Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Charming and brutal

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.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Washington Heights is geared toward the Latino community. A nice movie about a small community inside a giant New York city. Much like its audience, the movie itself was made by the efforts of Latinos. While the movie focuses on the main character and his interactions with his friends, enemies, parents, and girlfriend, the movie's strongest link is the side story of the Father. It is the relationship between the Father and the Son that keeps many audience members interested in what is going to happen next. Instead, the story jumps too much between the side stories of the friend who wants to go bowling, his girlfriend who is making dresses, and the neighborhood that jumps in and out of everybody's lives without warning. In the end, a nice story that hits home on many levels. The story about a father and a son who were never Father and Son is the strongest link in this movie's chain.

In 1973, Martin Scorsese revolutionized contemporary urban drama in film with "Mean Streets". Every movie about crime or blue-collar neighborhoods made since then--from "Godfather, Part II" onward--has owed much of its visual sensibilities, dialogue, and plot to Scorsese's early masterpiece. And the unfortunate side effect is that too many filmmakers try to rip it off almost completely (ex: "Sugar Hill", "Monument Ave."). "Washington Heights" is the latest of such travesties, and one of the worst I have seen.The film is about a Carlos (screenwriter & producer Manny Perez), an aspiring comic book artist living in the Washington Heights neighborhood in New York City, his disapproving immigrant storekeeper father Eddie(Tomas Milian), and his stupid best friend Mickey (Danny Hoch). When Eddie gets shot by a robber, Carlos has to take in the old man and run the store for him, much to the chagrin of them both. Plus Mickey thinks all his problems will be solved if he can just scrape together $5000 to get to a bowling tournament in Vegas, all his problems will be over. If you remember Robert De Niro's character in "Mean Streets", then you can guess how Mickey gets the money and what happens to him.As for Carlos, it is very hard to sympathize with this guy. He is angry all the time and is forever acting superior to his father, his girlfriend, his friends and his customers. And I've seen the artist son vs. the practical dad once too often in movies to be particularly affected by it. That part of the film is done more artfully than Neil Diamond's version of "The Jazz Singer", but not by much. The only truly interesting, likable character with interesting things to say is Eddie, the father. But he's hardly in the film.Aside from the cliched script, there are several technical aspects of the film I didn't like. First, it was shot with hand-held video cameras, which gives the movie a "Blair Witch" feel: the colors are washed out, the picture is never completely in focus, and the motion of the camera-man's walking make the frame bob up and down all the time. Also the audio was rotten, so the dialogue was difficult to hear (although that may have just been a deficiency of the theater I saw the movie in). And it has all the usual flaws that "Dogma 95" fans find so endearing, but the rest of us can't stand: over-long silences followed by over-long improvised dramatic monologues, 30-second shots of a character doing nothing interesting, and amateurish post-production."Mean Streets" still teaches young filmmakers how to make a splash with a film. Unfortunately, it does not teach that lightning rarely strikes twice in the same place, and that you can't make much of an impact with somebody else's ideas. "Washington Heights" tries very hard to be faithful to the first lesson and to ignore the second, but Manny Perez is no Harvey Keitel, Danny Hoch is no Robert De Niro, and Alfredo De Villa is certainly no Martin Scorsese. 5 out of 10.

I have mixed feelings about a film whose production values are staunchly (read poor quality) independent and its subject matter is extremely standard; almost Hollywood conventional. I had the feeling that the only risk the filmmakers took was shooting the story on Digital. This is not a ground breaking film. But it is an excellent calling card for its Director to direct larger Hollywood conventional movies. He shows a facility for handling actors and juggling several plot lines. Not a memorable film. But not an atoricity like virtually every other American film in the past year.

It took a while to get into this film and its movement and its characters, but I got there and was never lost for a moment in a very complex story of many tiers and personalities -- all within a seemingly simple entry-level USA neighborhood.I assume the movie was whot in 16mm film and/or digitial video, and once again, a low budget does not mean a poor story. The direction and editing worked well in a story where the ensemble cast was homogeneous and perfect.Excellent. Excellent. Excellent.