Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Fresh and Exciting

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The acting in this movie is really good.

The movie seems very promising in trailers and even when one starts watching it, almost until the end... when loose ends are left hanging and all of one's hopes for the movie's potential to communicate relevant and illuminating ideas collapse.Moreover, their referring to many problematic notions and expressions remains unchecked. The use of "retard," "faggot" and "slut" is never explained or condemned. The idea of homosexuality as a sickness--is left unchecked, too; and so are the presentations of immigrant workers as thieves and of menial workers as stupid and not at the level of a college graduate. We are never told or shown how we are supposed to feel about any of these issues. And while the ambiguity of religion is largely okay in a world of various religious convictions (or lack thereof), I don't see how the rest of the topics can responsibly be treated as a matter of contention.Yet, I loved Jonathan Groff's acting. I also loved the post-graduate attitude, which signified the place from which the emotional journey of the character began. I can really relate to it, too: the way your own struggles and successes make you feel superior to others. Which is why I was hoping David would learn to appreciate people and see them as his equals--which he partly, arguably, maybe did. But then, what was the point of religion? Why the ambiguity surrounding his sexuality? Did he have a problem with his sexual orientation?I am just confused by the way the movie ended.Although Jonathan Groff was brilliant, and C.O.G. was mostly well-written and filmed, I felt that it was cut short. Only 10 concluding minutes could clear a lot of my concerns, if included. But, as it stands, the movie is aesthetically, narratively, philosophically and socio-politically unresolved.

I really liked this film because the main character reminded me of myself at that age: a bit naive about the world, clueless about how privileged I was to have gone to college, and terrified of recognizing the fact that I was gay. Jonathan Groff is such a pleasure to watch, you could justify watching the film as an excuse to look at Groff for 85 minutes. But he really does perform the role well here.It's just a simple film in a way: a young man sets out to break away from the world he knows to see if he can make sense of it. And it appears his family has cut him off so perhaps he had no choice. There are some little moments that will go over the heads of straight people, some of whom watch the whole movie without catching on to the fact that Groff's character is gay (read the comments on YouTube and IMDb). Gays watching the film will figure that out from the bus ride at the beginning of the film and the way he responds to anti-gay slurs thoughtlessly tossed out by straight passengers. Even though there are so many un-likable characters in the story, it's kind of oddly beautiful to watch. I could watch this film many times.

I was really looking forward to this movie. From the trailers it looked funny, mild and sweet. I thought it was going to be about a young man meeting new people and having positive experiences working at an apple orchard. I was wrong. This movie has a few sweet moments but overall, it is grim and bleak. I cannot emphasize this enough. When it is finished, you are left feeling sad and disappointed in humanity. In simple words: this movie is a downer. Really though, if you are looking for a sweet, light hearted movie, you won't find it here. The best thing I can say about the film is that Jonathan Groff is extremely talented and does a great job, but even he can't save this film.

C.O.G. is my favorite David Sedaris essay, even before I moved to Oregon and recognized some of its landmarks. The movie even begins with one of my favorite speeches from the essay, although the speech is much better on the page.The story concerns a young man who fantasizes about joining the working class (as in Grapes of Wrath) and travels to Oregon to pick apples, work in an apple sorting factory, and make jade sculptures with a temperamental man who is trying to convert him to Christianity. In the essay, Sedaris, as himself, is state school educated, a stoner, accustomed to menial jobs, and from a working class family. In the movie, David – or Samuel, as he's calling himself – is a smarmy preppy educated at Yale who is first depicted reading Darwin's Origin of Species. When Sedaris makes fun of crazy people on a Greyhound, or working class people at a factory, it is clear that he is making fun of his own expectations, as well as people not far below him in social class. This is quite a contrast to an upper class character looking down on dumb poor people. This is one of the movie's first flaws. And it colors almost everything. What is his true motivation, if he is so jaded and cynical? What is the movie trying to tell us about working people and Christians when it presents us with this character as its hero?A second flaw is one chief among Hollywood movies, even those intended for the art-house crowd. Though David Sedaris himself, as well as the lead actor, are openly gay, this movie wouldn't want to come out and just say such a thing, why people might flee into the streets. So it teases us with making us believe he might have a female love interest; it does not tell us what the source of the conflict is with his family (it would appear to be his coming out); it doesn't tell us why he is so freaked out by a co-worker's gay advances (is it because he's grossed out by the man or the concept?), or how any of this might impact his potential conversion to Christianity. I'm sure the director has a lofty, annoying explanation for this oversight, but I can count two "so, was he gay?" posts already on the list of five that show up on the main page.The score, mainly percussion, will be off-putting to many, especially in the first scenes on the bus. And the ending will also confuse. After personal conflicts with many of the characters, how will his opinions and his Christian conversion change? We know IRL that David Sedaris went on to a happy life as a bestselling author. A less vague ending could have shown what the character learned from these experiences, especially since this movie tried so hard to be more sincere than its comedic base.This movie has some things going for it, but it is philosophically a disappointment.