Havoc (2005) User Reviews (163)

Was it Really Necessary?

[fixyourcat · 5/10 · 25 February 2006]

This movie was often times painful to watch, and it's not because of its "moving" subject matter. It's possible the filmmakers aren't at fault, here, because when you make a movie about irritating people, don't be surprised that the viewers will find themselves irritated. But if you take on a film that'll make people's brains hemorrhage, you probably deserve to be booed.

Honestly, though, after seeing this piece of crap, I'm surprised Stephen Gaghan can still get work in Hollywood. Likewise for Hathaway, who does a respectable job with a vastly mundane script. Not so kudos to Bijou Philips, for whom playing trash isn't exactly a huge stretch or test of acting ability, nor to Freddy Rodriguez, who, to make his speech more threatening, actually slows himself down so much that he starts. Speaking. In. Fragments. Of the trio, though, he may be the most surprising transformation, especially since he's so squeaky on "Six Feet Under." It was unexpected, but it may have been a casting mistake. Instead of appearing threatening, he looks more like he has Short Man's Syndrome, since Hathaway has a head of height on him, and may appear more menacing therefore. I know I shouldn't be so astounded, but it stupefies me still, how far Hollywood will go to make the worst casting decisions in the name of getting someone proximately famous for the DVD cover. Oy...

I think the most irksome thing about "Havoc" is that, in the end, it's a vacuous morality tale. They had a chance to make something of the examination of bored, rich teenagers who want to be poor on purpose, but they instead glazed over it. No one involved has long-lasting suffering. It's like the whole thing was just a bad dream, which is, I suppose, a fitting description of a night spent watching "Havoc," a most aptly-titled film. The most disappointing aspect of the whole deal is that the personal responsibility lesson isn't given enough gravity. Bored, unlikable, upper-class adolescents get in a wee bit of trouble with a Latin gang of their own accord? My cup overfloweth. Honest to God, if I have to hear another person defend an individual's actions on the basis of the "It's only your fault until you get hurt; then, you can blame someone else" line, I'm going to implode. And guess what "Havoc" does?

Bottom line: if you're looking for half-naked girls, you've hit the jackpot. Also, if you're a teenager and you're looking for some kind of searing expose of the "Gee, I think I'll go join a gang today" lifestyle, you, too, are in luck. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you find yourself vomiting uncontrollably and crying for your mother during the ninety minutes of the train wreck called "Havoc."

Hathaway the bright spot

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 12 June 2015]

Allison Lang (Anne Hathaway) is from the upper class white neighborhood of Pacific Palisades. Her parents (Michael Biehn, Laura San Giacomo) are divorced and she's not connecting with them. Her boyfriend Toby is a Wigger and a poser. He takes her and her friend Emily (Bijou Phillips) to the bad side of L.A. They try to buy drugs and get rolled by Hector (Freddy Rodríguez). Even with Toby's cowardice, she is excited by the incident and returns to the spot the next night with Emily, Amanda (Shiri Appleby) and Sasha (Alexis Dziena). She finds Hector again as she falls further and further into his dangerous world.

This is a souped-up afterschool special. I don't particularly find these characters that compelling. The girls could do whatever the hell they want for all I care. It starts with the idiotic posing from Toby. It brings up an interesting casting choice. It's crazy looking back that Mike Vogel got the bigger role while Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Channing Tatum are cast as his friends. The other problematic casting choice is Freddy Rodríguez. I can't buy him as a gang leader especially since he's a foot shorter than Anne Hathaway. He's definitely not hard enough and there's a bit of Napoleon going on here. Hathaway is good in this movie and keeps it compelling. She's really the major bright spot in this.

Hollywood rebels without a cause -- where are you James Dean?

[lawfella · 5/10 · 4 May 2006]

Negative comments about this film need to be tempered by the sad story surrounding its making. The script was written by a 17-year old girl named Jessica Kaplan. No, It's not Citizen Kane, but it is an extraordinary piece of work for a teenager. And most sadly, she perished in an airplane crash at the age of 21. The film is dedicated to her memory.

As to the film's merits, it is by my count the 1,464th variation of Rebel Without A Cause, which I think said all that needed to be said on the subject. Did you know that adolescents often find society empty and pointless? And that they do stupid things by way of rebelling against it, in hopes of dispelling their angst and finding something more meaningful? Yes, it's true. In this version of that old chestnut, the rebels are a particularly spoiled group of high school students living in Hollywood. To find something they consider "real", they form youth gangs in imitation of the poor folk in East L.A. And then they actually go there, at first to buy drugs; but then rich girls Anne Hatahway and Bijou Phillips try to get involved in the local Hispanic gang scene. Some pretty modest mayhem ensues.

The East L.A. people are awfully sanitized and not very believable. Nobody is addicted to anything. Nobody is desperate. Nobody appears to be poor. These are basically solid middle class folk, devoted to family, who have a few surface quirks and who happen to sell crack cocaine instead of, say, life insurance.

Is it my imagination or does the gorgeous Bijou Phillips always play exactly the same role -- a sexually eager girl who gets in over her head, discovering the hard way that yes, she has limits? That's the role she plays here, and she is fine (as is lead Anne Hatahway). But I wonder whether that is her entire repertoire. Perhaps she will branch out someday.

Somewhere on this planet, there must be some group of people more deserving of sympathy than affluent Hollywood teenagers. So I found myself wondering why this film had been made. The young scriptwriter should not be held accountable, but you would think older people would know better.

Just Plain Horrible....

[Garys1266 · 2/10 · 7 April 2006]

I just saw this on Starz and where do I start? This was a script right out of those old after school specials. Straight girl ends up on wrong side of tracks.

A few points: - Apparently, it is totally safe for a young white girl to drive through the streets of East LA in a $55,000 Mercedes, a convertible no less without getting car jacked. It is also apparently safe to park that Mercedes convertible with the top down on the street in East LA without having it stolen or stripped.

• Gang members are totally approachable and harmless to outsiders. They even stop having sex with you after you ask them to.

• The acting by the young male "wiggers" was just plain laughable. As if three 17 year old high school boys would actually contemplate confronting gang members with weapons on those gang members home turf no less.

And the point of this movie was? A seemingly intelligent, wealthy girl decides she wants to go to East LA for kicks because she is bored? Here's a clue for kicks sweet cheeks, next time grab daddy's Amex card and just head to Rodeo drive. This movie was not only unbelievable; it was a total waste of both film and time.

A middle view

[BrandtSponseller · 7/10 · 1 December 2005]

It seems that this is one of those films that people either love or hate. I'm more in the middle. At times I found Havoc annoying, but as it progressed, the story became more engaging, and you're supposed to find aspects of it annoying.

Anne Hathaway--who is trying her hardest here to distance herself from her previous Disney and family film image by choosing a role where she's naked and sexual as often as possible--plays Allison, a rich, enigmatic high school student, wrapped up with a very plastic wannabe-gangsta-rapper group of white kids. They have a minor encounter with a Mexican gang in East L.A., and Hathaway finds herself (somewhat) inexplicably drawn to the Mexican gang. She keeps returning to visit one of the leaders, Hector (Freddy Rodriguez). At one point things become more complicated, as the audience surely expects.

The annoying aspect of the film is the rich kid gangsta posers. They seem incredibly fake, stupid and ridiculous. But on the other hand, that's pretty much the point. Los Angeles certainly has a reputation, somewhat deserved, for plasticity, so I suppose that Los Angeles high schools would be even worse, because a large percentage of high school students everywhere tend to conform to some clique or another (as do many adults, for that matter, but the "join a club to fit in and be accepted" mentality is usually more transparent and focused in high school). So the main characters should be annoying, and Allison, and later her friend Emily (Bijou Phillips), should be frustrating in their lack of direction and independent identity.

The problem with Havoc, however, is that the bulk of the running time is given to this irksome, frustrating and ridiculous group of characters. That's not exactly a recipe for falling in love with a film. Both Allison and the audience will likely respond to the Mexican gang better because there is an air of authenticity present with them, thanks largely to the cast playing those roles, but they're just not in the film enough, and the climax and dénouement are far less than satisfactory in that regard. Likewise, one rich kid character who is making an amateur documentary on the rich kid "gang" comes across as more authentic and interesting, but he ends up having an inexcusably minor role.

Still, if you can bear the inundation of poser behavior and lingo, there is an interesting story somewhat buried here, plus some attractive cinematography, a good soundtrack (both the songs and the more traditional score), and I'm certainly not complaining about seeing, um, more of Anne Hathaway. Approach this one with a lot of caution, but it's easy to see how it could be a gem for some.

Havoc it is

[gradyharp · 2/10 · 5 December 2005]

If there is some justice to misjudging investments in movies, then the fact that this film went directly to DVD despite the presence of a crew that includes some impressive names is notable. Writer Stephen Gaghan ('Traffic', 'Rules of Engagement', 'Syriana', etc) has composed a contrived script about rich, bored, Hip Hop imitating, unmotivated teenagers trying to spice up their insignificant lives by treading into the East LA 'danger zone', an experience from which they learn nothing about cross cultural ethnic groups and just return to Pacific Palisades whining about 'damaged goods'. It is an insulting story, one that stereotypes Hispanics as drug-peddling, raping thugs in a totally black and white manner, not taking into consideration the viewpoint of a cultural group's positive attributes and philosophies.

No longer a viable gimmick, the film begins with the tired cliché of a kid making a documentary about his friends, asking what they like and don't like, their goals, their outlooks. The fact that none of the interviewees has a clue about life, preferring to follow the current Hip Hop language (very poorly written) and focusing on sex, drugs, and escapes from their wealthy environments. Among these are three girls, the main character being Allison (Anne Hathaway, miscast in every way), who follow their superficial boyfriends on a joyride for drugs into East LA. There they meet Hector (Freddy Rodríguez, trying his best to create a character without the benefit of a decent script) who sells them drugs and whom Allison eyes. Allison is so shallow she doesn't have a clue about her motivations, just wanting something 'dangerous' to happen. She coaxes her equally clueless girlfriends into going into East LA to seduce Hector and ends up in a ridiculous barter for joining Hector's gang (no mention is made at all about the Chicanas who would never allow these three geeks to enter their territory unchallenged). The results of a barter results in an experience with which the girls cannot cope so they run back to the protection of the dysfunctional parents they loathe to cover the mess of their caper. Attempts to resolve this dumb story fail pathetically.

With so many fine Indie films that go begging for attention, it is a shame money is wasted on this sort of meaningless mess of a film. The 'unrated' designation is probably meant for the occasional nudity and gratuitous sex and language, but here 'Unrated' might just mean that the film is so without merit that it is non-classifiable. Avoid this one and don't think that a fine writer such as Gaghan guarantees a successful story. Grady Harp

A Nutshell Review: Havoc

[DICK STEEL · 6/10 · 26 June 2006]

I could start off this review in Singlish by saying "This movie damn havoc", and it just about sums it up accurately and nicely. Sex, drugs and gangsterism from the hop is hip culture, this movie attempts to provide a social commentary about the lives of super rich teenagers in the Palasades, wasting their bored lives away by trying to emulate another culture they think is cool, the wannabes who chose not to conform to the norms, but try their darndest best to be one in the 'hood.

Anne Hathaway assumes the lead role as Allison Lang, a wide-eyed teenager whose language is as beautiful as her appearance. Having her material needs satisfied by her ultra rich parents, but living in essentially an empty home, her friends and her seek out the alternative lifestyle which promises loads of fun and excitement - drugs, drink and fights. Being associated with a gang brings about some perceived self esteem and self worth. But where do you draw the line when you're always seeking another high moment? A journey to "downtown" - the areas of the have-nots, where seedy bogeymen reside in, areas where parents warn their children to stay away from, sparks a discovery of a wonderland for Allison and her best friend Emily (Bijou Phillips), as they make repeated trips to be amongst the real boys in the 'hood, to hang out, chill, and do whatever them wannabes have done at a magnitude of 10. It's a primal attraction and sexual tension between the girls and the men (not the boys they hang out with, who pee in their pants when faced with real danger - acting cool is not cool), and between Allison and Hector (Freddy Rodriguez).

But like all revelations, sometimes it takes the hard way to learn a lesson, and the movie picked up on this rather rapidly in the last third, once they got enticed into playing a game of dice (with sexual connotations) in order to be initiated into Hector's gang. Basically, the audience observes the attraction of an alternative lifestyle, of wannabes thinking they can handle it all, and of redemption and change.

While it was a surprise to see Michael Biehn in the movie, the movie clearly belonged to Anne Hathaway in her very first attempt to break away from her goody-two-shoes roles like in the Princess Diaries and Ella Enchanted. However, with the M18 rating here, this movie suffered cuts where it really mattered, and a poor edit too at one of the more pivotal scenes which literally screwed up the understanding of what actually happened, only to be told at face value, suggesting the "truth" of the matter, at a later stage. Sometimes I wonder why not release it as R21, and keep the film intact. Surely Hathaway has fans, but to mutilate the movie to let them in, is a bad decision.

It's peculiar to have the movie released this week, up against Singer's SUperman. Maybe some rebellious bored teenagers happen to be the answer to balance the truth and justice that the last son of Krypton embodies?

Two hours I can never get back.

[cridafer · 1/10 · 20 January 2006]

Words cannot express how much I hated this movie. I hated every aspect of it, from the direction to the writing to the acting. Havoc is the story of one teenager's (Anne Hathaway) exploration of a world outside that which she is accustomed. And that's putting it in a way that gives this movie more credit than it deserves. Hathaway's character is part of a "gang" of white, upper-class high-schoolers who backlash at their upbringing by emulated black culture. She and her friends eventually decide to take a trip to East L.A., and no hilarity ensues.

I decided to watch this movie for two reasons: Stephen Gaghan had a hand in it; and Anne Hathaway, who I have always found enjoyable to watch, was starring in it.

I'll begin my criticism with the writing. After finally viewing the movie, I can honestly say that I found nothing that resembles Stephen Gaghan in the script. Vapid is the only word I can think of to describe the thoughts and ideas of this movie. It is one of the those movies that tries so hard to make a social comment, yet fails so miserably. The characters are all one-dimensional, especially Toby (Mike Vogel), the wigger boyfriend of Hathaway's character Allison. His actions are so broad and exaggerated, I had a hard time taking anything he, or anyone on screen at the time, did seriously. Finally, each character was written to be an example of a stereotype. I almost laughed when Hector (Freddy Rodriguez) tried to explain that not everything in East L.A. was about gangs and drugs, then proceeded to fill every stereotype of a movie gang member.

Each and every actor in this movie lost points in my book for being associated with this film. Even those I like and respect. Michael Biehn, Laura San Giacomo, Anne Hathaway and Bijou Phillips all have done serious, believable roles. Even Joseph Gordon-Levitt, whose only respectable role I've seen him in was "10 Things I Hate About You" (I haven't seen "Manic" as of this writing), in which he was at least believable. Here, his unbelievable overacting reaches a point at which Paris Hilton would be proud.

This brings me to the directing. Because I respect many of the leads and they have done great work in the past, I can only blame the awful choices on the director.

Very few movies reach the depths this movie does. I have not hated a movie so much since "The Doom Generation." Stay away if you can.

A Compelling teen drama

[LARSONRD · 7/10 · 4 March 2007]

Filmed in 2005 but not released until this year on DVD, this was a compelling story about rich teens acting all Hip Hop in Pacific Palisades who drive into East L.A. for kicks and getting involved with one of the gangs there, with pretty awful results. The teens are essentially brainless pleasure-seeking partiers (many critics derided them for being one-dimensional, but I think that was the whole point – showing the shallowness of their lives and the bad choices they made, seeking better kicks without really understanding what they were getting into, their naivete about gangs and their misplaced self-confidence in their own sexuality to keep them popular and liked and safe, was shown to be demonstrably inappropriate. Their attitudes, weaned on parental neglect, casual sex, and playing roles they weren't up to (the kids pretend to be hip hop without ever really understanding that culture; everyone in the film is shown to be a phony – pretending to be someone they're not), are mired in superficiality (one of the characters says, when facing a choice to join the gang if she'll sleep with three of their members, says, "why not? It's just sex!" – a telling moment). Most IMDb reviewers panned the movie but I felt it was an honest and intriguing drama about choices and consequences. Anne Hathaway's performance is a far cry from her Disneyesque cute roles in PRINCESS DIARIES and even DEVIL WEARS PRADA – she sells the character of the vapid, shallow rich kid whose attitude about life and love and sex ("it's just a performance, after all") quite nicely – that's what drew me to the film, and I felt she did a good job. Freddy Rodriguez, whose performances I've always liked since he did SIX FEET UNDER, is very good as a gang member/drug dealer – and despite those who claimed all the characters were on-dimensional, I felt he added a lot of subtle depth to his role – humanizing it beyond the cardboard gang member he started out to be. There is a depth behind his eyes and behind his words as he confronts Hathaway and her sexy friends, and becomes as manipulated by them even while trying manipulate them for his own purposes. The other gang members were also very convincing – or at least they seemed so to me. Laura San Giacomo and Michael Biehn are very good as in small roles as Anne's misunderstood but inattentive parents, who are facing their own marital issues. The film ends on an intentional note of ambiguity but one I felt was quite effective – the story stops while you're still thinking about it. The specific conclusion – who dies and who doesn't – isn't the point and in the end doesn't really matter – either way, it's the inevitable result of the poor choices and lack of any kind of personal responsibility in the lives of these kids that is the point of the film. Like THIRTEEN, I felt this was a very interesting examination of youth and its choices and influences and vulnerability. I may be eons away from the age group portrayed by the teens in this film, but I found the picture to be a satisfying and involving human drama with real performances and real issues.

A promising premise and a solid performance wasted

[tchockythegreat · 3/10 · 28 January 2009]

Despite the fact that this movie is like the umpteenth variation of Rebel Without A Cause, anybody who has gone to a high school in an affluent area in the last decade and seen the amount of pampered young 'wiggers' there are knows that the premise of this flick is relevant to today's youth and is worth exploring. Unfortunately, the movie fails to deliver on this promising premise and only succeeds in wasting a fine performance from Anne Hathaway.

The movie WANTS to make a powerful statement about spoiled, naive, pseudo-disillusioned youths searching for identity in the superficial only to receive a colossal reality check when they realize the life they've been imitating isn't as glamorous as they had thought. Unfortunately, this noble message is lost in a weak script and characters that are either one-dimensional, unbelievable or both. Although one must consider the fact that the screenplay was for the most part written by a 16-year-old girl before judging it, it is disappointing that an Academy Award-winning co-writer with some experience with this genre of film (Stephen Gaghan) could not give the screenplay and characters a more authentic feel.

Even if it was the screenwriter's intention to make the script's dialogue horrible for the sake of legitimizing just how inane the gang of rich white teens are acting, the horrid screen writing comes off so cartoonish that the viewer will have an extremely difficult time accepting the dialogue, and consequently the behavior, of these characters as being legitimate. As a result, the gang of rich white wannabe thugs come off, for the most part, as being overwrought caricatures saddled with some of the most laughably horrible dialogue ever heard in a motion picture. As for the gang of cholo thugs in the movie, they come off as being far too nice and too stereotypical to Latinos, and thus seem only marginally less cartoony that the gang of rich white kids.

The movie's lone saving grace is Anne Hathaway. Playing a role that shares some parallels with and could be considered a natural extension of her smart-girl-with-a-rebellious-streak Meghan Green character from the short-lived TV series Get Real, hers was the only character in the movie that had any sort of depth and believability. The script, despite its many shortcomings, succeeds in making it clear just how self-aware, intelligent, and capable of good Hathaway's character is, in spite of her actions as a member of the gang of rich white teens, giving the film its lone three-dimensional character. Because of Hathaway's talent as an actress, as well as her successful exploitation of the public's predominant perception of her as a wholesome girl next door for this film, it is easy for the audience to believe that Hathaway's character is the rebel-without-a-clue fish out of water that the script is trying to portray her as. Hathaway's acting is superb, head and shoulders above anyone else in the film, which adds to her character's legitimacy. However, the people who see this movie will likely be too busy snickering at the inane lines of dialogue she's repeatedly forced to drop or, more likely, be gaping at their TV thinking "O...M...G! The chick from The Princess Diaries is actually TOPLESS!" to notice her solid performance.

Which leads to a discussion of arguably the biggest reason most people even know this film exists. Hathaway has claimed in interviews that she only does nudity in films if she deems it necessary to the story. While a case can be made that most of the nudity in the film was appropriate when considering the context of the scenes in which it was featured, I find myself questioning just how "necessary" it is, for example, to show Hathaway's character popping her top while making out with her boyfriend (or for that matter, to see Bijou Phillips' character in the film topless while taking a bubble bath). That's not to say this movie should be mistaken for a late-night film on Skinemax; it most certainly isn't. But Hathaway is topless just enough in this film to make this obvious attempt to expand her acting repertoire beyond the roles in family films she had previously been limited to seem heavy-handed and maybe even a little desperate. Anne, take it from me, you're a wonderful actress. That alone will do more to land you mature roles than taking off your top for sex scenes in a poorly-scripted indie movie ever will.

When all is said and done, the amount of nudity in this movie only made it worse; when you factor the amount of it in along with in how disappointing the movie is, it only adds evidence to the argument that the only reason this movie exists was for Hathaway to prove to us just how far she was willing to go to avoid being typecast as Princess Mia Thermopolis for the rest of her acting career...which is a shame, considering her legitimately solid acting job in this movie.

Rent "Kids" or "Thirteen" instead; both films are about topics similar to this movie and both are far better.

A Social Commentary, If You Look At It

[Epithy · 8/10 · 7 November 2005]

Watching this movie, the first thing that came to mind was, "Wow, these kids sure are fake." In many initial reviews, this movie was derided as being a joke. It was either hearing about the various nude scenes of Anne Hathaway or a bunch of white kids trying to act black, and doing it poorly.

I said that that "fake" was the first thing that came to mind, because we are immediately presented with this group of rich white kids acting like they are black. However, it is being mistaken by some reviewers that these actors are doing a bad job. What we are really seeing is truly how superficial that these kids are. They are fake, in every sense of the word, and that is the whole point of the movie. Don't try and act like something you aren't because there are consequences.

I say this is a social commentary, not perfectly executed, but still fairly well done nonetheless. It does truly present many aspects of youth behavior nowadays that most people don't really look at. We are given a true side to high school, where there are fake people everywhere, underage and illegal activity is happening, and its all going on without parents there to see. This movie takes the comedy out of the teenage life that has been prevalent in movies over the past 8 years or so such as American Pie and other similar styled teen comedies and turns it to a sort of opposite view. Now I am not by any means saying that this movie is a guiding light which everyone should see. In fact, I don't know if this movie is for everyone, because of the issues it presents. Some people, especially parents, would undoubtedly have problems coming to terms that the behavior seen in this movie happens. Now it doesn't happen everywhere, or in every school, but I'm pretty sure that you know what I mean.

I think this movie, is backed up by pretty well performed acting done by the majority of its cast. Anne Hathaway, who many doubted had the range to tackle such a role, seemed very natural in the part. I don't mean that negatively, and I actually give her credit for really becoming the character. The rest of the cast does a good job, but it is her performance that truly helps you understand most of the underlying message of the movie.

I know that some will not see in this movie what I saw, but to each their own. I do hope that people see this movie and don't criticize it solely on what they think is bad acting. It has a much deeper theme than that, and I think that the more people understand that, the more people will realize this is a pretty good movie.

The Interception of Two Worlds

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 15 April 2007]

In Los Angeles, Allison Lang (Anne Hathaway) is a bored girl from an upper class dysfunctional family that acts and dresses like a slut. Her wealthy boyfriend and friends are totally influenced by the hip-hop culture, behaving like rappers, dressing and imitating their lifestyle. When they decide to drive to East L.A. for fun, they meet a Latin gang of drug-dealers and Allison and her best friend Emily (Bijou Phillips) become fascinated with their "gangsta" lifestyle. Later they return to the ghetto to visit and excite Hector (Freddy Rodríguez) and his friends, expecting to join their 16th Street gang. When the guys propose them to have sex as a form of initiation, they change their mind, leading to a tragic consequence.

"Havoc" raises a great theme, the existence of two different worlds in most of the big cities, and the consequences of the interception of these different worlds. Unfortunately, director Barbara Kopple seems to be afraid to disclose the real world and in the capital scenes she spoils the movie. The gang-bang with Emily is interrupted as if the drugged gangsters were gentlemen, respecting her request. Allison is not raped in the same moment, what would be inconceivable with the guys excited by the girls after drinking lots of booze and smoke joint. Further, the movie is suddenly interrupted, as if the budget had ended before its conclusion. If this film had been shot by an experienced director like Michael Haneke, I believe it would be a great film. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Garotas Sem Rumo" ("Adrift Girls")

Oh, post-modern world

[clumsypiper · 5/10 · 4 January 2006]

After reading the comments for this movie, I had a strong urge to see it. To be honest, it seemed like a bit of a pot boiler, though I was surprised when I found out it was penned by the same writer that gave us Syriana and Traffic.

What I really liked about this film was what lied beneath its surface, even if that seed wasn't brought to fruition for a number of reasons. What I thought the film truly attempted to explore was the membrane between cultures that has become permeable in today's media-saturated environment, or more specifically, the access granted to those with the means to appropriate what has become a stylized version of ghetto culture. It is one of the more fascinating reversals in contemporary culture made possible only by the media explosion : the cultural performance of a sort of "ghetto aesthetic" by white suburban youth, whose participation in that aesthetic is one of choice, rather than of necessity, as it could possibly be said is true of those who must actually navigate the ghetto. I appreciate the effort on the part of Gaghan to explore this cultural phenomenon, but unfortunately, he and his collaborators fell short of their endeavor in more than one area.

For one, and I imagine many would agree, the choice of Anne Hathaway as the lead was particularly disastrous, and not because of her association to more wholesome films, but because she simply did not have the capacity as an actress to perform this role. Secondly, the performance of the PLC actors was fairly laughable, though the blame must be placed on the scriptwriters for this one. The characters switched too freely from their "thug" personae to their "authentic" (if that word is appropriate) suburban personae. The filmmakers truly cut their own feet out from under them and missed the point: white teenagers immersed in this sort of cultural performance are usually far more invested in their own individual performances, and thus, would not be likely to slip so freely between identities. That they were able to do so betrayed the fact that the teenagers were aware that they were in fact performing, rendering the characters unbelievable and blunting the point of the film.

But the film's true failure was in its mind-boggling refusal to prioritize the subject matter above the personal struggle of the protagonist, which comes off as pretty flimsy. If the filmmakers really wanted to explore the interplay between cultures and the consequences of that interaction as the result of our media-saturated environment, there really should not have relied on such an antiquated notion of a central protagonist. It's just not that kind of movie (or shouldn't have been). Gaghan did a stunning job of elevating his subject-matter in Traffic and Syriana, which leaves me with the sinking sensation that there might have been some studio intervention on this one.

In the end, Havoc is stifled by the centrality of Allison's moral dilemma. What is far more interesting is the implications of this threshold - both figurative and literal - that has been opened in contemporary American society. Havoc's endeavor is a bold one in exploring a sojourn between cultures not just in a circumscribed sense wherein suburban teens take part in a cultural performance within the confines of their own environment mediated by digital medium, but in a real world scenario. The most poignant moments occur within this awkward zone of interaction, and much of the praise can be placed on Johnny Vasquez: the scene where he explains that East Los Angeles is a place where "people live," rather than a vacuum of nightly news reported crime. Perhaps the most searing line occurs after the contentious "rape" scene in which Manuel asks Allison, "What did you want?", alerting her that this experience is not within the locus of control usually allotted her as the result of her white privilege. An "authentic" experience is inherently alien to her, and experiencing the alien is rarely comforting. Such interaction carries the weight of victimization for both parties - Allison and Emily for whom the sexual taboos are too great a hurtle to jump, and Manuel, who suffers the consequences of Emily's attempt to grasp at some sense of control and to cover up the shame that she feels following the sexual interlude. This double victimization is something that is overlooked in the was-it or was-it-not arguments over the sex scene, which is unfortunate, because the point of the film, although poorly articulated, can be found in the aftermath of that scene.

Havoc, yeah, right!

[MovieZoo · 2/10 · 10 December 2005]

I admit the only reason I watched this movie was to see Anne Hathaway's contribution to the arts and to see if Richard Roeper's praise was on the mark. This was not art. What was she thinking? What was Roeper thinking? I thought maybe she chose this movie because she saw some challenge. The only challenge I believe she had was showing her breasts. Her character was shallow, and it was supposed to be. How difficult is it to play a shallow character? It couldn't have been too difficult because every one of the gang-banger-wannabes was shallow. True to life for them but so what? The parents were just as shallow. The more I watched, the more I prayed for someone to start acting. Just when I saw possibilities, I was disappointed once again.

The best characters were Hector and his gang. They were the most intriguing because once Allison made contact, it became possible that someone was going to experience a change in life and Hector was truly one who could make that change. On the other hand, Allison could also make the change. Welll, it disappointed again. It isn't that a change hadn't occurred, a change did occur, but not one that would help this movie.

The movie is weak and often gives one a reason to walk away. Someone wanted to tell a story that would show life on the wild side and probably encourage abstention to anyone tempted to indulge in a very tough and rough life. But the people who wanted to tell that story gave up, ironically, just like the shallow characters. The lesson was apparently lost with any hope to make this a quality film.

One last thing, if anyone can find a character to relate to, good luck to you. Good luck to Anne, too. Maybe now that Anne has bared her breasts, she will be able to bare her soul in a role more deserving.

2/10 is the best I can do. I guess anyone having anything to do with Havoc is destined to give so little.

a positive point of view

[gimmesumfries · 7/10 · 20 September 2006]

I enjoyed this movie! I had never heard of it before watching it, and once I found out that that "the girl from Princess Diaries" was in it, I really almost turned it off. BUT, the opening scene with all the white kids "chillin" outside at night acting all "ghetto" with all their rappin' and slang talk really caught my attention. I guess I could relate because I lived in an upper-class, predominately white area, and trust me, those characters are not a far stretch from real life. Yea some of the stereotypes of characters were extremely overdone and artificial, and the thought of two random white girls getting in good with a gang highly respected in "the hood" is totally unrealistic, but I think that's what the creators of the movie wanted to express. How ridiculous, and superficial their lifestyle was. And if you get caught up in it, you better be prepared for the consequences--or else! You have to look at it in a positive way...Anne Hathaway blew me away (since I could only remember her from that annoying predictable princess diaries movie...eeww!). I think it was something that really showed her range as an actress and I applaud her for her willingness to explore new roles. I'm excited to see what roles she chooses to do in the future! Oh yea, and I also enjoyed watching Bijou Phillips...her face is so mysterious & alluring...

Crappy

[stonecoldrock07 · 1/10 · 31 December 2005]

Really painful to watch, even the nudity didn't help I can't believe some people thought this crap was good. We'll some people who hated it had it right, Allison and Emily are airheads. They wouldn't know any better if God himself spoke to them. In that fashion this movie is not a coming of age story, nor is it very realistic.

The Wigger character types are laughable in my area none of these wackos exist so the director was a bit of the mark. Even if he made the story more realistic it still wouldn't matter as the characters don't amount to much. I know some nerds rented the movie to see Allison nude but seriously you losers need to get a life. Her nude is crappy as well and doesn't even last a full a minute. What a ripoff. I don't blame people for blasting the movie, it's very bad. Crappy movie.

Everything is fake

[evilhinata · 21 March 2006]

Seeing this movie is exactly like seeing "Malibu's Most Wanted", with the exception that it is not a comedy. With "Malibu's Most Wanted" already being a very average film, one could only imagine how much worse this film is. The whole premise of the movie is very, very ridiculous, being that the kids are just like the kids from the TV series: "The OC" except they are more rich, more devious and of course more "gansta". With the exception of Anne Hathaway's character "Allison" and Freddy Rodriguez's character "Hector", the acting was horrible. Every time "Toby", Allison's boyfriend appeared, I just shook my head in utter disappointment. It was so painful to just hear him speak, let alone act. Everyone else had an average performance, and no one lead you to believe that anything was authentic. To be fair there is an underlying message within the film ,concerning the lies and the truths of society; yet the way it executed and presented itself was very bad. I guess if you are a Anne Hathaway fan, and want to see her in the buff, you can see this film, but I do remember that she does the same in "Brokeback Mountain", so don't waste your money buying this DVD, you'll feel disappointed.

much like "Closer"

[CovinS · 6/10 · 29 November 2005]

The film "Closer" (2004) was never meant to be liked, just revealing. I felt the same vibe resonate throughout the eighty-six minutes of Havoc. It's not at all meant to be a film you'll necessarily respect, favor, prefer, or like--the film is simply meant to show you the stupidity of the rap/gang culture. The emptiness, the lack of emotion and integrity that is showcased throughout the generation. A previous review stated that all the actors were terrible in this film, that there was no plot, and virtually nothing in the movie in the first place. I agree to an extent; there is no plot in the lifestyle, no purpose. However, I believe the actors actually gave surprising performances, Joseph Gordon-Lewitt the most convincing; I didn't even recognize him for a moment. The filming was well done with a few gag-me exceptions; most angles were appropriate for the scenes (though the sexual situations *definitely* could have used a little more imagination).

Overall, there could have been more to the film than what we're left with. This could be attributed to the death of the original screenwriter in 2003, or it could be the director's execution. However, I still stand by my opinion that it's worth watching, but that you probably won't desire to see it again.

Havoc, a waste of time, money, and 92 minutes of my life

[pat20327 · 1/10 · 8 December 2005]

As described by Webster's.com havoc n : violent and needless disturbance

This movie matches that almost exactly. It was definitely a disturbance in my life, and the violence came at the end, when me and my 3 co-workers took the DVD out of the player, and threw it across the room.

First, I have to say, that the kids portrayed in this movie were total and utter idiots. The rich white "gangsta's" as they liked to be called reminded me so much B-rad in malibu's most wanted it was pathetic. I seriously wanted to punch all of them in the face. I mean come on, the kid from third rock from the son was portrayed as a white gangster pimp... when we all know hes far from it. He had the high pitched voice and everything, I'm surprised he didn't keep one of his hands in a glove filled with lotion in this movie. The main characters boyfriend was just a pathetic character, and if you've ever seen the movie "I'm gonna get you sucka", hes basically a white version of the guy who O.G's... this rich white kid trys to wear all his "bling" and its just overkill.

Anyway besides the horrible main characters, the ONLY believable and semi-realistic people in this movie were the sixteenth street gang, and they were still portrayed pathetically. In one scene in the movie, after the 2 girls roll the dice... and are spending some time alone in a hotel room with the gang members... one of the girls politely screams for the 3 men who are with her to stop... and they do. I'm sorry, in any gang initiation, stop is not an option.

The movies plot was awful... some rich kids try to get in with some thugs in east L.A... and they fit right in and were accepted... nope sorry, that doesn't happen... then some bad things happen to one girl, and it was all her fault, and her "gangsta" rich white friends (basically the crew from malibu's most wanted) get angry and raid a Mexican baby house... then the movie ends, it was awesome.

Don't waste your time with this pile'o'junk, go play in the highway, you'll feel better afterwords than if you were to watch this movie.

Good Film

[CitizenKane2601 · 7/10 · 14 August 2007]

This is a good film.

It's not exactly Hollywood quality and thank God for that.

It focuses on a certain branch of teenagers who want something different from their ordinary lives.

As Allison states, they're "really, really bored" I found it very interesting how an intelligent girl lives a double life hidden away from her parents. All of them are living double lives, wanting to be something they are not. But what they all find out later is that they really have no idea what they want.

This is a great and very tragic film. It is not a waste of time, but you might not understand it very well if you haven't been through the same type of things as the characters in this movie.

Life is ridiculous and so are the characters in this movie. Tragically ridiculous.

Horrible.

[danpurvis518 · 1/10 · 26 December 2005]

My wife and I are huge fans of Anne Hathaway and were excited to see her step into a different role other than her previous Disney roles. As much as we remember her in those movies for doing so well, we will remember her in this movie not for the acting, but because she chose such a bad movie to expand her experiences. Havoc is easily in my top three worst movies ever seen and is probably fighting hard for number 1. Just when you think it can't get any worse, it does. The plot for this movie is horrible. This movie represents a studio advertising Anne Hathaway's nudity and making money off of it while putting a horrible plot and other actors/actresses around her. Don't misread this, I am not against nudity at all, but there wasn't anything else in this movie that made it worth watching. Don't waste your time watching this movie because it will only leave you with a bad taste in your mouth. I hope that Anne Hathaway continues to make good movies but is more cautious in the movies/roles she chooses in the future. There is a reason why this movie was "straight to video."

Living the life.

[ghetto_white_knight · 8/10 · 8 June 2006]

OK. I just saw this tonight for the first time. I don't care what you others say, the acting was good, the production was good. Now, Anne was a bad choice for the lead because she does look a little old for the role, but other than that, it was a good film. Let me tell you why, if I may. I grew up in the hood. Not what little preppy white kids consider the hood, but the actual hood. I am talking about drive-bys, gang wars, drug dealers on the corners and at every bus stop. It might bother people, but this was an accurate portrayal of the ghetto. This showed the stereotype of suburban white youth. No, not all white kids are whiggers with attitudes that they can't back up. Just like not all Latinos are rock dealers. But, please you must recognize that this is showing stereotypes and nothing more. Remember, we wouldn't have stereotypes if there wasn't a lot of truth behind it. White kids, especially affluent ones, are fountains of cynicism. They have no direction in life. Therefore, a great many of them turn into what this film shows. Latinos, those from areas like my own, often do gang up and its very common for them to sell rock and reef. Its not racism, and its not an attack on a culture, its the truth, painful as it might be. If you actually watched this film closely, and had an open point of view, you'd see that the only thing in this movie that lacks credibility, is Anne's age.

Nostalgie de la Boue

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 22 July 2006]

Havoc (2005) The Shadow of Sixteen Candles., 16 June 2006

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

A lot of people seem not to have enjoyed this film very much. I'm not sure why. Yes, the rich girls seemed phony but lots of teenage girls sound similar in their speech. It comes across as so stylized as to be stilted, yet it's a genuine parole. It's the way some people speak in real life.

The acting wasn't that bad either. The only major flaw in the story is that Ann Hathaway didn't take her clothes off more often. Just kidding. I've never seen her in any of the Disney epics so was deprived of the enjoyment of having any pedophilic fantasies fulfilled. She's the best looking of the bunch, in a conventional way, and she handles the part like a pro.

The story, alas, is the weakest part of the film. It isn't just that the rich kids are stereotypically bored. I imagine boredom among the very rich can be a serious problem. When you have everything material that you need, it's hard to glom onto a goal other than momentary pleasure. And it isn't just that the Latinos we see are a horde of overmuscled greaseballs who feel only contempt for the "white girls" and who sell dope and whose bodies are adorned with elaborate tattoos.

It's that the dialog doesn't always ring true. Some Pachuco punk who has gang banged her and her friend comes up with something like, "Who are you? You not real. Not REALLY real. You a fake." And so on. The guy sounds like he's studied with Fritz Perls.

And yet the movie is an attempt to answer an interesting question and perhaps only a happily middle-class female director could have handled it this well. The question is: What is it about lower-class men that attracts upper-class women? In my experience black men have far more of this mojo than Latinos, but okay. The attraction extends to gangstas in prison, even those who will never be released. Are such men perceived by such women as imbued with some feral sexual power? Are women driven to them by impulses like those that put men behind the wheels of racing cars? Is it self-testing? Is there an adrenalin rush involved in seeing if a rogue male can be brought under rein, like a wild stallion? I don't know. I'm just asking. I'm not aware of any professional research on the subject but it's a fascinating one.

Artificial, fake and contrived attempt at an "edgy" film

[danadunkley · 2/10 · 31 January 2006]

What a total disappointment! There was not a second of anything authentic in this movie, rather we were treated to a Hollywood hack writer's sad and pathetic attempt at garnering the attention and adulation of his peers.

Every scene seemed to be calculated to gain a screen at Sundance and awards for the "creative" team. Of course, there was really no creativity in sight whatsoever.

It's a sad portent of the state of current film-making that films like this one get made.

It's heartening to see that this self-conscious attempt has completely failed. Hopefully more of those contrived attempts at "reality" will go the same way.

As for Anne Hathaway, she was very disappointing. I was expecting her playing a different part, but she was still playing the "princess", except this time Hollywood's idea of a "rich bad girl". Her career will be very short if she keeps those bad choices coming.

Also, the film also laid negative stereotypes about Latinos on thickly. Apparently, according to Steve Gaghan, all Latinos are gangsters and all White kids want to imitate them.

If this is what Gaghan can do when he is not adapting someone else's work, here's to hoping they never make another of his original scripts.

Pitiful

[Cedes · 3/10 · 29 November 2005]

Really have to lean on the side of why was this movie made? Anne Hathaway, 17 or 18 year old? I am the worst judge of age, but this girl looks like a 25 year old trying to play an 18 year old and doing a very very bad job of it. She just looks flat out out of place with the other actors.

The opening sequence was just about as pitiful as it can get.

Yeah seeing Anne Hathaway naked is interesting, she is absolutely gorgeous. The language, probably close to reality. It just doesn't make good film.

Points for the film being well shot and with very good sound. Just don't buy into somebody that old playing somebody that young.