Holes

Dope performances by all da actors. Miguel Castro was really cool. Sigourney Weaver and Patricia Arquette did great stuff. John Voight and Tim Blake Nelson were funny. This is not like any other Disney movie I've ever seen. This movie was the most fun since Jennifer Lopez Maid in Manhattan.

This has to be the worst movie of the year and of the decade. I don't know who found this extremely stupid story entertaining or interesting. The plot is stupid and the main character is dull. This is supposedly based on a bestselling book. If this is true, then the intelligence of the American reader has gone down. Watch something else instead.

This is a TERRIBLE movie. I am really shocked by the generally positive reviews here. The story is full of promise, but the hacked script, poor editing, bad acting, confused direction (are the other boys Stanley's friends or not!?) makes this excruciating to watch. I would hardly give this a 1 out of 10!

In the area of movies based off of screenplays from some other area (or whatever the title for that Oscar is), "Holes" has credibility. I think it is better to have the author create the screenplay because the author is the creator of the material. If the author can't write a screenplay to save their life, then have the author and someone fluently talented in the area of screenwriting create it. Aside from that, this review is about "Holes". The reasons start here and a spoiler maybe found within. (1) Louis Sachar is an excellent author and it turns that he can write a screenplay. I watched the movie and then read the book and both didn't reek incoherence or stupidity. Some people just have natural talents that can transcend mediums. (2) The best performance award goes to Shia LaBeouf for his portrayal as the main character. He "dug" himself into the role. I wanted to see his character vindicated before the conclusion. (3) To ratchet up the suspense a bit, Andrew Davis was brought in. This is the man that made Harrison Ford run hard and run fast. He also can make Steven Seagal smash some heads. As for this film, he made Shia and the rest of the boys dig some holes. In other words, he can make an "action-packed" movie and make it well even if "action" isn't the main genre isn't "action". (4) My second favorite performance goes to Jon Voight as Mr. Sir. Sometimes a goofy role brings out the best in a performer. When Voight uttered the line "Once upon a time...", I must have laughed for half a minute because it was so funny. He is capable of comedy and he should investigate a few more roles that let him to exercise that talent. (5) Tim Blake Nelson is very solid whenever he is given a solid script. This is probably the second best role I have seen him in (second only to 'O Brother Where Art Thou?'). (6) I love the choice of settings for the movie. I didn't know California was that dry or that barren. I guess population and land area figures both can be misleading. (7) The overall look of the movie made me want another bottle of water. One could only imagine digging a hole in that barren area for half a day. (8) The rest of the cast should deserve a box of Kudos bars as well. Sigourney Weaver, Henry Winkler, Khleo Thomas, Jake M. Smith and the rest of the bill were tapped because of their talents and it gelled very well. Great cast even though it was anywhere near ensemble. (9) I like a movie that doesn't explain anything right away. When Stanley got clocked in the head with those baseball cleats, it made me want to see how weird the events could get and that is a key ingredient in making a good movie. (10) Disney Pictures (not Touchstone, DISNEY!!) needs to make a few more of these mature juvenile films. It was palatable for me and I am a college student. The last mature juvenile Disney film I saw was "Something Wicked This Way Comes" and "Holes" possibly exceeds it (like the election in 2000, it's still to close to call). Disney can make greatness if they decide to expand on this genre and keeps artistry in mind over milking a cash cow when they see it. Ten reasons give a score of ten! All in all, "Holes" is one of my favorite Disney films and probably one of the best this year (granted this movie may not be Oscar material but whoever said Oscar material is the best material?). In terms of being a movie from a book I have read, this ranks behind "Fight Club" on my list (which is on top). For being a film I saw in 2003, this is in the top five (somewhere behind "Mystic River"). Compared against "Harry Potter", Stanley Yelnats easily takes a shovel to Harry's head and brings the final death blow with a smelly sneaker to Potter's nose. Everybody should see this movie because it both informs and entertains. Here ends my rant!

I recorded this ages ago but only got round to watching it today. I have been ill so had run out of stuff to watch! I am so glad I saw it, and which I could erase my memory and watch i again for the first time. This movie is so wonderful! It reminded me very much of Fried Green Tomatoes At The Whistlestop Cafe. The story goes back in time and at the end of the movie we see what the connections are. Some people have said this is a kids movie. I disagree - it may be made by Disney and many characters are children, but I am 23 and I LOVED it! There were moments when my spine tingled. The story is unlike any other film these days, full of adventure. I have just ordered the book from amazon, can't wait!

Holes, the novel, was forced on me in an education course. I didn't think I would like a children's novel; plus, the other couple of books I was forced to read for the class were really bad. But, to my surprise, I absolutely loved Holes. It really is one of the most perfectly written novels I've ever read. I think it has the rare quality that makes it appeal to pre-teens, teenagers, and adults. Everyone who reads it, I think, will walk away a better person. While I can't quite say that for the film, I am happy to say that they got it mostly right. I don't think viewers of the film will walk away as enriched, but they will certainly be entertained, without the side effect of being stupider when they sat down. It is an intelligent story, and it's very well told. I think it moves a tad too quickly. The novel takes more time in developing the characters. And the flashbacks come in and out so quickly that they don't have too much time to register. The interracial romance in the past feels more cliché and trite than it does in the novel. And the ending, which ties together all the loose threads, seems very ridiculous. It's exactly the same in the novel, but there's a sense of the absurd that doesn't quite exist in the film. It works a lot better. I also don't like the multitude of pop songs. I wish Disney didn't feel it such a necessity to sell soundtracks. The cast is across-the-board excellent, from the young kids to the old pros. Jon Voight is especially great. Not quite sure why we need Catwoman and the Fonze, though. 9/10.

A very unexpected Disney gem about friendship. This is basically about a group of kids digging holes. Sounds boring right? well luckily we get a western side story to keep the movie rolling. It may start off slow but in the end you can't help but feel like you have spent your time very nicely. This is the first movie i saw with Shia Labeouf in it and i must say that he is turning into a excellent actor. He was great in this movie along with Khleo Thomas. Rounding off the great performances was Sigourney Weaver and Patricia Arquette. I recommend it. It was a pleasure to watch but it did get boring at times but comes out good in the end. 7/10

I can't figure out why this dumb, campy movie is getting such good feedback from IMDB users and professional reviewers alike. The effects and dialogue are B-movie at best, the adult characters are all ridiculously clownish caricatures, and even the kids, who make a valiant effort to be believable, just don't have either the talent or the material of a Haley Joel Osment or even a MacCaulay Culkin. There are plot holes in this movie bigger than any hole dug within the story. I guess the writers figured it didn't matter because the children would be too busy rooting for the main characters, who are the standard kid protagonists that every child will identify with, to notice the things that don't make sense. I think this is a terrible precedent for a children's film. Besides the shoddy filmmaking, there are no lessons learned, the main characters hardly mature, and the "solved mystery," while neatly wrapping up the premise, offers us nothing except a child's-eye view of poetic justice (not even fairytale-worthy). A good children's film will incite imaginations, promote good values, and perhaps challenge the youngster's emotions a little. This film doesn't. There are a few redeeming features of this film -- one, it is mostly entertaining. Most of the time, it moves pretty quickly, despite the fact that nothing much happens through most of the movie, and it's almost two hours long. (Most of the interesting parts of the story are told through flashbacks, but whose memories is unclear, in one of the many plot holes.) Two, while Patricia Arquette's and Dule Hill's characters aren't remotely believable, they do have excellent on-screen chemistry. Three, Sigourney Weaver, while less of a character than in most of her recent works, is charmingly evil, though she gets very little screen time. And four, despite its shortcomings, it's got charm and innocence that will entertain your 4-10 year olds. So, for those 4 redeeming qualities, I gave it 4/10. Just don't bother seeing it if you have no children.

Ostensibly a film for adolescents, Holes is a film with too much plot and, at two hours long, not enough time to tell it in. Despite that, it is refreshingly original and offers some satisfying performances from both younger and older members of the cast. Stanley Yelnats (Shia LaBeouf) is wrongly convicted of stealing a pair of trainers and sentenced to eighteen months at Camp Green Lake, a boy's detention centre deep in the desert where he and the other inmates spend each day digging 5ft deep by 5ft wide holes beneath the scorching sun. The camp's warden (Sigourney Weaver) aided by her henchmen Mr. Sir (Jon Voight) and Dr. Pendanski (Tim Blake Nelson) claim such treatment is character building but, of course, have an ulterior motive. Saddled with a sometimes intrusive and usually inappropriate soundtrack, Holes looks like a music video at times and, because of the wealth of information it has to fit into its running time, contains a convoluted structure featuring repeated flashbacks and, sometimes, even flashbacks within flashbacks. All this suggests a requirement for the viewer to be familiar with screenwriter Louis Sachar's novel on which it is based, but this isn't necessarily the case. The film's story can be followed by anyone who hasn't read the book, but there's a depth of characterisation that is sorely missing from the film that anyone who knows the novel would presumably be able to draw on to fill in the gaps. Most of the real personalities belong to the adult characters. The triumvirate of Weaver, Voight and Nelson stray dangerously close to parody at times but manage somehow to avoid the obvious pitfalls and entertain while giving us reasonably hissable villains. Our young heroes, Stanley and Zero (Khleo Thomas), work well together and writer Sachar builds a largely adversarial relationship between the inmates that would be as recognisable on the school playground as it is in a detention camp. Perhaps the story's main failing is the impression it gives of just being too clever. Every story has to tie up its loose ends, but the more strands the story has – and this one has many – the more contrived the ending appears when they are finally all neatly pulled together. But at least it's different from much of the media offered to teenagers today in that it offers a thoughtful and intelligent story, and it is obvious that both Sachar and director Andrew Davis have put a lot of care and attention to detail into the telling of this tale.

seriously i loved this film..i had started to read the book and i loved it...the way everything was set up and everything had a purpose...i think this film did so well was because Louis Sachar wrote the screenplay..and of course Andrew Davis directed it...Shia Lebouf gives a great performance for his first film...the storyline is very cool and interesting...there's humor, heart and intensity...it is very similar to the book..i find this film to be not the least bit boring...i absolutely loved it...and i encourage anyone to read the book..all in all this film is very well put together and carefully crafted...two thumbs up for me in every single way