In the midst of his crumbling relationship, a radio show host begins speaking to his biggest fan, a young boy, via the telephone. But when questions about the boy's identity come up, the host's life is thrown into chaos.
Michael Reynolds is a rich oncologist who has a one hundred seventy-five thousand dollar sports car, a multi-million dollar house, and a new boost in his career. Brandon "Blue" Monroe is a ... See full summary »
A destitute 14-year-old struggles to keep his life together despite harsh abuse at his mother's hands, harsher abuse at his father's, and a growing separation from his slightly older brother. Petty thefts for food grow into more major takes until he steals a cash box from the diner where he works. Although Joe uses the money to pay off some of his father's debts and to replace his mother's records that his father smashed in a fit of temper, Joe gets no thanks.Written by
John Sacksteder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The working title of the film was "Pleasant View" during pre-production. See more »
Although the film is supposed to take place during the 1970s, Joe is seen wearing a name brand underwear with the company logo on the waistband. This particular brand didn't produce that style until the late 1990s. See more »
In the past 24 hours I've read "The Body" then watched "Stand By Me"; read "Sleepers" then went to rent the film at a local store. I spent a good while searching for their one copy, then drifted to the comedy section to pick up something light for afters. Spying a film with Kilmer's name on the cover, I picked up "Joe The King", & wondered if Kilmer'd gone back to his comedy roots. Ha! The only thing funny is how some joker stashed this stale downer in the comedy section!
I popped in the video after finishing Sleepers and was amazed to find myself watching yet another decade of tortured boyhood. 50's, 60's, 70's, none of it fit in a "Happy Days" world. Now, thirty years on, and I wonder what horror stories the 80's and 90's have bred and who will get the funding to tell us all about it.
"Joe the King" doesn't quite work, for several reasons, least of which is the fact we can't really feel for him. Where are the likable characters? In every life, there are some, and films demand at least one or two. In this film, all the adults are mean or obtuse, oblivious to anyone but themselves. Whaley gave us stereotypes and the actors weren't challenged beyond them. John Leguizamo's character is a bright spot, but realism is blown by him not taking the kid's age into account. In real life he wouldnta talked to him like a balling, boozing buddy, the kid looks to be only 12 or so. Ethan Hawke could have made a difference if he had put in a little effort... showing his sandaled feet bypasses character development, implying warmth and understanding, but the gimmick is wasted by the flatness of his character. His not knowing what "pithy" means blows his credibility as an educated man in a position of power in a school. Gimme a break!
Some scenes are heavy-handed, some merely sketched. (And what is the deal with Kilmer's mega-elbow?? It is framed for viewing, so why?) The level of back talk and profanity is also wrong for the era. Kids mighta had filthy mouths with each other, but exchanges with adults would have left them dusting off their pants after a quick trip to the floor. The title is not explained, and there is nothing at all to suggest why Joe is a King. His peeing in the food makes scant sense when he doesn't even tell his brother about it to ease his suffering.
Music could have been a saving grace, but it is barely explored. This is a depressing film that may have exorcised somebody's demons, at least I hope it did. Basically, though, this film lacks respect, for its characters, its premise, and ultimately, for us.
3 of 5 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this