(For the most part.)Here are some things to know about this movie:Gia Coppola (Francis Ford Coppola's granddaughter) directed, her first outing. She also wrote the screenplay based on James Franco's short story collection also entitled "Palo Alto." She was 25-years- old at the time.Emma Roberts who plays April and was 22-years-old when this film was released in 2013 is Julia Roberts' niece. Her father is Eric Roberts (467 credits as an actor).Palo Alto, California is an upscale Silicon Valley community and home to Stanford University.Franco, who plays soccer coach Mr. B, is from Palo Alto. He has a degree in English with a concentration in creative writing from UCLA.There are no helicoptering parents in this movie.Initially I had a lot of trouble watching this because of all the unnecessary cigarette smoking apparently as product placements. It's sad that some producers can't get funding without taking big tobacco's money. However, I'll give that a pass since some of the smoking had relevance to the story—or "stories." The viewer can see that Coppola cleverly weaved parts of Franco's various stories and characters into a mostly coherent whole that plays as a larger story.The other problem for me was the intensity and raw teenage emotional abandonment depicted. This is life lived in the fast lane when you're still living at home and have an incredible need for experiences, sometimes regardless of the consequences.--Dennis Littrell, author of the movie review collection, "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote"

I have read some other reviews that were not positive and I have to wonder why. For my generation this film was 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High', a good film, that told yet another 'coming of age' story, but sort of got the kids right. Fast Times was a bit moralistic though, and though it had some great scenes and lots of humor, and launched some careers, it did not achieve true authenticity.Palo Alto has pretty teen actors (many of whom actually look their age), but it is not the typical hindsight re-telling of someone's first love/realization of adulthood. It dwells in the lost world of the teen but does not try to make sense of any of it or neatly package it for us, the viewers. There is an edge here, of uncertainty and danger, that rings true. These kids do stupid unpredictable things and make dumb mistakes, which sometimes have real consequences, and sometimes don't. The film does not try to gloss things over with humor or eventual redemption, which I really appreciated. These kids are trying to make sense of the world around them that is trying to process them through to adulthood. Sadly, most of the adults portrayed are very poor role models and offer little help or insight. In response, we see the main characters shift between being kids, and the safety that comes with that, and trying to act like adults, which they are not quite ready to be.What I liked about the film is that it just lays it out, much like Pheobe Gloeckners "Diary of a Teenage Girl", which moves away from typical American cinema by letting the viewer decide what to make of what they're seeing. Gloeckner's film is a bit more raw and maybe more difficult for some, but both of these films portray an aspect of youth that most films, and perhaps many adults, would prefer to step over and not think about.Some people might not like this film because the actors are pretty and it portrays a teenage love story, but these are minor flaws and don't detract from the fact that Coppola is a gifted director and has told a story worth telling in a way that will reach your heart if you have one.

This movie had me bored. There was not one likable character. I was surprised to know that throughout the movie the main characters were supposed to like each other. There was absolutely no indication of it. Also what angers me is the amount of smoking. I can't help but think someone from the cigarette industry sponsored this movie. Isn't it enough of the smoking in movies. Actors lighting a cigarette in a scene has become a crutch to give them something to do. It's so overdone. I guess the movie is supposed to be a slice of life. The scenes were SO low energy. Also the music score was blah. If you haven't seen it yet, don't bother.If I had to say one word about the movie it would be YAWN.

There are movies that are so bad, they're good, and then there are movies that are just bad, with no saving grace--example: Palo Alto.This movie follows the lives of several teenagers, with little commentary on the how and why of each event. The two leads--Roberts and Franco--are highlighted, and are the most interesting characters-- the only problem, the story is a complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of ephebephilia. It is a shame, because the trailer led you to believe thats what the movie was about--and it had very little to do with it all.The basic idea of the love interest between Franco and Roberts is that Franco, aka Mr. B the soccer coach, pursues April, an underage girl on his team. The film suggested that Mr. B used his power to manipulate April, and furthermore, it is revealed that using girls as his babysitter is his routine, that he is a predator intentionally to all underage girls, or at least multiple. In other words, the movie suggests that pedophiles are not only child predators, but they engage in polygamy and are sick and twisted in all sexual matters, not just underage girls. This is horribly false. Apart from this, there is no further plot line involving Mr. B, such as court cases or parental conflicts, and Roberts' parent(s) are nowhere to be found in the movie at all. In other words, child predators are apparently sneaky and dangerous intentionally. Again, not usually true.First, let's clarify something. There are 4 types of pedofilia: Infantaphilia, pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebephilia. Infant- Infatns, pedo-kids (like a pediatrician), hebephilia-pubescent but not fully developed (generally 11-14), and ephebephilia (developed teens, generally 15-19). Mr. B/Franco would fall under the ephebephilia. Does Palo Alto ever discuss any of these, or even use these terms? Not once. Second, ephebephiles especially fall into the next topic: they typically aren't going around from teen to teen. While they may be "attracted" to multiple teens, they usually don't go around on a mass pedophile spree. We often think statutory rape is like every other rape, when it really isn't. Statutory rape can exist even if both parties consent, and the older is the guilty party. Is ephebephilia wrong? Well, at least in the U.S. for 15-17, because it is illegal. In most other countries, generally under 16 is illegal. The movies makes zero mention of this factor. Third: Mr. B, at least in the film, received no punishment whatsoever. Furthermore, there is no evidence that April battled the thought of turning him in. It is true that underage victims might fear revealing the circumstances, but no such thing was shown. It was just as if this was normal everyday behavior. It's normal to experience the attraction, not so normal to not experience emotion following it.Fourth: The movie suggests Mr. B intentionally exploited April's emotions. Again, not always true. In fact, rarely true. More often than not, it is actually the female who pursues the man, putting the responsibility on the man to show restraint, and not place himself in bad circumstances--such as giving a girl a ride home, or being alone with a student, or inviting your own pupil to babysit in an unmarried home. This is actually the main reason why there are so many cases--there are many preventive programs for the teens, telling them not to do it, which in some cases has the reverse effect, while there is no program for adults on how to avoid those circumstances, so they wind up giving in to temptation, as most men are attracted to fertile female bodies--that is evolution.Am I suggesting any type of pedophilia is OK? Well, some ephebephilia is legal/OK: 18-19, and in other countries as low as 16. It's really relative to the country. It is only not OK here because of the law, but we are one of the highest age of majority's in the world.The movie isn't bad because it's about ephebephilia, it's bad because it advertises that it is and then has zero discussion on it, and completely misrepresents it.