George Washington is one of the most upsetting film experiences I've ever had. The reason for this is not what you might expect. It was not bad. A bad film isn't exactly annoying. What is annoying is inconsistency. It is as if it were written and directed by Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jeckyl's parts are the great parts, of which there are numerous. In fact, many individual scenes have an utterly profound power, almost knocking me down. But here comes Mr. Hyde! About 1/3 of the scenes of the entire film are awful in every aspect. They clash so horribly with the great scenes that it basically kills the film dead.

Actually, I think the good parts and bad parts can be identified further. I think I know which aspects were sorely lacking in the film.

The film's story is great. I could imagine reading it in a novel and finding it quite compelling. The script, though, lacked a huge part: the dialogue. The dialogue ranges from not bad to terrible. Fundamentally, the dialogue is problematic in the same way as the Terrence Malick film The Thin Red Line. In that film, we here narration of a grand poetical quality coming from these soldiers. It's as if there are two characters: the actual ones, and the fantastically poetic ones. George Washington is the same way, except for one major flaw: these deeply poetic and philosophical musings that these young kids come up with are neither very poetic nor very philosophical. They're all extraordinarily hackneyed, in fact. And to boot, all actors in the film except for one of the kids are HORRENDOUS actors, both in dialogue delivery and in gesticulations. The kid who plays George, arguably the main character, is the best.

There is one monologue in the film that I feel the need to just attack ferociously to demonstrate the lowest depths of this film. George's uncle, who has adopted him, is particularly cruel to animals, especially dogs. He admits to killing a dog to his nephew, and then proceeds to tell George the root of this psychological problem. It seems that when he was a young kid, 6 I think, a big dog came up to him and started humping his leg. He tried to overpower the darn thing, but it was too big and knocked him down. It "humped [him] all over [his] body." So he went home and got a drill to kill the dog, but that dog was gone. COME ON!!! This is incredibly silly. I cannot think of a sillier event than being raped by a dog!!! Jeeze, I almost threw things at the screen that was so terrible!

This is one of those movies that I would love to see someone remake, cutting the bad things, thickening the rest of the story (the themes in the film, while potent, are often tenuously held together). I bet a really compelling film could be made with just the existing footage. One thing I do have to say, though, is watch out for this director! This film may have been a failure (and that is only in my opinion, of course),but there is so much worth in it that I think if the director matured, he might produce a real masterpiece. I will give it a 6/10 because of the good things in it. Really, though, the film falls pretty flat by the end.

I have hated almost every film David Gordon Green has made after "George Washington" - but even this movie begs the question, "why?"

The acting is supposedly honest, but actually felt hackneyed and unrealistic by both the kids and the "real" actors alike. The storyline is virtually nonexistent, but what *is* there says so little that it barely exists. All that's left is the okay photography, and the sleepy directing. This is "Sundance" stuff akin to "Beasts of the Southern Wild" - boring, pointless, and so utterly, formulaically "non-form" that it's just as predictably ambiguous as the most hackneyed Hollywood Romcom is happy-ending-ized.

The biggest difference between Sundance-honored independent films and Hollywood mediocrity is that at least Hollywood isn't totally disingenuous about what it's dishing out.

This independent film is perhaps one of the best take on American adolescence reality, without sex and drugs, close behind the darker and more visceral films from Larry Clark: Kids (1995) and Bully (2001). George Washington comes across as light even in the midst of tragedy and even more tragic life circumstances and reality. It seeks solace, redemption and contemplation in this contemporary boredom. It is poetic and profound at times and meanders in the mundane which it reflects well.

Dialogues and monologues are well written and feel real. Imagery is impactful and uses elements like the cape and lizard mask to convey deeper beauty and meaning. Each character is explored even if briefly to reveal depth and allow for further thoughts. George's father which we see in one scene only, Damascus' explanation of why he hates dogs, Vernon's soliloquy and Sonya's secret are the best examples.

The fragility of actions and consequences. Thoughts, feelings and circumstances.

Although it may be missing an ethereal "je ne sais quoi" to bind everything together a bit more tightly, it achieves the ambiance and ambition of letting us into the life and preoccupations of our young protagonists.

Recommended and good for multiple viewings.