out of *****

Morritec This is a movie with a story, not an action movie. It's a movie that you WILL talk about after seeing it. The kids don't act "Hollywood", but that's not bad. They do act like real kids. So real, in fact, my 7 year old son, (I started playing the DVD at his bed-time, being a 'non-rated' movie and not knowing what to expect) seeing only the first few minutes, asked me if this movie was really happening! The style is somewhat comparable to an improved 'Stimie', 'Farina' type "Little Rascals" episode - kids were kids! Though coping and reacting to death is certainly a heavier subject than "Our Gang" would ever tackle, thus ends the comparison. A very professionally done film, very scenic. Hollywood couldn't have done better! Of all the comments on this board that I read, no one got very detailed as far as how "Family-Friendly" the unrated movie is. So for those like me, with out giving away any of the story..... As far as I remember, there were maybe 5 or so 'h*lls' and about as many 'd*mns'. Otherwise the language, even the few 'bathroom' words, was acceptable. 3 mild sexual references, no nudity (except underwear?). One scene of a boy taking a puff or two on a cigarette, and a little blood during an accident. I'm not the MPAA, but it would most likely be a PG movie. I hope this helps for those who want to know! I'm glad I got the movie.