Who Shot Pat?

Rating:
Summary: Why did I pay good money to see this
Review: I love Sandra Bullock, but this was a very boring movie and I cannot belive I paid good money for this. This a very bad movie and should not be sold anywhere. Don't wasre your money on this one.

Rating:
Summary: Sandra Bullock shines in an early independent film role.
Review: Prior to "Speed" and all of the other Hollywood blockbusters that she's since done, Sandra Bullock was a struggling actress who worked in independent films or had smaller roles in studio films (see the remake of "The Vanishing"). "Who Shot Patakango?" (a/k/a "Who Shot Pat?) is one of her earliest independent film appearances and here she begins to demonstrate the appeal that would later make her a box office success. She plays a Sarah Lawrence College student who becomes romantically involved with a high school senior from a Brooklyn vocational high school in 1957. Save Ms. Bullock and Allison Janney (in a small role), the cast is comprised of unknowns, but the acting, generally, is passable to good.

"Who Shot Patakango?" is a largely episodic film that follows the lives of a group of high school seniors who are on the threshold of graduation. What's interesting here is that it features a school where both blacks and whites attend, certainly unusual for a film set in the 1950s. That angle is not explored as well as it could have been, however. Instead, the film mostly follows the adventures and misadventures of the students.

Digital Multimedia Limited's DVD is a budget release through and through. The film looks great with vivid colors, but is presented full screen. There are no extras (not surprising for a low budget, independent film), save chapter breaks. The bottom line on "Who Shot Patakango?" is that it is a good nostalgic look on high school in the 1950s with a charming performance by a young Sandra Bullock.

Rating:
Summary: Sandra shines -- Movie Stinks
Review: The title of this review pretty much sums it up. As a Sandra Bullock fan I bought this movie because she was in it. It was interesting to see her youthful performance. She was great. The movie itself is another story. It is utterly awful. The back cover said it was a "wistful" look back in time. Yuk! The movie paints pathetic pictures of meaningless lives and beatings by bullys. How can anyone view that trash wistfully?