Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Spoiled_Pitbull This is a good movie but not particularly enjoyable to watch. I very rarely write reviews for anything at all but I make exceptions in some cases. This movie really reached inside of me and touched me and I'm very rarely touched by movies. This is not the kind of movie I usually watch.This movie does not tell the audience everything; it leaves much up to the viewer to assume from the setting, the characters, and the script. I guess a big part of my attachment is that I grew up in a classic "blue collar" town downriver from Pittsburgh in the 60's and 70's (I was 14 in 1976) and the neighborhoods we lived in then had the typical neighborhood mom & pop stores and diners nearby. Also the old schools I went to resembled the setting portrayed in the movie. I could not help but to feel for Joe and the acting of his part was excellent. Joe lives a very dysfunctional home and does not fit in well with his peers. I knew a lot of kids like that both in our neighborhood and in school. Joe is a thief but he does most it for his family. He also ends up giving most of the box of ho-ho's he shoplifted from the neighborhood store to the younger kids playing in the store parking lot. The food he takes from the restaurant where he works washing dishes he shares with his brother who doesn't care much about him. It is apparent that their parents don't provide much for either of them. The money in the cash box Joe steals from his sleazy employers is used to pay off the overdue debts of his useless dad and to replace his neglectful mother's treasured collection of LP's that his dad busted up in a drunken rage.He apparently spends very little to nothing on himself either from stealing or the income from his job and this is evidenced by the beat up bike he rides, his ratty clothes, and suggested lack of other personal belongings. No matter what, this kid soldiers on and does what he has to for his family which has, for all practical purposes, cast him aside. He is on a slippery slope that ends in him going to a juvenile detention center for six months. The movie doesn't have a happy ending but at least near the end his dad does admit to being less than a good provider and he mutters to Joe that he loves him, followed by some emotion as he drives away. His mother and brother realize the despair and magnitude of the situation when Joe leaves on the bus to begin his sentence. You have to hope that Joe gets through his sentence fairly untarnished and returns to at least somewhat of a better home and life. However, from what I remember from that era if someone did time in juvenile detention it did more harm than good. I'm not sure it's much better now.Joe the King is not entertainment; it is the life story of someone less fortunate that many of us can relate to in some way. The movie is not perfect, though, and here are my thoughts on some of the peculiarities I noticed:1. The school spanking: I thought the school spanking scene was done in poor taste on the part of the writer/director. I went to school back then in a similar setting and while spankings were common (I got my share) teachers did not pull students pants down and turn them over their knee like that. Showing a regular school paddling would have set the tone of the movie just fine and more accurately. 2. Stoking up the school furnace: One of the earlier scenes shows Bob as a school janitor shoveling coal into the school furnace when the weather is clearly warm as shown in the scenes immediately before and after that. I guess it was a symbolic gesture to depict stoking the fires of hell or something to add mood to the movie.3. Doing nothing scene: Early in the movie just before the "five years later" part starts there is a very short scene of Joe and Mike sitting on the floor leaning against a wall watching the pull cord for an overhead light swinging around .The viewer is given no clue as to what that scene is about or why it is in the movie.4. The Henry's cars: Bob's old Cadillac and Theresa's Ford Maverick were not really that old, given the period portrayed in the movie. If the director wanted them to be driving jalopies to maintain the image of poverty then they should have found cars from the 60's or 50's or just used 70's cars that were in better condition. There were several period cars on the set that they could have used instead and made it more authentic. 5. Breaking in to an unlocked car: The red Chevy that Joe breaks into on the way home from work one night is clearly UNLOCKED. 6. Dialog issues: Some of the dialog did not match the scenes. One example: When Theresa hassles Joe about coming home late from work she says something about "the next time the police show up". What police? There wasn't a cop in sight or any mention of them until Joe got arrested days after that scene. The fact that she cared one way or another when or if he got home was inconsistent with the rest of the story.

Gethin Van Haanrath A slice-of-life about a boy growing up in the 1970s. He lives in a very working-class family where the father is either absent, abusive or drinking. Joe is the only one in his family who is trying to put it all back together but at the expense of his own work as a dishwasher and his school work. His attempts to help his family are often illegal like breaking into cars to get goods which he pawns for money. In turn he uses the money to replace his mother's record collection which his abusive father broke.It's a pretty good movie. The acting by the kids is pretty impressive. These were either already street kids well accustomed with the word 'Fuck' and its multiple uses or were simply good young actors.Val Kilmer is surprisingly good in this movie. He often is if the script is right. Ethan Hawke gives one of his usually good performances.

irishtom99 unsentimental--realistic--terribly sad..i'm surprised that whaley has not been given more chances to write and direct..there has been a slew of excellent films being made by actors such as FRAILTY by biil paxton,IN THE BEDROOM by todd fields and JOE THE KING..actors seem to have a great handle on getting inside believable characters and are able to transfer these skills as film-makers..in any case,this film shows us the terrible consequences of neglectful/abusive parents..it also shows the ironic consequences of un-informed actions..ethan hawke, as the guidance counselor,meant only the best for the boy,but wound up getting him arrested...val kilmer's character,as the abusive loser of a father,somehow managed to exhibit some humanity(great performance)

jamessylvester The story of a bad luck boy. An insensitive mother, a drunken father, a well-meaning but incompetent counselor, Joe has nothing going for him but his own sense of decency. The movie follows him as he gets battered by one event after another. Finally he goes wrong, but he doesn't go bad. When that door clangs shut behind him at the end of the movie, you can sense that he will walk out a strong young man.The plot is tight, the acting is excellent, the camera work is beautiful. There is an outstanding cast, but the film is carried by young Noah Fliess as Joe. It is a shame that young actors often do not get the credit they deserve for their effort.Unless Vin Diesel is your favorite actor, see this movie!