Go (1999) Poster

(1999)

User Reviews

Review this title
419 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A wonderful wild ride; sometimes too clever, sometimes not enough
Gouda-329 April 1999
"Go" reads like a very very good sophomore offering by a very very good up-and-coming director. You can almost see a bright future for everyone involved in the film, from the director (Doug Liman) to the screenwriter (John August) to all of the young actors. The script is clearly the winner, with witty dialogue and a convoluted plotline (or plotlines, depending on how you view it) centered around a dozen or so GenX-er Los Angelenos on Christmas Eve. The film slickly moves you from one plotline to the next, as you follow one minor disaster leading to other minor disasters.

The film being a "sophomore offering," of course, has some drawbacks. Yes, it is tangentially derivative of "Pulp Fiction." And yes, it does scrounge a bit from this teen flick and that. In some cases, certain plotlines wrap up too neatly, and in other cases the plotlines don't converge nearly as neatly enough. But what the film may lack in originality it certainly makes up for with style and quirks.

The real discovery in all this is the cast. Sarah Polly stands out (listen to her mild Canadian accent slip through once in a while) as the world-weary checkout gal who's first and only foray into drug-dealing unleashes a legion of trouble for her. Desmond Askew (wonderfully punny name) is this Pulp Fiction's Tim Roth, glib and cocky as his well-ordered world whirls and crumbles around him in a neatly choreographed disaster. As the sinister drug supplier, Timothy Olyphant is particularly menacing, exuding equal amounts of danger and innocence, sexiness and insecurity. The characters in "Go" never become cardboard parodies of themselves, and they never dissolve into charicatures of themselves for the sake of plot or atmosphere.

So watch the film, soak in the plot, atmosphere, and the characters. At the risk of sounding glib myself, by all means "Go."
69 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
enough of the "Pulp Fiction" comparrisons!
patrickl-123 October 2002
This film has traces of Pulp Fiction embedded in it, but it's got a little "Swingers" and other films to it as well. All in all it's an entertaining movie which ends without epiphany for these characters (like .....). This film has multiple stories but does not try to be alternative and cool. It just wants to work! Sarah Polley (whom I never heard of at the time but follow her work now) was great; Katie Holmes wasn't quite Katie Holmes - and that was good; Fichtner's good; but my favorite was Timothy Olyphant who did a kick-ass job of a charasmatic bad-guy (it was hard not to hate him by the end). I've read the other comments and these people just take this thing TOO seriously! It's not the movie of 1999, it's not "Pulp Fiction", it's just "Go". I have this movie on DVD and heard Doug Linman's commentary: he sounds like he had a lot of fun making this. I had a killer time watching this. I guess if I came in with different expectations I would've hated it like everyone else on this site!
31 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Unpredictably entertaining
Mammoth-23 July 2000
I don't know what really makes this movie so great. It could be the outstanding cast, the pitch perfect editing, the quick and funny dialog or maybe some other feature of a movie one could possibly like.

The truth is this movie couldn't been done any better. When I watch a movie I usually come up with lots of things, which could have been done better or at least differently. This time I ended up with nothing.

What amazes me the most is how they manage to define all the 10+ major characters so well, and they do it in what, less than 100 minutes. Most movies featuring many characters, fall apart cause there isn't enough screen time to present the differences among them, which just leads to a smear of unrecognizable faces. This doesn't happen with this movie for two reasons: A) All characters have at least one scene to really define themselves. B) By dividing the the film into three sub-plots you can easily relate each character to a specific sub-plot.

The tempo is very fast for 90% of the movie. There are two scenes, which have a significantly slower tempo. Those are the two scenes featuring Katie Holmes and Timothy Olyphant. First in the apartment and later in the coffee-shop. In my opinion those scenes are the best, but there is a lot to choose from so I'm not offended if yours isn't.

This movie really shows that even simple and straight forward stories, can be both unpredictable and entertaining, if they are told the right way. Add to this a pumping soundtrack, solid editing and an overall great production in an unpredictably entertaining movie, you will agree with me that Go is one of the best films ever made.
45 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sit down & strap yourself in for this wild ride
Adriane25 August 1999
One of the best this year! A wild ride that is hard to not compare to "Pulp Fiction", but if you didn't like Pulp, you won't like Go. I loved both, so this is a treat! Doug Liman had directed a worthy follow-up to Swingers, in the eyes of 7 kids and a drug deal gone way bad. The funniest moments come from Desmond Askew and Taye Diggs in Las Vegas. Never once is this movie dull. Watch with an open mind and a wild imagination!
55 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the most under appreciated films in history.
pulporange312 September 2001
Go has not gotten even half of the praise it deserves. The script is genius and the fast paced directing and cinematography are totally the reason to see something in the theatre rather than video. And this is not just another "oh this is my favorite movie, so it has to be great" reviews, there are facts. The epic Godfather, ranked as the best movie ever created by a human being, is lucky if it goes for 20 minutes without having the sound lose sync with the mouth movement. Not that I'm totally knocking it. And also, everyone says, "oh Go is the son of Pulp Fiction", "a lesser Pulp Fiction", but the fact is the it's structure has much more in common with the other Tarantino great Jackie Brown. Rent this to see what great cinema is.
23 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fantastic, hip and fun
WaltDinLV14 March 2006
One of my favorite films of all time. Hip, like Pulp Fiction, it's just crazy-insane fun. Not for everyone, due to language and drugs, but I really LOVED it! There are also so MANY cameos of great actors we know and love today.

Director Doug Liman has gone on to do HUGE, great movies, such as The Bourne Identity and Mr and Mrs Smith. Here we see some of his early talent.

Writer John August writes the Ask the Filmmaker/Ask a Screenwriter column here on IMDb.com

Just a great, fun movie, that hasn't seen been seen by as many people as it should.

3-14-06

Walt D in LV
28 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
GO C IT!
lostintwinpeaks2 November 2001
A little gem of a movie, an excellent follow-up (but not sequel) to the fantastic "Swingers".

Sarah Polley is worth the price of admission alone, for her excellent performance. She is supported by an equally excellent cast including Taye Diggs, Scott Wolf, Katie Holmes, Jay Mohr, and Timothy Olyphant - among others.

Many viewed this movie as being an MTV version of Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" and, while this may to an extent me true, it is obviously much more than that; and an excellent stand-alone movie of it's own.

Split into 3 separate storylines which clash and collide along the way, finally merging as the movie comes to a close, this movie constantly keeps the viewer on edge; and provides an excellent example of the drug/club etc. scene of the 90's and 00's.

Favourite scene has to be: where the teens in the car (in the first storyline) are convinced they're 'going up', as they believe they're on Es - but are really on aspirin and allergy medicine! Fantastic!!!!

Funny, edgy, fast-paced with a sharp script, strong cast, and excellent soundtrack.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unbearable Lightness of Going
tedg16 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.

I'm coming to this film late in the comment stream, which means that critics and commentors have beaten to death the `Pulp Fiction' comparisons. Yes, this has parallel stories, time folding (but not the time shuffling of `Pulp'), black and white shuffling, guns drugs and ironic violence, diner scenes and a hip perspective. But to me that is less central than the relationship of the shape to the style.

Tarantino's method is from comic books, his manipulation of the narrative deliberately has nothing at all to with the narrative itself. That's the point, that emptiness. `Go' is the opposite. It takes much of the same stylistic manipulation of narrative and turns it all to the service of the movie: the film capriciously meanders like the small lives of these kids. Now, that's not a very heavy notion to settle on, but it is cinematically profound in linking the point of the movie to the unrolling of the images.

In other words, if you love the visual grammar of film, you'll love this. If instead you prefer using the art of filmmaking to display the emptiness of film, you'll like `Pulp.' They are as different as can be. `Go' follows the tradition of Hitchcock and Welles where the `story' is centered in the images. `Pulp' follows a wholly contradictory world defined by the `new wave' where every image is ironic and deliberately doesn't rest in the story but runs contrary to it.

At some point, every serious film viewer will confront this choice. It is a matter of whether you will let yourself `go' with the flow or always maintain a smug distance.

The writer understands this, and makes it explicit with `story C' which features two actors. They are enlisted in an enterprise of `moviedom' in real life where they are wired for sound and videoed. More, their master engages them in forced commerce. This is mirrored in story B with the lap dance `show' and more faintly in A with the selling in the store and the rave. All these kids are engaged in indentured but shameless sales of the movie to us.

I have a very short list of actors who are worth watching regardless of the context. Cate Blancett, Kate Winslet, and Julianne Moore are the actresses I follow because of their ability to present more than one personae at a time. Sarah Polley is close to being on that list, but not for the same reason. She -- or her advisors -- has made some very intelligent choices, placing her in central roles in some very alternative projects. These are films that require -- even in the watching -- a deliberate shift in thinking about what film is. In each, she has appeared with radically different acting styles, always entirely apt. It shows that she understands what these rather subversive projects are all about. Privately, her politics seems amazingly unsophisticated, but her deliberate plasticity on screen shows a remarkable ability.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fun Movie
kclark-729 August 2000
I liked this movie well enough to watch it twice. I waited 'til it came out on video, but made sure to see it, because it stars Sarah Polley, who I've been a fan of since her "Road to Avonlea" days. This is not a serious movie. It's fun, upbeat, quick, and for those with short attention spans. I liked it. I didn't think it was as incredible as some say, but enjoyable enough to watch it twice. So many people have compared it to Pulp Fiction. Frankly, the only similarity I see between the two, is the "jumping around timelines". Which I like. Good movie to watch, just don't bother trying to analyze it - you won't come up with much.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It didn't make too much sense at first, but I loved it when it was finished.
philip_vanderveken1 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
There are several kinds of movies that I like, but they almost all have one thing in common: they have something special to offer. In this case it is the way the story was brought to the audience. The story is told over and over again, each time from the perspective of a different character. The fact that the story is told over and over again in isn't new. If you know the German movie 'Lola Rennt', than you've seen it before. The main difference between these two movies is that this time the story remains the same and the characters change, while in the German movie it was exactly the opposite of that.

It starts with Simon Baines who wants to go to Las Vegas with his friends, but who normally has to work in a 24-hour grocery store. His colleague Ronna takes over his shift, when two guys, named Adam and Zack, walk in asking to score some dope from Simon. Because Simon isn't around anymore Ronna decides to sell them some drugs herself and asks her friends Claire and Mannie to help her buying some stuff from the local drug dealer Todd Gains. But the drug deal was set up by a narcotics agent called Burke who forced Adam and Zack to cooperate. Ronna soon finds out something is wrong and flushes the drugs trough the toilet. Normally she would return it to the drug dealer, but because she hasn't got it anymore she has to try to fool him with phony drugs. In the mean time Simon's adventures with his best friend Marcus hit an unfortunate turn during a trip to a strip club in Las Vegas and Adam and Zack end up spending Christmas Eve with Burke and his wife Irene before being able to drive to a rave, where Ronna is dealing some more "drugs". When they arrive at the rave, the guys accidentally hit Ronna with their car and leave her for dead. Nearby, Mannie nearly gets an overdose and Claire gets more friendly with a vengeful Todd who is now looking for Ronna.

At first I didn't like this movie all too much, mainly because I didn't see the reason why so many information was left out. It didn't make too much sense really. But I gave it a chance and watched it completely and only then I fully understood the story. Even though it has some flaws, I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I loved the way the story was told and the good combination of humor and crime. All in all this is a movie that is worth more than just a watch. I loved it and give it an 8/10.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Liman provides his hyperactive style on a crime film centring around youngsters and lowlifes rather than adult gangsters, in what is a carefully observed character piece.
johnnyboyz28 December 2009
Go is a surprisingly engrossing, surprisingly nifty little multi-stranded crime film running on inspiration from other crime films of the era; a director's own, kinetic style and a central, focused look at a whole range of troubled, often sleazy, young adults in a modern world full of drugs; debt; dangers and the forced taking on of responsibility. When I first saw Go, I liked it a lot; revisiting it a few years later, I found it just as entertaining; just as interesting and just as engaging as I did before. Everything about the premise for Go screams that it doesn't have a cat's chance in Hell of working, but the stylised energy combined with the tasteful handling of a lot of different scenes and situations work surprisingly well, and blend to create an experience which most certainly wears you out, but in an oddly refreshing sort of way.

The film, in covering an array of different characters but never bombarding nor overwhelming us, manages to deliver on a basis of both narrative and character. It is seamless in its blending of elements of the realistic with the surrealistic, all under a banner of raw energy spanning several hundred miles of which the characters travel within the picture. More recently, we've seen films which take a quick, kinetic and relatively easy-going aesthetic and apply criminal activity to it as a group of youths venture in and around contemporary America in some form. An example might be 2007 film Superbad, which did nothing but crack adolescent jokes, hate women and trivialise delicate and often illegal situations for a crowd. Go knows its place and it knows its genre as study, observations, the progression of character and some pretty frightening scenarios all play out under this same umbrella. Those that laugh at certain parts of Go have completely missed the point.

The first of three stories, this and another two of which revolve around those whom aren't usually explored in films of this ilk, sees Sarah Polley's shop worker named Ronna heavily in debt; facing eviction and desperate for money. Her story sees her involved in a drug deal with two other young men and a much elder male, which grows increasingly suspicious as she interacts with them, and eventually sees her have to ditch the drugs she was meant to deal resulting in the angering of dealer Todd (Olyphant), whom gave them to her. Ronna's fearless and independent attitude towards the men in her story, in particular Todd whom is financially better off and comes with a real air of menace, presents positive characteristics for the female in this role, as she descends deeper into a situation she brought upon herself through desperation. Ronna's ability to defy her male counterparts in doing what's best for her in avoiding the drug deal sting and being able to fool the dealer as she pulls along a casual and inept male companion, in Mannie (Bexton), who'd be lost without her, adds meat and awareness to an unfortunate but otherwise familiar short story.

Continuing with the film's theme of debt, and relatively hapless young adults getting themselves into hotter water than they'd like through which they'll come to learn the harsh realities of life that comes with getting involved in the sorts of activity they do, Simon (Askew), who's one of Ronna's co-workers, and a group of friends spend some time in Las Vegas. Again, the premise for the short with the accompanying aesthetic suggest it ought not work. Indeed, the trip is given the sort of leery and unnerving build when the group of four interact. In a much lesser work, it would've fallen apart at the seams, but the facing of facts that Las Vegas is a large; intimidating; confusing and dangerous place is gradually filtered through the system of the four. While not necessarily a demonisation of the place itself, it is certainly a reality check for the attitudes the characters share.

The study begins with the character of Tiny (Meyer) telling a story of himself to the others which transpires to have been untrue. He is caught out, made to look a fool and the entire sequence sets the tone for the narrow-minded, adolescent beliefs the characters have and how they'll be caught out. From here, the videos telling the occupants of a hotel room how to gamble downstairs comes across as arduous and confusing, further suggesting that these guy's are out of their depth, while the causality driven mishaps ranging from food-poisoning to casual drug use that leads to hotel fires is apt. Later, theft; misogyny and raging testosterone will put them in further jeopardy with some local strip-club owners which is the climax of all this dangerous, ominous build up.

The third story maintains the same consistencies the other two had in terms of study and it's to the the film's credit that the film's concept has not yet worn us out: we're ready for one more. The strand centres on, like the first, usually somewhat marginalised characters for the genre; in this case two homosexual male actors, named Adam (Wolf) and Zack (Mohr), who go on a kind of odyssey which seems to be about the revealing of true feelings and unexplored sexual appetites; highlighted by the actions of a police officer and his wife when around at their house as well as the revelations that arise when they have a conversation with each other, which in turn pushes the film out into a revenge piece of sorts. Go was made at a time when Doug Liman could compliment his all-over-the-place approach to film-making with character and substance; much unlike his 2005, fetishistic firearm flick Mr. and Mrs. Smith; while his most recent work, 2008's Jumper, did not garner much of a positive critical consensus. But Go holds up, knowing what it is but additionally knowing how to explore the lives and characters within without marginalising them nor rendering them too weak, clichéd or unlikeable.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fun, fast - paced and funny in a way
ashwin-avasarala26 August 2009
The movie genre is not very uncommon, but it is still fun to watch. The twists and turns in the plot may not blow your mind away but are interesting and entertaining in their own way. The screenplay is awesome. The story is told from different perspectives and maintains a very fast pace all through out. You will be glued to your seat and wondering what is going to happen next. No part of the movie seemed boring or dragging as such to me. The actors would have had a tough time as the story gives no character hardly any time to establish their place in the plot. Nevertheless, everything simplifies as the story moves on. And it is funny. Not the clichéd slapstick,SITCOM comedy sort of funny, but the psychedelic,satirical,ironical sort of funny. Definitely fun to watch.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Rather Shallow
Theo Robertson14 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this last night and I was going to praise it to the sky straight after seeing it , but it was 2.30 am in the morning , I was tired so I decided to review GO the next day . Now that I`ve had some sleep I`m starting to ask myself why I liked it so much because I can hardly remember a thing about it

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

GO is PULP FICTION for the MTV generation . It`s the same story told from three different viewpoints , the viewpoints from Ronna , Simon and a couple of gay actors called Adam & Zack but the more I think about the story from memory less than 24 hours after seeing it the more it falls apart , I didn`t have this problem with PULP FICTION . Correct me if I`m wrong but isn`t there something wrong with the time frame here ? After Ronna leaves Adam & Zack`s house , sells the drugs while Adam & Zack are having Christmas dinner and having Adam & Zack turn up at the club only to have them run her over there seems to be a time descrepincy , not to mention the ridiculous coincidence of being run over by two characters she met earlier the same . There`s another scene of ridiculous coincidence of having Simon turn up at drug dealer`s Todd`s house where some mafia types from Las Vegas Simon has upset are waiting for him . Couldn`t Simon have phoned Todd instead of turning up at the house ? This also leads to a scene I disliked of the Vegas mafia giving Simon a sore arm . Come on you p*ss off the mafia and they just give you a flesh wound ? Has no one seen GOODFELLAS then ?

There are a few amusing moments in John August`s script but much of the credit for making GO an entertaining film belongs to director Doug Liman . However it should be pointed out that much of this success is down to a great soundtrack and it`s the easiest thing in film making to use a soundtrack to give a scene impact . Todd tells Ronna to lift up her blouse to make sure she`s not wired by cops , Todd turns up the sound of his CD player and Angel by Massive Attack explodes onto the sound system as the camera spins 360 degrees around Ronna a few times . Great scene , but one that is very easy to achieve . Liman also makes good use of tracks by Leftfield and Fatboy Slim

I do remember enjoying GO at the time but I`m convinced that it`s a shallow film , and it wasn`t untill I looked up their profiles on this site that I found out Liman directed THE BOURNE IDENTITY while August wrote the screenplay to the CHARLIE`S ANGELS movies . This lends even more weight to my conviction
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A story told in many parts...
Peach-215 September 1999
Go is very fresh and fun film. The cast is great and the direction fom Doug Liman is very solid. I liked the way the story was told in this film and I really enjoyed Jay Mohr and Scott Wolf's story as a small dark comedy. Katie Holmes is very good and Sarah Polley excels in her role. I couldn't help but think of Pulp Fiction while watching this film. Liman has directed a very tight film. The young people in this film have some serious problems, but all in all, a very good movie.
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great Film, even When You Watch More than Once
claudio_carvalho23 January 2016
On the Christmas Eve, the cashier of supermarket Ronna Martin (Sarah Polley) is completely broken and will be evicted from her apartment on the next morning. She accepts the offer to cover the shift of her British co-worker Simon Baines (Desmond Askew) that wants to travel to Las Vegas to have more money. While working, the clients Adam (Scott Wolf) and Zach (Jay Mohr) seek out Simon to buy ecstasy and ask Ronna if she can get the drug for them. Ronna goes to the apartment of Simon's drug dealer Todd Gaines (Timothy Olyphant) to buy the ecstasy but she does not have enough money for twenty pills; so her friend and colleague Claire Montgomery (Katie Holmes) stays with Todd to guarantee the payment. When she goes to the address of Adam and Zach, she meets Burke (William Fichtner) and suspects that he might be an FBI agent. She drops the ecstasy in the toilet and flushes it. Now she has neither the drugs nor the money to give to Todd. Meanwhile Simon travels to Las Vegas and gets into trouble in a night-club with very dangerous people and he needs to flee from the town with his friends. Meanwhile, Burke drops the charges against the informers Adam and Scott and invites them to spend Christmas night having dinner with his wife and him, but Burke has a secret agenda.

"Go" entwines three segments with the stories of three employees of a supermarket on the Christmas Eve. The screenplay is very well written with three simultaneous stories disclosed independently with points of contact. The cast is fantastic highlighting the extraordinary Sarah Polley. The confusions are hilarious and the weakest segment is the one relative to the gay actors Adam and Zach. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Vamos Nessa" ("Let's Go")

Note: On 22 Sep 2018 I saw this film again.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"Go" is a great movie
OriginalMovieBuff215 June 2005
I borrowed "Go" from a friend of mine along with other films last night. Truly I had no clue what this movie was about and I've never heard of it but my buddy said it was a good movie so I wanted to see it. After seeing it, I really liked it. I was surprised how good it was because I thought this movie was going to be a dump but oh it wasn't. The movie takes on three stories (Ronna, Simon, and Adam and Zack) after a drug dealing act. Personally, my favorite story in the movie was the Simon story. How the film acts is like a mix between "Reservoir Dogs," or "Pulp Fiction." The cast is really good, the direction by Doug Liman was great, the dialouge was superb, and the intertwining of the characters was marvelous. Although the movie gets a little bizarre and sidetracked, I would advise you to pay full attention to it. Overall, "Go" is a smart and funny film that I recommend to you. So GO see it.

Hedeen's Outlook: 8.5/10 ***+ B+
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Don't Stay
raulfaust2 October 2011
"Go" is an unknown movie in my country for unknown reasons. Maybe because it shows the youth of a specific region, but maybe not since teenagers from all around the world are pretty similar. This film is basically what IMDb's synopsis says: "the story of the events after a drug deal, told from three different points of view". Of course, these events are portrayed with some decent acting and some good/funny conversations, but there is nothing more than that. Thought it's very entertaining for the most part, the film seems to reach nowhere, just ordinary happenings in other people's lives. See it to notice how different these actors were back in 99 or don't even bother, cause it probably won't change your life.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Such Great Fun
socratesadamo15 May 2019
After PULP FICTION a lot of films tried to emulate its format. But none came close to matching its success. GO has clear elements of PULP FICTION in it, but it does its own thing at the same time. This is the right way to make a movie that may be inspired by another great film while still branching out on its own.

The story is great fun from the first frame to the last. The characters are fun and believable and there is a lot of great dialog here. Every time I watch it I continue to be impressed, even still after all these years. It never lets me down and it never once lets up even for a second. Highly recommend.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Superb !
paclander22 August 2018
I rarely give a movie a 10, but I really loved this movie, and it was so much fun. I've known drug users and dealers, and others like the characters in this movie. so it was just so easy to appreciate and relate to them, which probably affects my score.

Pulp Fiction is another great movie, and I don't really see why it is being compared, "Go" stands on its own merits, it's a totally different story.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
At last - a decent Generation X film.
Insincere Dave5 April 2000
Films this clever are few and far between. Most scriptwriters find it hard enough to come up with one intelligent storyline to keep the audience entertained, but Go manages to intertwine multiple stories running parallel. In true, unashamed Pulp Fiction style these cross over at several points, with the main characters bumping into one another (at times in a literal sense). All of these stories, set in the festive season, seem to revolve around a drug-deal-gone-wrong, and the action flits backwards and forwards to those involved in each story. If this sounds like incoherent babble, watch the film, it makes more sense than I do.

In a possible masterstroke, the cast is made up mostly of comparative-unknowns (even boasting an old cast member of English school drama Grange Hill). This immediately dispels any delusions of Hollywood grandeur and clichés – this stuff is fresh. A superb young cast shows the characters making molehills into mountains, and mountains into … bigger mountains. At no point do these actors slip into the laziness we see so often in teenage films and TV programmes and we feel empathy for all of the main characters at one point or another.

From a fantastic soundtrack to astounding camerawork, distinctly above average originality to one of the wittiest scripts of any recent film, Go is always throwing something unexpected into the faces of the audience. Admittedly, Go treads little brand new ground, and borders on the cliché happy endings that America demands, but it is not afraid to try old ideas in new ways and combinations. Pulp Fiction has been succeeded and improved upon by its own offspring.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
GO see it
mermatt12 April 1999
The title is apt -- the film is on the go most of the time with little chance to catch your breath. This is an odd but entertaining film that can be described as RASHOMON meets PULP FICTION. But it is better than PULP FICTION because of its clearer sense of humor, irony, and coherent story telling.

We get the stories of several people on an very un-Christmasy messy Christmas Eve. Each story is told from someone's perspective and the stories all interconnect at a decidedly un-Christmasy rave full of loud music, drugs, people looking for other people, mistaken identities, and the other ingredients of a wild comedy. Though some people may find it offensive, as a satire and updated film noir, it is hilarious.
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A barely passable Pulp Fiction for the club goers
bob the moo19 October 2003
Three interweaving stories occur one Christmas Eve in Los Angeles. Ronna is working at a supermarket when she gets involved in a small drug buy which goes sour and leaves her in debt to a dealer. Simon is with his buddies in Las Vegas, experiencing all matter of good stuff but things begin to spin out of control. Meanwhile Adam and Zack, two actors forced by cop Burke to set-up the sting operation on Ronna, try to get out of the charge of possession he has over them.

Tarantino has a lot to answer for. His Pulp Fiction spawned a good handful of `intertwined stories' type films, some of which were OK but some of which were poor. Go is one which manages to be OK without ever getting better than that. The plot links the stories very tenuously at times (the link to Simon's Vegas trip is very, very unlikely) and it doesn't quite hang together as cleverly as PF managed to. The lack of strong characters makes the film a little hard to really get into – some chapters are good (Ronna's opening segment) while others rely on energy and speed (Vegas), others are just a little strange and don't totally fit in.

The film has a bemused air to it and is passable enough to justify watching. However it never feels that the stories add up or make the film stronger by being greater than the sum of it's parts. The cast try hard but they have very little to work with in terms of characterisation. One exception is Polley who is good – her performance lifts quite a hollow character. The rest act as the script requires – each seems to be under the impression that any one line of their dialogue will become quoted around the world and at times their performances are just too superficial to talk about.

Overall this is an energetic film if that's what you're after. However it all seems a bit empty and, after a too tidy ending, will leave very little impression. The ties between the stories are of little value in most cases and the film manages to be less than the sum of it's parts – not even equal! It tries hard but essentially the same idea can be seen done much better in Pulp Fiction.
16 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent black comedy told via three interlocking stories.
barnabyrudge2 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
After the success of "Swingers", director Doug Liman follows it up with an absolutely superb interlocking character study set among the youth culture of Los Angeles. "Go" is a splendid film on various levels - terrific acting, ingenious overlapping of its three segments, fabulous writing, and Liman's assured direction. Some parts are hysterically funny, others are disturbing, and the film is an exciting cinematic experience throughout. That it was completely ignored at Oscar time is a real shame, for here is a film that deserves acclaim. It just gets better the more times you watch it.

Part One - "Ronna". Checkout girl Ronna (Sarah Polley) faces eviction at Christmas. She risks everything by attempting to pull off a drug deal in order to raise her rent money. After getting a bunch of Ecstasy tablets from intimidating drug dealer Todd Gaines (Timothy Olyphant), and leaving her innocent friend Claire (Katie Holmes) with Todd as collateral, she tries to finish the sale. But everything that could go wrong does go wrong....

Part Two - "Simon". Meanwhile, Ronna's workmate Simon (Desmond Askew) goes on a short break to Las Vegas with his pals. Their good-natured hijinks turn nasty when Simon and his friend Marcus (Taye Diggs) cause a ruckus in a strip-joint and have to shoot their way out of the place. It's a race against time as the strip club's gangster owner tries to catch them before they skip town.

Part Three - "Adam & Zack". Two gay TV stars (Scott Wolf, Jay Mohr) try to help a weird cop, Burke (William Fichtner), pull off a drug sting in order to clear themselves of drug possession charges. The sting goes wrong but their night goes from bad to worse. Firstly they have to endure a bizarre Christmas dinner at Burke's house; later in their car they accidentally run over Ronna (from Part One) and must decide how to conceal their crime.

All the sections are very good but the best, marginally, is Part Two. The entire cast are in terrific form, with outstanding performances all-round. To single out one performer above the others is difficult with Polley, Askew, Mohr, Wolf, Olyphant, Diggs and Holmes matching each other all the way in their delineation of believable and quirky characters. The film's soundtrack is quite remarkable and captures the hedonism and recklessness that defines the character's actions. If there is a flaw at all (and it is a minor one), it is that occasionally the film is a little too calculated for its own good. Liman knows that he's making something clever and original here, and sometimes has a tendency to be a bit self-indulgently flashy. John August's screenplay is excellent, creating fascinating characters and situations and providing much wit and quotable dialogue. So many of these interlocking capers end up imitating "Pulp Fiction" but this one remains thrillingly fresh and true to its own internal logic. "Go" is a great overlooked film - definitely one to catch!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Really Underrated Movie
anchorman36022 December 2006
I saw this movie for the first time a couple of months ago and I absolutely loved it. There are three different stories that come together during the movie. The first one is about Two supermarket clerks who agree to sell ecstasy with a drug dealer for some money. The second story is my favorite one and its with a British guy who gos to Las Vegas with three of his friends. They get there and get into a lot of trouble when the Brit guy shoots a guy in the arm and have to get away before they get caught. The third and last story is with two actors who agree to help a cop get ecstasy from the two clerks. The movie is directed wonderfully by Doug Liman who also directed The Bourne Identity. I give this movie a well deserved 9 out of ten.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed