ScoobyWell
Great visuals, story delivers no surprises
Infamousta
brilliant actors, brilliant editing
Murphy Howard
I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
rooprect
After seeing Agnes Bruckner's memorable performance in "Rick" (a modern re-imagining of the opera "Rigoletto"), I had to see what else she has starred in. Even better was her performance in this film "Blue Car", a coming-of-age film that boldly crosses boundaries that mainstream Hollywood wouldn't dare touch.I'm not just talking about the scandalous older guy & young girl theme which has been done before ("American Beauty", "Lolita", and almost every Woody Allen movie ever made), but in particular I'm referring to disturbing issues teenagers and kids face today: self-harm, self-mutilation and suicidal thoughts. Don't worry, there's nothing explicit. But the fact that these issues are even presented sets this movie on a different level.Other rare & unheard-of films that touch on these modern teen problems are "Archie's Final Project" (about a high school kid who decides to videotape his last days before killing himself), "Angela" (about 2 young sisters who create a fantasy world of angels & demons to cope with their real life traumas), and the very dark & very creepy "Tideland" about a young girl who creates a nightmarish world around her to try to protect her corroding innocence.. "Blue Car" fits right in there, probably the tamest of the bunch but not without its own hard-hitting moments. I think it would be appreciated by most mid-to-late teenagers whose minds are asking deep questions about life. I'm way past that age, but I still found it compelling and impressive all around. An excellent starring debut by Agnes Bruckner as well as directorial debut from Karen Moncrieff.
paul2001sw-1
Karen Moncrieff's understated film, 'Blue Car', tells the story of a mildly disaffected teenager; as she drifts through the world, never quite belonging, I was reminded of 'Ghost World', although this movie lacks that film's more stylised feel. The story has one Hollywood moment (albeit in a muted form) when she reads a hastily written, highly personal poem in a public competition; in fact, the shards of poetry present in this film are good enough to bear the symbolic weight put upon them by the plot. Yet I was left with the feeling that this is somehow half a story, and that, by underplaying everything, the director can't do much more than tell us her lead character is sad - in 'Ghost World', the vaguely surreal backdrop provided some contrast that is lacking here. The performances aren't bad, however, and the soundtrack features some pretty but predictable folky-style songs.
Mart10
My opinion about this film is really good. Maybe because I was expecting for an ordinary drama movie...anyway I recommend it.Firstly, remark the good job in the pace of events over a proper script. Also, the performance of the unknown actors is good enough.It seems to be a sad history about how a broken family can hurt the feelings of two daughters. But there is some beautiful moments on those you can see how human beings support each other, so finally you get that also in bad depressing moments or in a hard life,you always can get experiences and assist or got assisted by others. That make the life worth to live and so..the film worth to watch.
Mister_Anderson
I find myself in an unusual situation. I've read through many of the comments about this movie, both the glowing and the dismal, and discover that to some extent I agree with all of them! The ones who praise the film accurately point out the high points, and the ones who trash the film accurately point out the weaknesses. However, I think both unabashed praise and utter demonification go too far. I'm going to assume if you're reading this, you've probably seen this movie, so beware of spoilers if you have not.No need to go through the plot as other users on here have done a good job of dishing it out. Here are the POSITIVE points.(1) Acting. Not a bad performance in this. Especially notable is Meg (we have a tendency to point out stellar youth performances because they often are few and far between due to lack of experience) who is able to speak a hundred words in each subtle expression and her English teacher. Straitharen is an underused force in the industry and he shows his true talents here.(2) Complex characters. Meg's teacher, her parents, her sister, and others all elicit different emotions from us. Sometimes we think they are supposed to be "good" characters; other times we think they're supposed to be "bad" characters. The film purposely leaves these terms out. Instead, we get an honest picture of how confusing the world can be, especially in the mind of a teenage girl.Straitharen's character is the most complex. Here we have a man who at first seems to sympathize with his obviously troubled student, latching on to the one interest which gets her away from all the problems: poetry, and he nurses this interest until it becomes something she is proud of. He comforts her like a father she needs when her already fractured family falls apart. For this, we like him. But the director suddenly turns this on its head, when the teacher begins a romantic/sexual relationship with the Meg which she does not assertively resist. "Is this okay?" he asks over and over as he goes further and further as if they are both twelve-year-olds kissing in a closet. Because she didn't ever say "no", are we supposed to sympathize with the teacher? Meg's answer is obviously in the negative, as she criticizes him publicly at the poetry reading in perhaps a more "honest" piece than her "Blue Car".Some users are asking what the teacher did wrong. Here it is in short: he should have known better. There are two possibilities. One is worse than the other but neither is good. Either the teacher had foul intentions concerning Meg from the beginning of the film and everything that followed was a rouse to get her into bed (this would be despicable without question), or the teacher honestly wanted to help Meg with her poetry and her troubles and during the course of his teaching and consoling, he developed sexual feelings toward her. Even if the latter is the case, the teacher is a acted very wrong. Why? I said it before: he should have known better. He knows all about this girl's troubles. He knows she has no one to turn to. He knows he is her only "ear" and she looks up to him. And what does he do? He shatters her only lifeline by making her life even more complex by adding sex into a relationship. Sex never simplifies things, especially between a teacher and student. He should not be asking her if it is "okay" as he sexually advances on her. The fact that she is in such a fragile state in that she is incapable of answering this is a resounding NO. He was the adult, he was the one with a more stable life, he selfishly let his own feelings (whether they were genuine or not) complicate a girl on the verge of falling apart herself.The above was assuming the second option was true. However, there is some evidence that the first, more deplorable motivation, is correct. First, there is the fact that he lies to her early on about his novel. When she asked, he could simply have told her that it wasn't a novel. Instead, perplexingly, he lies to her and pretends to read from it. At the time, we don't know this is a lie, but thinking back now, what were his reasons for doing so? Was he trying to cultivate Meg's trust and appeal? Was he trying to make himself what she wanted in her mind in order to cultivate a trusting relationship he could take advantage of later? Also, there's the interesting situation with his wife. She gets depressed when she sees Meg and the teacher offers to walk Meg home. Some of her lines make it seem that the teacher had been inappropriate with girls (students) before. Is this a habitual practice for him? To gain the trust of young girls and use it for his own selfish and deplorable motives? Finally, there is the issue of the deleted scene (which I haven't viewed but heard others talk about) in which after the sex scene the hotel manager tells Meg to get out and that her teacher had only purchased the room for an hour. This shows where the director was heading. The guy obviously had foul plans from the beginning and was too cold to even give her a place to stay for the night. I think the director cut this out because it unquestionably answered the question of the teacher's intentions. From the final cut of the film, though, there's not enough information to decide either way.I agree with the NEGATIVES that some other users have brought up (too much melodrama for only 90 minutes and not an uplifting moment in the entire film), but I don't think these detract enough to make this only mediocre.
