Rating: 
Summary: Something to watch on a Sunday afternoon.
Review: There are a lot of things to like about this movie. The acting is excellent. The script is well written and there are more than a few laugh-out-loud funny scenes in it. The reason I am only giving it 3 stars is because I feel it never really "moved" me. After watching it, I felt as though I had watched a good movie, but nothing about it is really original or mind blowing. It's just a small quirky movie, and at only 77 minutes I was disappointed with the abrumpt ending. Having said that, Tadpole is certainly worth seeing and is 100 times better than most of the "Blockbusters" that go on to gross hundreds of millions.
Rating: 
Summary: Charm-less lead spoils premise
Review: This could have been an interesting little movie had it not focused on a pretentious, unlikeable poser. I knew in the first 5 minutes (after Oscar has criticized a young woman's *hands* for lacking wit and experience (!)) that I was not going to like this guy....and moreover, I couldn't understand what made him such a chick magnet. I'm a 35 year old woman and didn't understand the appeal of such a transparently self-obsessed, self-important boy. I also found his interactions with his father unreal - and I'm the daughter of an academic, so I know how academics are. But if I lived in NYC (or anywhere else, really) and my 15-year-old son disappeared into the night, never came home, and didn't call as to his whereabouts, you can bet I wouldn't be all nonchalant about it in the morning. Oscar's obvious disrespect towards his dad really bugged me - he fancied himself as the great sophisticate, but he was just a whiny spoiled brat underneath the French trappings. Just once I would've liked to see a character put him in his place, like during the excruciating dinner at the French restaurant, and no one raised an eyebrow at Diane's announcement that "Oscar and I are lovers." (Father's reaction: "Well, Oscar is an adult now...." Aren't we all incredibly enlightened and civilized!) Hello? Parent much? Other (very small) gripe: Sigourney Weaver was 53 when this movie was made, not 40. I love her and think she looks great, but I couldn't help but be distracted by "Isn't Sigourney Weaver closer to 50?!" The best thing in this movie was Bebe Neuwith...but she couldn't save Tadpole for me.
Rating:
Summary: A surprisingly good romantic comedy
Review: This enjoyable comedy (shot on digital video) with a refreshingly brief running time (approx 75 minutes) won Writer/Director Gary Winick the Best Director award at the Sundance Festival.
Aaron Stanford plays Oscar Grubman (nicknamed Tadpole), a 15 year old who has no interest in girls his own age. By his own admission he feels like a 40 year old trapped in a teen's body. Tadpole's preference for older women reaches the point of chaos when he develop a crush on his stunning stepmother Eve (Sigourney Weaver).
But his attentions are also focused on the equalling sexy Diane (Bebe Neuwirth) whom he meets during an under-aged drinking session in a local bar. An affair soon starts between them and Oscar must try and keep the romance secret from his Dad (the late John Ritter) while wrestling with his feelings for Eve.
Basically TADPOLE is a romantic comedy that merges the classic romantic triangle with a dash of the classic Oedipus syndrome. The resulting movie is an enjoyable time-killer that manages to be both light in tone but with more complexity below the surface than you would expect. While it sounds like some sex comedy you've seen a million times before TADPOLE manages to consistently surprise the viewer without insulting their intelligence (obviously this is an independent movie).
This is one of those rare movies that will appeal to just about any audience. Guys are especially advised to rent this if their girlfriends want them to watch something with them. The brief running time you may be able to talk her into watching an action movie after this has finished! While not hugely memorable, the movie has heart, sincerity and intelligence (Uh-oh! Here comes my feminine side!) as well as all round good performances. The DVD I watched had no special features, but the movie is still worth a look. If you're a romantic comedy buff you'll easily give this movie a higher rating than the three stars I've given it. Which leads us to THE BIG QUESTION: Why is Oscar nicknamed "Tadpole"? Do the math: One 15 year old boy with raging hormones plus two sexy older women. Put that together and close your eyes. What do you see? I see the opening credits to LOOK WHO'S TALKING....
Perhaps I'd be wise to stop my review here. Maybe this IS meant to be a movie to watch with the missus! If that's the case insert this into your DVD player, pop some popcorn, pop some Viagra and Bob's your uncle. Viola! There's your night planned!
Rating:
Summary: Something a little different, but no great shakes
Review: This independent film is about a fifteen year old boy who is in love with his 40 year old stepmother Eve, played by Weaver. Neuwirth plays Eve's sexually charged friend Diane, and Ritter is the boy's father. While home on school break, the boy plans to reveal his love to his stepmother. But before he can, he has a one night stand with Diane while drunk. She is very casual about the sex, but he is overwrought with the possibility that Eve might find out. In the best scene of the movie, Diane drops hints about the affair while the four of them are eating in a restaurant together. Afterward, the boy confesses his love for his stepmother, and she is obviously conflicted, allowing him to kiss her. Ultimately, she rejects him and he moves on to a healthier interest in girls his own age. The movie returns often to a theme of Oscar's enthusiasm for life, which is the key to his attractiveness to older women, who are surrounded by bored people. Eve herself is a rare individual who has maintained the spark of youth into her adulthood. All of the adult actors do a serviceable job, although Neuwirth outshines Weaver, and Ritter outshines them both. The boy who plays Oscar is fine, except for scenes in which he is comically uncomfortable, which he plays too broadly. The movie is fine for what it is, but somehow seemed too thin to sustain its running length. There is a lack of subplots, and the conflict is fairly muted, with not much risk of loss for any of the characters. The most potent conflict would be between Oscar and his father, but Ritter's character remains blissfully ignorant. As it is, we are sympathetic toward Oscar's plight, but don't really feel emotionally involved in the outcome. Instead, we have a prurient interest in who will sleep with Oscar.
Rating:
Summary: If Woody did the Graduate
Review: This is a charming little film with some very nice performances. Bebe Neuwirth in particular is very, very funny. Her scenes with Stanford are what make this one sizzle. Extremely short (77 minutes)so if you blink you may miss something, but those minimal minutes are certainly entertaining. Watch for the restaurant scene - you will laugh and squirm at the same time.
Rating: 
Summary: Here's To You, Sigourney Weaver
Review: This is a low-budget dramatic comedy that tackles the older woman/younger man tale, throwing in a few interesting plot twists. Aaron Stanford plays Oscar Grubman, a mature fifteen year old who is part Holden Caulfield, part Benjamin from the graduate, and part, as another reviewer pointed out, Oedipus Rex. Stanford's film debut is auspicious-I expect we will see good things in the future from this actor. John Ritter is effective as the oblivious father; I didn't even recognize him behind the beard. I was never a big John Ritter fan, but here he is quite effective. Sigourney Weaver is beautiful and sexy as the stepmother (she should be the poster child for "aging gracefully"!). Bebe Neuwirth is hysterical and wonderful as Diane, the older woman who introduces Oscar to the joys of sex. The scene in the restaurant, where Oscar meets some of Diane's friends, is priceless, and all her scenes with Aaron Stanford are delightful. I found the film to be upbeat, fun, funny, and an enjoyable portrait of the challenges of growing up and learning about sex.
Rating: 
Summary: Terrible Tadpole
Review: This is one of the worst movies ever made and written. First of all the camera moves around which is very annoying and the scenes don't end on time. But what makes this movie terrible is that Aaron Stanford (tadpole) does not look like a sophmore in high school and instead of being a charming ladies man, he is as gay as gay can be. Not that there's anything wrong with gay people, it's just that he's a lousy actor and he can't pull off the heterosexual character. This is a waste of time and money, I rented this movie so I only wasted four bucks but I feel remorseful about the time wasted.
Rating:
Summary: The Graduate and much much more!
Review: This movie is pretty much just like The Graduate but it has a little something more. The acting is good, the script is clever and witty. The only reason why I gave it 4 stars was because the use of DV (digital video) and it makes it look too much like a home movie and that ruins it. The movie is still good, but just the DV takes away from it giving it a really grainy look on DVD! Not even the anamorphic widescreen transfer helps. The 5.1 soundtrack isn't really active, seeing how the movie is mostly dialogue. But anyway, check this good flick out!
Rating:
Summary: Overrated clap-trap
Review: This movie is unbelievable from the very start. It looks like it was filmed on videotape using very cheap sets to boot. I haven't seen a film look this bad since the no-budget explotation films of the 70's were around the drive-in circuit. I'll leave the technical explanations as to why to the previous reviews.
In an early scene during a party in an apartment the characters are standing so close as to be completly unrealistic and obvious it was done for the camera shot. But aren't we supposed to forget this isn't real life when we watch it? It actually mostly looks very much like a play, then a cheap made-for-tv movie, largely because of the CONSTANT close up shots of characters faces ( an old trick used for TV movies and soap operas to may them look less cheap).
As to why women are attracted to this kid is also a mystery, especially someone with a much sense as Bebe Neuwirth's character seems to have.
John Ritter does his usuall poor acting job (sorry, John). I have never seen Ritter do anything where I wasn't painfully aware that he was acting, and is totally unblievable as Weavers husband. As far as I go, I consider this guy the luckiest actor ever to have actually stayed employed throughout his life to be blatantly honest.
At least S Weaver and Nuewirth can act, but I don't think this will ever go down as being anything but a forgotten sidenote in either of their acting careers.
At least the movie starts off with a very nice jazzy little tune to accompany the opening credits. as well as a nice manily acoustic, jazzy little music score that wouldn't be out of place in a Woody Allen film. It deserves to be used in a better film than this.
At an incredibly short 80 minutes (by todays standards) it still tests your ability to sit through the entire thing.
Rating:
Summary: Delightful to watch
Review: This was a very enjoyable movie, defly handled and singularly entertaining. There were two or three moments where I actually laughed out loud, the most memorable being the scene in the restaurant with Oscar, Diane, Eve, and Stanley. Hysterical. Bebe Neuwirth absolutely carried this film with her feline expressions and deliciously subtle wicked comments. I loved her. Aaron Stanford did a great job playing the oh-so-serious Oscar Grubman, a "40-year-old trapped in a 15-year-old body." He obviously gets to display more range here than he did as John Allerdyce/Pyro in X-Men 2, although he was very well-cast for that role also. He seems to be a fine young actor. Sigourney Weaver and John Ritter were also excellent choices as the educated and open-minded (if not distracted) stepmother and father of Oscar. My chief complaints with the film (which bring the overall rating down from a 4 to a 3) are the DV filming techniques (not a good choice, although not terribly distracting) and the ridiculous length of the movie. Subtracting the running time of the opening and closing credits (about 9 minutes total), this movie doesn't even clock in at 70 minutes. I think it's 69 minutes, tops. One hour and nine lousy minutes. That's just tragic. The plot is sound enough to handle an additional 15 minutes of film time -- the screenwriter should have delved a little more deeply into the characters or story -- either that, or the chop-happy editors should be strung up and flayed. The special features of the DVD are virtually non-existent; not even a trailer is to be found. At least the audio (Dolby Digital 5.1) is good. Those flaws notwithstanding, this is a fine movie and enjoyable way to spend barely over an hour of your life. If you ever want to watch a movie, but are in a hurry to get somewhere, this is the film for you. If you can pick this DVD up "on the cheap," I think it makes a good addition to a movie library. Full price, though, for a movie not even 70 minutes long? I think not.
|
