Review of Joe (2002) by Harry W — 21 Sep 2013

Joe is a slow story. As it is, the titular character doesn't make an appearance until 27 minutes in which up until then had been slow drama relating to characters abusing drugs and suffering the consequences, with the only mild benefit being Susan Sarandon's nudity in her debut feature film.

Also, Joe doesn't pack the same punch it did back in 1968 due to the fact that it came from the time period of the emerging counter-culture movement and acted as a story about a very right-wing and conservative man driven over the edge by his insane obsession with hippies and murderous disdain for them. This is a kind of character rarely chronicled on a film as it is a very anti-equality character with aggression with realistic lower-class language, but he isn't exactly dealt with in the best way as John G. Avildsen fails to dive into the mind of Joe Compton and relies on Peter Boyle's performance to achieve that. He uses a blank film style with simplistic cinematography and atmosphere which leaves Joe lacking any iconic features aside from the presence of its actors, Academy Award nominated screenplay and the fact that its the debut feature of Academy Award winning director John G. Avildsen. Critic Judith Crist referred to Joe as "A movie truly of our times", but times have changed and so the generation has too. Although I was luckily able to embrace Easy Rider, Joe is another case and not one I find constitutes enough to pass as a film rather than an extended monologue from a theatrical drama piece. There's nothing really notable enough to define Joe as a film, and rather risers just a long and angry story without sufficient visual stimulation.

Frankly, the battle of age has worn down Joe, and although the film features strong characters, particularly the titular Joe Compton, it itself no longer seems to maintain the same strength and is merely too boring to hold its own for 106 minutes, since about 100 of those are focused on studying characters from the counter-culture time period, particularly people embracing it and people fighting it. Although it has a strong screenplay to tell this story, its weak in being a good visual experience, as it doesn't get entertaining until the final few minutes when the famous climax occurs. But the final scene is merely a brief violent scene which isn't emphasised or explained, and merely shows one of the characters transitioning into a character more like Joe Compton than he was before, to the point where he ends up killing someone close to him. If the last scene had have been extended, took place earlier in the film or have been dramatically emphasised more, then Joe could have been a good film to this day. Alas, that is not the case.

The one thing continuing to hold Joe aloft is the acting.

Although he doesn't enter until 27 minutes in, Peter Boyle immediately steals the screen by embodying the aggressive, angry, hard working but low class American stereotypical white male flawlessly, and works strongly towards conveying aggression and anger at the changes in society as they damage him, and he keeps a certain level of intensity up in the film with his swift line delivery and domination through physicality. He makes Joe a memorable character.

Dennis Patrick also gives a charismatic performance as a human being coping with the shock of his actions.

Susan Sarandon also makes a fine debut, portraying a character alternative to much of her later characters due to the sense of innocence staying strong through all the twisted situations and only shattering at the film's climax. Her sweetness and ability at emotional manipulation are put on display in Joe and used well, as well as elements of her sex appeal.

So Joe boasts a good cast, decent story and consistent screenplay, but it's excessively slow pacing and lack of story direction make it less effective today than back in 1970.