Bully (Unrated/ Theatrical Edition)

Rating:
Summary: Bully
Review: Larry Clark is more than just an artist, he is a revolution and 'Bully' is the most original,
most harrowing crime film of the last three decades. Clark, a poet of powerful naturalism,
has done something rare and radical with 'Bully', he's made a thriller with a vision, Ferrera
did it with 'Bad Lieutenant', his sad and poetic meditation on morality, Godard did it earlier
with 'Pierrot Le Fou', 'Vivre Sa Vie' and 'A Bout De Souffle', deconstructing the dense language
of film-noir in a way which was as much naturalistic as purely cinematographic. Clark takes a
story as banal as any newspaper clipping and demystifies it of its alienating nature, for him this
story, which would not be treated as something ordinary by another director, is simply an act of
nature, his films treat all actions equally: murder, sex, the lighting of a cigarette, the saying of a
word. In a sense, Clark has much more to do with the american cinema of the 1950s than with
any other movement, he is an auteur with a classical approach, which when studied closely, is really
an anti-classical approach. His force lies in the form, not in the subject, only when one considers how banal
his subjects really are (adolescents, sexuality...) can one really understand his genius.That
'Bully' is much more influenced by 'The Cool And The Crazy' (1958) than by the entire filmography
of Pier Paolo Pasolini for example, is further proof of Clark as a photographer of our time, a photographer
making movies, just as the great American auteurs of the fifties (Ray or Fuller or foreigners like Hitchcock) made genre pictures in big studios, thus the eye they both have for demystification (both having a somewhat candid cinematographic vision), and this idea of an equal balance of images: a girl, a lighter, a gun. To make a reference to Godard, girls and guns are the essence of
cinema, Clark takes the gun, points it at the screen, and shoots.

Rating:
Summary: Amazing movie
Review: Contain spoiler.

I watched this movie with a dozen people in my dorm, most people thought this was the worst movie they had ever seen. The endless and seemingly pointless drug scenes and sex scenes, the obsession with disgusting details, all the incoherent conversations, and plus the nauseating cinematography make this movie disturbing. One can easily accuse Larry Clark for been crazy himself.

However, the movie is not suppose to be a fun family flick; this movie is a search into why things happened the way they happened.

Why would someone kill his best friend? Why did a whole bunch other high-school dropouts help someone who they just met kill someone who they did not even know? Was it hatred, was it boredom, or was it inherent frustration with a society that offered no opportunities to its young?

The movie, through retracing this needless episode of human tragedy affirms that nothing happens just by itself--every human action is tied to every other human action even if thousands of miles away. So how could we simply put to death the 18 year-olds without questioning what in the world has so mislead them or has so left them in their stupid innocence? So who really was responsible for the crime they committed? As the movie showed, nobody believed he/she killed, but they all did, and does this "they" not include others in our world too.

The movie gives no explicit explanations for exactly what caused what, because that would be impossible to figure out in our vast world with a thousand different faces. The movie did offer many traces of causes that stay in the audience's head as reminders for what they could possibly do, or what they should not do, about crimes like this and the deep pains that lie behind the superficial killing; Or perhaps, in fact, there was nothing anyone could do to save us from our "original sin" without a higher force in a future existance. To see what I mean, you better watch the movie.

There are movies that are not confusing, that make one feel good about himself and the world around after watching them. However, they only show one face of reality; there is another face of reality within and amongst us that is ugly and disturbing, it is too real for the world of Hollywood fantasies, but it is something that we can not ignore. After all, this movie was based on a true story.

Rating:
Summary: A FEROCIOUS MASTERPIECE
Review: I rented this movie about 18 months ago not knowing what to expect. I'd heard of "KIDS" but just assumed this movie would be a tepid effort . How wrong i was. It's not often that movies hit me in the gut and leave me stunned,.but i can't explain this film any other way, than to say it is sheer genius. Larry Clark has the style of a true master film maker. The performances from this young cast are simply brilliant. He is a director who lets the camera focus on the eyes of the actors, so you feel what they feel. His camera lingers (imperceptibly) for a fraction of a second longer than is comfortable. His visual style is unique, his choice of music inspired, and most of all the acting is just out of this world. I've seen some of these actors since in movies that are quite average, so it leads me to believe it really is the director who elicits the performances from them. Larry Clark is a master film maker, albeit a pervert, however, I recall Roger Ebert saying "if a 25 year old made this film it would be considered cutting edge and a brilliant look into the world of troubled adolescents" or words to that effect. Larry Clark is what i want to become. A 50 year old who is still cool enough to know what kids get up to,.he likes to explore the dirty side of life and show the things that we all do in private, but not many of us want to admit to. he truly is a visionary. His films may not be for everyone,.but they certainly do not insult your intelligence. THE BEST FILM I HAVE SEEN IN THE LAST 5 YEARS.