I hate when you start watching a movie and it immediately feels like you are wasting your time. It's a pretty bad movie with some horrible production values. I don't see what it so groundbreaking about it either. The French were already making movies similar to this (Melville, anyone?), only better and more interesting. This just feels like a semi rip off with horrible acting and shitty dialogue. Pass!

really entertaining despite not really dragging me into it. the improvisation brought a lot of inconsistency and it seemed somewhat aimless. but something about cassavete's style keeps it enjoyable

I get what Cassavettes was trying to do, but it was a failed experiment.

The film just lacks to grab you in with a solid story. It seems like just some random time in life with conversations that just don't make any sense to me. Along with that, I think it could have been a little better in terms of production value.

I loved the visceral film-making of it all. Everything just felt so spontaneous. Loses points because of Lelia, who would earn a place in my top ten worst characters of all time. Such an aggravating character, and just a straight-up bitch.

A powerful portrait of that time, shot with the help of acting improvs an a remarkable jazz score. This is so influential that you can identify its legacy from Scorsese's I Call First to Jim Jarmusch's indie filmmaking. The dialogues shot by Cassavetes through quick but functional closes are really something. New Hollywood loved that.

#298

There just isn't enough substance here for this to be more than an experimental relict.

The acting is pretty so-so, but Cassavete's debut is impressive - filled with life, humor, and rhythm.

I find the shitty production pretty appealing, and when viewing the film in the proper context, the whole thing's sort of mind-blowing.

A noble experiment that fails to engage

This is the ultimate cool, a definitive landmark in American film making. Cassavetes does it his way, breaks all the rules, months before Breathless, and 14 years before Mean Streets, you know what I mean.

Cassavetes seem to capture something unique, immidiate and universally valid here in these pulsating images...

Cassavetes' first film is interesting, but too amateurish to really get into. It would be better if the acting weren't so stagey. Some say Shadows is responsible for launching the independent film movement. That might be an exaggeration, but it is obviously a bold and unique film for its time, just not quite my cup of tea.

Cassavetes' first feature film is never boring, and he actually seems pretty competent behind the camera, but this film screams "amateur." The acting is inconsistent all over, with some very good scenes driven by performance and some other scenes where it's really hokey. The love relationship is really, really weak, and the movie feels pretty aimless throughout. It's very sloppy, albeit mildly interesting and entertaining in spurts. Worth a look, just don't expect much.

Cassavetes honing the skills that he would later become so adept at. This isn't on par with his early 70's stuff, but gives you the chance to watch his early development. He is already able to get highly naturalistic performances from a semi-professional cast, and ofcourse, historically speaking, this is da bomb: an indie, full feature cinema-verite-style film made in 1959 USA with black folks making up half of the cast. It's mind-blowing, really, considering the historical context.

# 293

Like Faces, it is both enthralling and dull. Faces is a bit better though.