An absolute waste of money

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

OK, first off I'm a baby boomer. If this is the generation of the 80s, I'm troubled. It did start slowly, as others have mentioned. And it did get cheesy at the end. There were good moments and I did watch it all the way through to see how it was resolved. But that's the problem, it could have been a very good movie, a few clicks better, if had NOT been resolved. Andrew should have left, and left us to figure out how it might be resolved. I feel like they caved to the money and added a sappy 'happy' ending. A good try but it's shortfalls were very noticeable. And that's exactly why I worry. Those that claim this as a generation movie need to step back and evaluate a little more objectively.

I don't know which is the better way to say it - this wasn't a very good movie but it had some humorous moments, OR, this film had some humorous moments but it wasn't very good. I guess it works both ways, my second option at least starts off with sort of a compliment.This is the kind of film I would have related to a lot better when I was around the same age as the principals, but a lifetime of living (and watching thousands of movies) has offered a somewhat different perspective. I really don't have anything against the picture per se, it's just that the characters and situations are fundamentally shallow and made quirky for the sake of being quirky. Where else for example would you find an armor wearing Renaissance actor, a silent-Velcro inventor guy or a guardian of the infinite abyss? All a bit too pretentious to be taken seriously, not to mention Natalie Portman's invisible epilepsy and inability to speak the truth. Then there's the entire question I have about the ethics of a father prescribing medication for an immediate family member. Seems to me like there could be some kind of grounds there for medical malfeasance there, in fact I was bothered enough by that to look it up. To keep it simple, the A.M.A. states that physicians generally should not treat themselves or members of their immediate families because professional objectivity may be compromised when an immediate family member or the physician is the patient.Anyway, without scorching the picture, I'd give Zach Braff some credit for coming up with a relatively decent first time writing and directorial effort. I thought he did a nice acting job on 'Scrubs', but because of that, probably should have nailed that business on the doctor/patient relationship. He probably knows better by now.

If you only saw Zach in the TV show Scrubs you might feel weird seeing him in this. And if you also knew that he directed it, you might feel (prior to watching) that he is way over his head. I don't know if or how much help he got making this movie, but I do know that this comes off as a very assured effort.This drama lives also with the other cast members. You can never go wrong with Natalie Portman, but also any of the other actors. Their ability to go through the motions and sell the slow pacing of the movie is elevating the movie. Of course you have to be able to watch Dramas and have patience, but if you don't than this isn't for you anyway. Otherwise, watch and enjoy its weird look at life/youth in the early "noughties"

I recently watched this again and noticed a lot that I had not noticed when I was watching it repeatedly in my early 20's. I found it moving at the time but can't say that I find it the same at age 34. Now it just seems forced, but then it was quite moving (I guess it captured a moment). Then again, I decided to cast a more analytical eye toward Garden State this time as I have been planning for a sermon on the Christian holiday of Pentecost (yes, I'm a pastor). I remembered the fireplace dance scene being a pivotal scene in the film, but I was struck by the frequency with which Sam is visually associated with reds and oranges while Largeman is associated with blues and greens. While we could easily say that Sam is more fiery while Largeman is morose, we can also say that there is clearly an internal spark and not simply an external glow that inspires Sam. Given the circumstances of her life, she should also be spiraling into the same kind of disaffectedness as Large, but she is not. Perhaps it is because Sam is a Gen-Xer while Large is a Millennial (seriously), but perhaps it is a willingness to accept circumstances rather than escape them artificially (through drugs, prescribed or otherwise). After all, that seems to be a main theme of the movie: living with yourself. Still, I can't help but shake the cinematography surrounding Sam and the passage of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit inspired the people to understand one another with tongues of fire. Given that Pentecost is the spiritual empowerment of people after Jesus's death, it's fitting.