User reviews

The infamous reputation of "The Paperboy" preceded my viewing of it, and I have to say after seeing it myself that it's......not that bad.

It's not good, exactly, but I've seen much worse. You certainly can't criticize it for being boring, and I always say that if a movie is going to be bad, much better to be entertainingly bad than just merely dull. The film's biggest problem is a lack of focus. There are a lot of characters in it, all of them ugly, trashy people and played by the likes of Nicole Kidman, Zac Efron, Matthew McConaughey and John Cusack, but I never knew whose story this was or through whose point of view this story was being told. It's a sleazy, tawdry story set in the swamps of Florida about a crazy woman (Kidman) who's obsessed with a convict (Cusack) and two brothers (Efron and McConaughey), one who is himself obsessed with her and the other who is obsessed with clearing the convict's name. All of them are asked to do degrading things on camera, and the film has a hateful tone about humanity and the depraved things depraved people will do.

But did I mention that it's never boring?

Grade: B-

The Paperboy (Lee Daniels, 2012) 3/5 Lee Daniels follow up to his heart wrenching Precious will make you feel dirty. In fact, there are times where you just feel the need to scrub yourself incessantly so you can cope with what is occurring on screen! Based on Peter Dexter's novel of the same name, the narrative follows two investigative journalists - Yardley Acheman and Ward Jansen - who aim to write a story to release convicted murderer Hillary Van Wetter. With the help of nymphomaniac Charlotte Bless, who corresponds with Wetter in prison and Ward's younger brother Jack they soon uncover not everything is what it seems in the sticky heat of the South.

The best way to get your head around is by remembering the exploitation films of the 1970's, where sex, drugs and violence were a staple. If you do this, then you can appreciate what Daniels and his producers were trying to achieve. Indeed, this is one of the films strengths as it pulls no punches at being explicit wherever possible, which garnered extremely mixed reviews when it was screened at Cannes last year.

The acting pedigree of the film is high with Matthew McConaughey and Zac Effron playing the two brothers, with Nicole Kidman excelling in her role as the troubled Miss Bless. However what damages the film is the slow pace and the lack of a proper twist. Generally speaking death-row thrillers have a big reveal at the end or a taut emotional climax. For example A Time to Kill, The Life of David Gale and Dead Man Waking all succeeded because they took the audience right through the investigation. The Paperboy does this to an certain extent; however it glosses over a majority of this in favour of highlighting the sweaty atmosphere of the inhabitants. At times, this becomes so overwhelming that it is difficult to think of anything else, let alone follow the characters as they reveal their dark sides and personal demons. Another issue is casting Macy Gray as the narrator. She might be one of the most annoying maids in film history and, unfortunately, you are stuck with her voice-over for the entire proceedings.

The cinematography is excellent as Roberto Schaefer's camera gets so close to the characters that you can almost smell their body odour in the immense heat. Yes, I told you this film would make you feel dirty. A great example of this is where Charlotte meets Wetter for the first time. They are sat apart in the prison meeting room; Charlotte spread her legs and begins to masturbate. This scene wouldn't have been so bad if they were alone, but Yardley, Ward and Jack are also in the room. Take that as you will… Even though The Paperboy is an uneven thriller, what it excels in is placing the audience in uncomfortable positions. A Haneke film this is not, but by doing this the whole issue of morality and senses in the cinema is raised. As such, Daniels new feature is a sweaty, sexy and visceral experience, which needed to take some more pointers from other more complete films. All in all, you may have to scrub yourself clean, but you won't forget the experience for quite some time.

Lee Daniels' follow-up to the powerful Precious is an atmospheric work of Southern Gothic, based on a novel by Pete Dexter. Some might be precious (!) about their favourite books, but great films have been made which bear little resemblance to their source material, as fans of Dr Strangelove will know. I wouldn't call The Paperboy great, but with weightless yawners like Hansel & Gretel and Oz currently clogging the cinema, its rawness and energy is like licking an electric fence. In a good way. Grainy, saturated and wilfully unfocused, The Paperboy is a reminder of the power of 2D.

Matthew McConaughey continues his resurgence, tapping into a hitherto hidden vulnerability. He plays Ward Jansen, a journalist who arrives in the back-of-beyond with his partner, Yardley (David Oyelowo). They're in town to write a story about the unlawful conviction of Hilary Van Wetter (John Cusack). To entice him they employ Charlotte (Nicole Kidman, fearless), who's in love with Hilary, or the idea of Hilary. Finally, and centrally, there is scared, smouldering Jack Jansen, played by a very capable Zac Efron.

Jack wants to steal Charlotte away from all this: the alligator-gutters and the insufferable heat. Nicole thinks he knows nothing because he's young, but one of the films myriad themes is the value of youthful idealism: Jack is the only one of the main characters yet to plunge down a rabbit-hole of hopelessness and self-service. There is genuine affection on show, though, of the brotherly kind between Ward and Jack, and the motherly kind between Jack and Anita (a subtle and funny Macy Gray; further proof of Daniels' aptitude for bringing the best and least showy from musicians-turned-actors).

The film is ramshackle and imperfect - but this kind of works. It skitters along with little attention paid to the audience, with precise relationships between characters rarely spelled out, and chunks of action entirely elided. It's not quite as funny or bleak as the similarly southern-fried Killer Joe, but I do believe that The Paperboy has a more humanist agenda than William Friedkin's film, basically emerging on the side of people, broken as they often become.

Like Precious, this is a film containing difficult individual scenes, and a troubling ambivalence about whether we're investing in a set of real characters or peering at them through museum glass. But there's no doubt, when the camera starts rolling, that Daniels sets out to challenge his audience. In that respect, he has succeeded.

The Paperboy (2012)

*** (out of 4)

Lee Daniels' adaptation of the Peter Dexter novel taking a look at some swamp trash and a mystery surrounding them. Reporter Ward Jansen (Matthew McConaughey) returns to his hometown to try and solve the mystery behind a sheriff who was killed. Hillary Van Wetter (John Cusack) is on death row for the crime but the reporter believes he is innocent and drags his younger brother (Zac Efron) and a trashy woman (Nicole Kidman) into things. THE PAPERBOY is a pretty unpleasant look at a bunch of characters you can't help but hate and it's funny to see McConaughey really changing his "image" here as well as in the year's earlier KILLER JOE. I think the best thing about the picture are the performances as well as the authentic feel that director Daniels brings to the picture. The biggest problem is the screenplay and a story that I just felt wasn't all that captivating. The entire mystery surrounding what really happened to the sheriff seems to take a backseat and it really just seems to come and go at times. I'm really not sure why it was thrown in the background as much and especially with the twists that come towards the end. With the twists you'd think that the filmmakers were wanting the story itself to be important but it just never really takes off. It also seems that the director wants to shock the viewer with some rather graphic violence and sexual situations, which have the stars all doing some pretty wild things. It really does seem as if the film is just building up to each of these scenes and it's fair to say that they're quite memorable. The performances from the entire cast are terrific with both McConaughey and Kidman doing wonders with their swamp trash characters. I thought both of them were incredibly believable and hats off to them for going as far out as they did. I was also impressed with Efron and thought he handled the character's development quite well. Cusack was terrific playing the creepy bad guy and we also got strong support from David Oyelowo, Scott Glenn and Macy Gray. The cinematography is also good as is the music score and the atmosphere. THE PAPERBOY, as is, is a good showcase for its stars but you can't help but feel it's a missed opportunity as a stronger story would have made it even better.

This film reminded me quite a bit of "Deliverance." It's about how well-meaning people can end up way over their heads by getting involved with people and subcultures with which they're not familiar. It's less riveting than "Deliverance" but has more sympathy toward its characters.

The plot revolves around a small group of people who join forces for a cause: A woman who wants to free a prisoner she's become enamored of (by mail) and a couple of newspaper reporters who want to dig up the truth about the crime. One of the reporters is seeking justice, the other has a slightly different agenda. The idealistic reporter has a younger brother (Zac Efron) who is an innocent. Innocence, idealism and romanticism come up against opportunism and sociopathy and some of what happens is not too much of a surprise. The end of the movie had a great deal of dramatic potential and could have been more suspenseful in the hands of a more polished director. The movie overall is somewhat lurid, a Southern Gothic, but not as lurid as some critics have claimed. Overall it is a movie with some poignancy.

'THE PAPERBOY': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

An all-star cast highlights this bizarre dramatic thriller based on the book (of the same name) by Pete Dexter. The cast features Zac Efron, Matthew McConaughey, Nicole Kidman, John Cusack, David Oyelowo, Scott Glenn and Macy Gray all playing against type in unusual roles (for each actor). It was written (along with Dexter) and directed by Lee Daniels (who is most well known for directing the critical darling and Oscar nominated 'PRECIOUS', which was also based on a popular book). The movie itself has gotten mostly bad reviews but Kidman has gotten plenty of high critical praise and award recognition for her performance in it (including a supporting actress Golden Globe nomination). The rest of the cast has been well received as well and Daniels is still seen as a skilled director but the trashy content of the film as well as it's overall muddled nature have been negatively criticized by many. I agree with the criticisms but still feel like I have to give it a lot of respect and credit for what it does manage to accomplish.

The film revolves around a man named Hillary Van Wetter (Cusack) who's on death row for the murder of a local sheriff in a small Florida town. He's been communicating with a woman, Charlotte Bless (Kidman), he's never met via letters. Charlotte believes she's in love with Hillary and calls on the help of two reporters from Miami, Ward Jansen (McConaughey) and Yardley Acheman (Oyelowo), to help her prove he's innocent. Believing new evidence is available the two reporters travel to the Florida town, which is a return home for Ward (to the town he grew up in). Ward visits his dad (Glenn) and his new girlfriend (Nealla Gordon), who distribute his paper there. He also reunites with his kid brother Jack (Efron), who helps with their investigation. Jack is young and inexperienced with women and immediately falls for the sexy Charlotte. The Jansen's maid Anita (Gray) is Jack's only friend and she narrates the story.

The movie is sleazy and trashy pulp like the films of yesteryear. Daniels brings a lot of style to his storytelling but it's still a mess. The visuals are often haunting and disturbing and you never really know where the film is going or what to make of anyone or anything in it. It is bizarrely interesting though and entertaining in a somewhat bitter way. Like a lot of films it has a lot of great moments but a lot of bad ones in between as well. The cast is all fantastic; Cusack is very strange and creepy, McConaughey seems to be playing a character like many others he's done before but he does take a sharp character twist, Efron is good as the shy yet determined heart of the film and Kidman is fantastic as the sex obsessed vixen. The movie is a mixed bag but it definitely has it's qualities.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcoZRlVFMzA

"You seem like the only person who thinks Hillary is innocent." Ward Jansen (McConaughey) is a reporter who comes back to his Florida hometown to investigate a case involving a death row inmate. When he starts to dig into the case things get more and more strange and he is left wondering who is telling the truth and why are some people hiding the truth. This is a hard movie to review. I really liked it but it is not for everyone. The acting is amazing and really carries the movie. It is filmed in the style of a 60's type movie and is very gritty and I like the style. The movie itself however is a little slow but keeps you interested the whole time and you really begin to feel for all the characters. Even Zac Efron does a great job in this. This is not a happy movie at all and by the time the end comes you wonder if everyone got what they deserved or if it was all too much. If you are looking for action movies this is not it. This is more of a character driven drama that I enjoyed that had great acting and deserves to be seen by more people then will see it. Overall, very good but depressing. I give it a B.

A star studded film usually never fails to pull us in to it, because we believe those actors are very good. Same happens here. The movie successfully creates tense situations at the right time to rile up the audience and get interested. Nicole Kidman has played one of her best roles, and so has Zac Efron. A nice pair up of Mathew McConnaughey and Zac for the first time as brothers. John Cusack delivers well in his role of a villain, as we fear him and hate him, which is what a good villain is supposed to make is feel. The storyline is prepared well, but the final execution lacks a bit of grip. In a way, the spirits of a mediocre storyline have been lifted by the actors.

A partially simulated sex scene and a suggestive orgasm scene is there, so parental guidance would be better.

I watched it on Prime Video.

My rating 7/10.

First off, I'd heard of Zac Efron, somewhere, I thought he was some teeny bopper's fantasy. But this kid is no lightweight. He's quite good here in an ultra adult film, as is everyone else, all playing against type: Kidman as a slut, McConaughey as a sexually troubled man, John Cusack as a backwoods maniac, and Macy Gray as a lovable servant.

My wife hated the movie but couldn't take her eyes off of it. And by its end, we were both thinking that was quite a ride. What more do we want from our movies? Everyone here, maybe a little less so with Efron who's the novice, abandons themselves to their parts. I didn't even catch Gray in a misstep though she's a novice too. They all channel their people quite successfully in a well-directed though not for the kids, movie that manages to shine a light on a south that actually was and for all I know still is in places.

With all the talk of this being too, violent, too crude and too violent, I thought maybe I was in for a treat, but not really. Now everyone in this does their level best. Despite the terrible script everyone performs their part as well as possible. That the piece remains unsatisfactory is because, seemingly, Lee Daniels is no great shakes at the directing job. For every good thing that Nicole Kidman does there is a bad edit or nonsense cut to take away any impact that might have been achieved. It is as if the director is aware of the possibility of creating devastating sequences but breaks it all up to avoid that very event. Full of good moments and potentially great moments, this is all over the place and in the end the only thing vaguely of interest is the director's gaze upon Zac Efron. Why have all that great b/w opening and then forget about it and wallow in some kid's fantasy life with his maid or his subsequent ridiculous longing for the older Kidman character, even if she is rather fetchingly trashed up?

With that cast, I expected to see at least a decent movie. Boy, was I wrong. This thing is a train wreck from start to finish. There is little character development. The plot is thin and disjointed. It jumps from scene to scene with little relationship. The actually story becomes less interesting as it progresses. By the end, I just did not care. Skip this one

After the emotional kick in the gut with Precious, one may go into The Paperboy anticipating something of a roller coaster ride from Lee Daniels and the talented cast, but The Paperboy isn't Precious by any means. The quality of the film itself is so crummy, it's a wonder this high profile cast was attracted to it. Through all the cheesy and trashy aspects of the film, The Paperboy at least pushes the boundaries of what we expect and creates some shocking scenes in its plot.

The screenplay does have a fairly intriguing plot, it's bites off a lot of issues to talk about, but never fully realizes any of them. Sometimes the "issues" are so thin, they slide right by the viewer. The most fun for the viewer is to watch the interaction between Zac Efron and Nicole Kidman's characters. It's an usual romantic relationship. Everything unusual is what The Paperboy has going for its screenplay. The script does develop the characters fairly well, some of the characters more than others.

The acting is the saving grace of The Paperboy and is what makes it watchable. Though John Cusack doesn't convince us in his juicy role, the rest of the cast is good. Zac Efron is decent in his protagonist role, Matthew McConaughey does fairly good work, but the true star is Nicole Kidman. It's a role that requires a lot of courage. The actress who had to play Charlotte would had to embarrass herself completely; Kidman owns that and brings the character out through those humiliating moments.

Lee Daniels is the man who screwed the project up. It was never destined to be a groundbreaking film, but Daniels holds it back from being at least decent as a movie. It becomes campy, has stereotypical racism, and messy scenes drowning in disarray. The narrative isn't strong enough to overcome Daniels's misdirection, even with the cast trying their best.

Rating: 4/10

Grade: C

Review: This is a brilliant film which starts of like A Time To Kill which also started Matthew McConaughey whose trying to prove the innocence of someone on Death Row in the Deep South. After a while the film spirals into the characters individual problems which were very well written and directed. All of the actors put in great performances and you do feel for each character and the problems that they face in life. There are many explicit scenes which people might find disturbing and judging by the money that the movie made, the actors didn't get the recognition that they deserved. I always find movies about the Deep South disturbing because of the racism and the way that people treat each other, which was why I kind of knew what to expect from the film, but I was very surprised with how deep the director went into each characters personalities and he really pushed it to the extreme. A Great Watch!

Round-Up: Macy Gray fitted in well as the help for the family and I loved her relations with Zachary Efron. Nicole Kidman and John Cusack really pushed there characters to the max, and they played them very convincingly. Zac Efron was just being Zac Efron, but he fitted in well in the movie. McConaughey's character is very complex and pretty twisted, but the director chose to stick with the Efron character who does go through a lot for his age. I realised, whilst watching the bonus bits on the DVD, that The Paperboy is a famous book which was why the actors wanted to do the movie, so maybe I should read the book to have a deeper look into each character.

Budget: $12.5milliom Worldwide Gross: $1.5million (Deserved much more.)

I recommend this movie to people who like there deep dramas set in the Deep South about a man on Death Row. 7/10

I understand why some people think this movie is OK. It has some good actors, and it explores some dark issues. Unfortunately it is a roller-coaster ride going from mundane to awkward with little point to the journey. There is no cleverness, no real plot, and nothing of note to keep you watching except for the hope of a good ending. Too much effort went into trying to shock the viewer than went into actually making an involving story. The characters are obviously intended to polarise viewers, but they have tried too hard and the characters have been made uniformly unlikeable. The ending shows promise, but then true to the movie's form, it crashes back to mediocrity. The flashback concept is also so pointless. It has no relevance and no real callback to the present. The consequences of the story lead nowhere, and your are left feeling that sitting through this movie was equally pointless. The dialog also leads to confusion, it doesn't help to engage you at any deeper level and I couldn't really be bothered to dissect it too much. This paperboy does not deliver.

Set in south Florida in 1969, this movie had immediate appeal to me with the time and place factor. I am fascinated by America's evolving attitudes during my formative years, when I was far too young to be aware of significant trends and America's evolving culture. Fashion, social attitudes, and the trappings of everyday life in the late 60s, on the heels of America's coming out party for the youth / mod / hippie / drug culture movement, set the tone for the flick. This paradigm was juxtaposed against traditional southern attitudes, although those attitudes were moderated somewhat by the older southerners being associated with the journalism industry or being originally from the north.

The story lazily evolves and you will need to appreciate subtlety, nuance, and the environmental factors I noted above. If you are bored by moderately paced movies, this one may not be for you. I found the pacing to be just sufficient to hold my interest. Attitudes toward sex, race and youth intertwined with a mystery that, while short of fascinating, was just compelling enough to make me appreciate the movie's ending. My rating is based more on the appeal of the actors and the setting than the plot.

The movie has one of the most interesting and surreal scenes I've seen in awhile, especially since it is in striking contrast to the rest of the movie.

SPOILER ALERT: do not read this paragraph if you don't want the details of the shocking scene I just referenced.

In a scene out of Basic Instinct, Nicole Kidman, visiting John Cusack in prison (and accompanied by three other men), sits across from Cusack, separated by maybe 8-10 feet, having been instructed not to have any physical contact with the prisoner. They have been pen pals for awhile and Kidman is planning to marry Cusack, but has never met him to now. Cusack, who is reminiscent of Robert DeNiro in the 1991 remake of Cape Fear in how he seems to have a bit of a hold over Kidman, tells Kidman, who is wearing a short dress, to spread her legs, and then to rip her pantyhose. She proceeds to moan, writhe, and gasp lustily as Cusack squirms in his chair, eventually climaxing in this very steamy scene, while the other three men squirm a little themselves, clearly uncomfortable but also undoubtedly fascinated.

END OF SPOILER ALERT.

About my reviews: I do not offer a synopsis of the film -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.

My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very Good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A Classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating)

¨He never did get over his first true love.¨

The Paperboy is an early contender for worse film of the year. This pulpy film noir thriller is so messy that it's hard to make sense of everything that is going on. The story is just horrible with characters that are too hard to identify with. I couldn't care less for what was going to happen to them because they were all dislikeable characters, and I really couldn't figure out why they wanted to help each other out or why they were even together in the first place. The Paperboy tries too hard to mix everything together: a pulpy film noir, with some racial drama, a detective story (that never even solves anything), several anti-romances, and some unfunny comedy. This is just one of those trashy films that succeed in making you feel dirty, but you don't get anything of real value out of it. I also hated the way that the film was narrated in some scenes trying to explain everything to the viewer like if we were stupid and needed everything pointed out at us (yes, we can all understand that Efron's character was in love with Nicole Kidman because of his abandonment issues with his mother, there was no need to tell us that through voice over). The other problem I had was that the film tried too hard to shock us through several unpleasant scenes, like the close up of the gator being gutted, and these gross out scenes didn't really connect with the movie. That is the reason why I felt this film wasn't cohesive and was too messy. It is a shame because I loved Lee Daniels's previous film Precious, but this is a huge step backwards from that movie.

The film was based on Peter Dexter's novel of the same name and it takes place in South Florida during the late 60's. The story centers around the life of a reporter named Ward (Matthew McConaughey) who decides to return to his hometown to investigate a case about an inmate on death row. Ward is trying to catch a big break on this story involving the murder of a local police officer and the conviction of the supposed murderer, Hilary Van Wetter (John Cusack). Apparently there were some irregularities in the trial and Ward has decided to investigate the case with his partner, Yardley (David Oyelowo). They heard about the story through Charlotte Bless (Nicole Kidman) who happens to be sort of a death row groupie, who corresponds with these men through letters. She falls in love with Hilary and believes he is innocent, so she contacts Ward and Yardley and convinces them to chase this career making story. Together they work on the case in Ward's father's home where his younger brother, Jack (Zac Efron), still lives. Jack becomes the driver for the group taking them to the different locations they are investigating and immediately falls in love with Charlotte despite knowing she's attracted to the psychotic Hilary. The story is narrated by the house maid, Anita (Macy Gray).

The film does succeed in bringing the hot and steamy Florida weather on the screen and only watching the characters move make us feel hot and sweaty as well. This trashy film reminds us of some early 70's film noir movies with Nicole Kidman playing this sort of modern femme fatale character. Her gritty performance stands in deep contrast to Efron's sweet innocence. I had no problem with the cast. I thought they all gave strong performances, especially Nicole Kidman and John Cusack as these two sort of psychotic characters. I had never seen these actors in a role like this before. My major problem with the film was the messy story which ended up wandering all over the place and getting lost in the mix of everything. It is no wonder this film ended up getting booed at Cannes because it does fail to connect the major plot points. It was just a little too pulpy and steamy for my taste and it didn't work at all because I really disliked all these characters.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

This caught me off guard as an very intriguing drama that I would recommend. Even the all star cast gave a surprisingly convincing performance in their uniquely "outside of cast" roles. I enjoyed it, you would too.

Great actors, horrible movie. The story was rambling, confused, and seemed to be dark just to be dark.

The narration was horrible; Macy Gray is incoherent throughout. I'm sure there was a reason to have a narrator, but the fact that she was completely unable to be understood kind of eliminates the benefit.

Characters were poorly developed and there was never any build up to explain their behavior.

The director seemed to be searching for ways to degrade every character over and over and over. This movie was disturbing without any redeeming quality at all.

Don't waste your time or your money.

I found this to be virtually pornographic (and gratuitously so) and the gore factor was over the top. It's shocking that so many stars like Kiddman and McConauaghay and Daniels were involved in this project. Truly disgusting, and incredibly disturbing as well. I watched this after watching "The Butler" and was shocked that Daniels could have put his efforts in to this awful project. The film had no socially redeeming qualities in that it didn't reflect anything about a historical event (for which sex and violence can play a dramatic role). It was simply "Shock Schlock".

The graphic and gratuitous nature of all of the sexual scenes was incredibly disturbing, as was the bloody violence throughout the film. It should not have received a rating of R. I question whether it should have even received a rating of NC17.

I would encourage everyone NOT to watch this film.