the audience applauded

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

I'd never heard of David Sedaris, and this movie doesn't motivate me to change that. If he's anything at all like the David in this movie, he's a rich, spoiled, shallow, obnoxious, narcissistic, condescending, self-pitying, passive-aggressive jerk. Not the kind of person I want in my life.I might have liked this movie if only Curly (or Jon, or anybody!) had beaten that you-can't-get-mad-at-me-I'm-just-a-lost-little-boy smirk off his face, but it didn't happen. Too bad. Other reviewers talk about how he grew and changed in the course of the movie, but I guess they saw a different movie. He was a spoiled, self-pitying jerk in the beginning and he was still a spoiled, self-pitying jerk at the end.I thought I liked Jonathan Groff (he's what drew me to this movie) but the more he plays obnoxious characters like this the more I suspect it may be because he's like them. And Dennis O'Hare is so reliably good that it's surprising how bad he is here. The Christianity shtick in this movie feels completely false, sour and vindictive, like something shoehorned in only to let the writer settle a mean-spirited old grudge.I stuck with this movie all the way to the end, and the best thing I can say about it is that it did, finally, end. I hated it.

I expected to last 10 minutes and then click off. I thought it would be a comedy. I wound up mesmerized. I approach all films with extreme caution, because I expect either a liberal message, or a Christian one, and I don't want to be manipulated.This one offered neither. One reviewer mentioned a "nihilist" viewpoint, but I'm not sure about that either, because there were some good people depicted in this film. Hence the world is not hopeless.The young actor and his older "mentor" were equally great. I rarely say that about anyone. No one could have played their parts any better.The Oregon scenery was breathtaking, and the music was effective in creating a sense of bewilderment. The decay of the human soul was set amidst the purity of pristine farms, pines, and fog.The world is a dark place. That doesn't mean everyone is dark and everything is hopeless and doomed. I guarantee you that some factory workers are decent normal people who take pride in their work ethic.Having said that, the types depicted here were real and do exist in abundance in the real world. That comes as a tough pill to swallow for idealists. We want to believe that the poor are humble and sweet. Actually, many are trash, which is why they stay poor.And yet we need their labor and their bravery in battle. It's twisted and ironic, but so is the world.I was expecting this film to trash Christians and Christianity and call them all hypocrites, but that's not what happened. The couple that housed the boy were lovely people, and the church congregants appeared genuinely peaceful and loving.I could have done without the gay thing, but I think I get it. His mom probably shunned him when he came out, and he felt guilty about who he was, so maybe he thought going out west would change him. Especially with his female friend.But the gay thing just added a layer of awkwardness to an already awkward situation. Even straight, he would have been a fish out of water.The final scene was brilliant. His mentor had good and bad within his soul, but ultimately arrogance took over. Christianity often attracts lost souls and sinners, and it's very hard to keep their true nature from rearing its ugly head.It was a terrific movie. Check it out if you have the patience for character/dialog-driven plots and can tolerate the bleakest view of human nature.

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.

After seeing this flick I was lost to it's message, but knowing there is a message to be had. I have never read the essay from which the story is taken ... so I'm seeing this movie through unveiled eyes.What I see is a young man whose background is built upon an upper class controlled academic life who has idealistically thrown himself into a world of lower class marginally educated street wise laborers, to fulfill a dream he and a girlfriend(?) have cooked up to help him escape a family conflict.David is an innocent, yet sure the world is very like his book knowledge. Almost from the start he discovers otherwise. He is described as cocky and arrogant - not so. He is self assured and unafraid to speak his mind as we see on the bus and then with the girl that has deceived him by backing out of 'their plan'. David sticks with it and encounters a world unlike any he has experienced in his polite society upbringing. Certainly being polite and charming will win friends! He finds himself a loner, no friends, not even able to communicate with the Hispanic laborers he must work with. When he does find people to be friends or rather friendly with, he discovers they only want to use him (packing house man) or are seriously mentally unstable (the wildly fundamental Christian).Director Alvarez has chosen to leave the plight of David open with the closing of this movie .... you can fill in the blanks! Notice the expression on David's face as he passes the camera walking alone on that country road .... he's made a decision!This is a very good movie!