Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

deboraey This movie is indeed pure pure crap and no more!All the fuzz as for instance that the monster we saw - and also the meaningless images of some kind of living tissue and hair growing around it - is a metaphor for Diane's sexual feelings and how they increase . . and burst . . . come on give me a break folks! This isn't even a love story . . it's the story of two kind of weird teenagers meeting and spending time together exploring each other and nag and whine all the time . . pf . . I really don't see the point of this movie. . . Why not make a decent lesbian movie for a wide audience instead of this piece of crap . . . it's beyond me!

aimless-46 Fans of "Times Square" (1980) and of its Director Allen Moyle might want to check out "Jack & Diane" for a little compare and contrast. The comparison should help them appreciate the many missteps Moyle could have made and credit his instinctive feel for making small films that connect with their target audiences."Jack & Diane" is not badly shot and the audio is good, so you can't explain the lameness away by calling it a student film. It is saved from being a complete embarrassment by it being so modest an effort with so little pretension. Thankfully there is no director's commentary although what could the writer/director of something this sterile possibly have to say? Unfortunately, being embarrassed for the cast and crew would at least constitute some degree of viewer involvement with the film and the story; however perverse.In the absence of embarrassment there is simply nothing here to generate a response from a viewer. It is one of those extremely rare cases where the three-way dynamic between the artist, the work, and the observer simply does not occur; no connection is fused, nothing is engaged in the viewer. Or to put it simply, a example of how decent production and post-production cannot breathe life into something where the pre-production was so becalmed as to be sans pulse.Juno Temple is a transcendent actress with the most interesting a face out there today. To the film's credit there are considerable extreme close-ups of her and sincere attempts by her at nonverbal character development; but nonverbal connections to the viewer only happen when the story has some basic coherence.Once Temple was cast and the comedic potential of her stock airhead character was recognized (along with the almost scary talent disparity between her and her co-star), the answer for the screenplay's absence of life should have been obvious. Think Goldie Hawn playing off Charles Grodin. A little exaggeration in that direction (after all they were already going expressionistic with the effects) and they might have had something worthy of release, or at least something to justify its basic existence. Instead one is left to lament their failure to simply donate the budget to a local children's research hospital.

Augustus Clive Action movies with tons of heads getting blown off and blood bursts don't always have 'points'. Most are just ways of showing action and people say, 'Well, what do you expect?' For some reason there is a double standard in cinema now where a movie, if it isn't a genre, has to have some mind blowing '1984' point. Well, the truth is, people don't care about points. I know people that have written great books with compelling themes and can't get them published. It's all about what people think, what they think they want, and how they sum it all up in the end.Most people will watch 'Jack and Diane' and say, 'That was a big waste of time. There was no point. The acting was weak. Why did I watch that?'Sometimes we take for granted what a movie, or story for that matter is. 'Jack and Diane' is a glimpse. It's a look at a situation that might have happened or could happen. The characters are not developed, because you are supposed to imagine them in your mind or even perhaps see your self in them.The truth is, there was a lot said in this movie: about people, about how we can't see into other people's lives, feel what they feel; how we are closed off and encapsulated and outwardly poisonous to anyone we don't know. There was an over all theme of love and awakening sexual desire. People don't want that stuff, so most will look at this movie and say the usual 'what's the point' People like love stories where a guy gets a girl, where a girl gets a guy and they move in together and have two kids and a dog. People like the thriller where some guy succeeds through unreasonable measure an impossible situation while somehow falling in love and solving his life problems.We like movies where people get shot and cut up; based on true life bs. But, when a movie about two kids loving each other for a brief time, feeling that bud of love in their stomachs and loins, comes out...we judge it to shreds. Juno Temple and Riley Keough did a great job. They acted. There wasn't any big chase scene or gun fight or montage. They didn't give speeches. The dialogue really doesn't matter either. It was just two characters growing emotion. Why can't that be enough for an hour and a half?

Michael_Elliott Jack & Diane (2012) ** (out of 4) This film has been thrown out as a lesbian teen drama, a romantic drama and even a horror drama and while it does try to mix all of those things I think it fails for the most part. The story centers on British teen Diane (Juno Temple) who falls in love with female friend Jack (Riley Keough) and we see their troubled relationship turn into something rather bizarre. I'm really not sure what JACK & DIANE was trying to do unless it just wanted to be one of those indie movies that managed to be all over the place and seem rather other worldly while wanting the viewer to make up their mind on what it's about. I don't think the film was as bad as some of the reviews out there but there's still no question that there are quite a few flaws here. The biggest is that the film just never really makes us care about the characters and this here is the fault of the screenplay. I'm really not sure what writer-director Bradley Rust Gray was wanting to say or do with these characters but they never really come to life. For the majority of the overlong running time I was just sitting there wondering what anything I was watching was supposed to mean. The romantic elements never really work, the drama between the two never works and when the horror elements do show up they just seem out of place. The werewolf creation looks pretty bad but I think this was done on purpose. The horror elements just really seem out of place as if they were added just to expand the market. I did think the director at least made a good looking film and it was certainly professionally done. The biggest draw for me was the two leads and I thought both of them did a very good job. I thought Keough, Elvis' granddaughter, does a very good job in her part and I thought she handled the character well and managed to make you believe her in the role. Temple was absolutely charming in her part and her beauty certainly helped carry the film but she also managed to give an actual performance. With that said, it's hard to know who to recommend this thing to because the film's really all over the map and doesn't really succeed at anything it tries.