Neither do I.

I do want to beat Korine in the face, though.

Desperate for a reprieve from their quotidian existence, four bored and jaded female students perpetrate a criminal act--they abruptly and loudly steal from a diner with a water pistol and a sledgehammer--to finance a springtime trip to the Sunshine State. There, they find a perverse, neon never-never land where beer flows in rapids and waterfalls as America's future educators, investors, lawyers, politicians, etc. indulge their fantasies of degeneration and destruction with a safety net: they are certain they can return home free of guilt and without reflection at the end of their heightened, narcotized playtime. Arthur Rimbaud meets rave culture; it is a DayGlo season in Hell. This film, part ecstatic dream, part grotesque nightmare, is a biting, energetic, smart, and stylish examination of this cultural phenomenon. The four anti-heroines' bid to free themselves from expectations and routine, with mixed and often dangerous results, unfolds in a series of bright, propulsive, and strange set pieces which enrapture, frighten, and titillate the viewer. As "Alien," an outsize gangster and hip-hop hopeful with long cornrows who becomes the girls' guide and protector, James Franco delivers his best and most inspired performance to date. The kinked menace and far-out humor of his turn recalls the glorious, youthful Nicolas Cage of Vampire's Kiss and Wild at Heart.

A

Its aesthetic is similar to Drive. The neon, Miami Vice indebted feel.

I would not compare them otherwise. (Except to say I slightly prefer Spring Breakers.)

It is an apt comparison. A sense an actor can and may go anywhere, to any extreme, with a role, limited only by his imagination.

And I might argue Drive is less flashy because of the decision to avoid hand-held cameras and rapid-fire editing. Spring Breakers is more psychedelic, more Fear and Loathing.

yah, the Everytime scene was the only 'wow' scene. The more I think about the movie the more I like it though.

The two main complaints that I've read from random people on the internet is "there's no plot" and there's just boobs and sex, which is silly as the close-ups on boobs and sex scenes took up probably less than 4 minute of the movie.

First of all, if you haven't seen Harmony Korine's AMA on Reddit, it's quite enlightening stuff.

This is definitely one of those movies where you want to overhear everyone's reactions as they walk out of the theater, dispersed yelling of "WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT" and all...

Really? Nothing? So Cliff Martinez didn't score both films?

I'm just saying it's another thing it has in common with Drive.

It's like Terrence Malick directed a Girls Gone Wild video. And I mean that in the best way possible because I've never seen a movie like this. A truly twisted and disturbing take on the American Dream.

I think one of the most important aspects of the movie is that Korrine shows sex and drugs in excess, but it's never titilating or viscerally pleasing. He keeps you at arms length to all the action- you're supposed to be an observer and it's all a little disassociating. I think that's what makes this effective as a satire- you never want to be with these spring breakers, these superficial girls who find Britney Spears to be a poet, even though the girls clearly want to sell you on the beauty and magic of spring break.

It's a detached arthouse critique of this culture that uses exploitation to do it. I think it's wonderful... it certainly helps that Korrine is truly great with visuals, the girls are all game for these crazy parts, and James Franco gives the performance of his career.

Yay!!! So glad you loved it! I am seeing it again tomorrow and can't wait
I haven't been able to get the movie out of my head.

Yet another breathtaking film!

Where's Elaine?

Saw this again today 'cause it's been in my head ever since, loved it even more. The film seems much less messy and much more well put together watching it again. Even the peculiar finale worked for me this time.

And this film just shows how much (a majority of) people who are seeing this are just not comfortable with seeing female nudity. Close-up of boobs for seconds does not = the movie is just boobs. Jesus.

How's that? Because a lot of people seem to be hating it? There's a lot of reasons mainstream audiences wouldn't like this, nudity is probably among the least of them.

After seeing it, if anything this movie could have used a lot more female nudity and this is coming from someone who kind of liked the movie. More nudity would have made it better though, of course.

There was more than enough nudity in the movie...

Hardly, considering Piranha 3D had more and it too was a Spring Break movie.

I'm talking about comments on social media websites where people say the movie was just boobs (LOTS of people have said this) when, as you sort of said, the movie didn't have that much nudity to begin with.

Yeah, people expect a movie like this to have lots of nudity so when they look back their perception/memory of the film is probably altered by the expectations they had going in.

Are you ignoring James Franco's character then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/28/spring-breakers-movie-wild-girls-rape-culture

The Guardian apparently believes the film reinforces America's "Rape Culture."

I love The Guardian.

I still can't get Alien whispering "Ssspring Breeeaaayk" out of my head.

Despite a bounty of background boobies, this little novelty film was decidedly unexciting.


1 out of 5.

I think that goes to show that these four girls are always in a place of power in the movie. Franco and co. never tell them to do anything they don't want to, and eventually the 2 or 3 remaining girls sort of control the weird relationship there. I think that's one reason why I found the film effective as exploitation by the way of social satire, in that any real exploitation in the movie is superficial.

And boring as shit.