Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Lawbolisted Powerful

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

WakenPayne In spite of everything that has been said about this movie Don's Plum is not terrible. It is probably one of the most notorious unreleased movies ever made simply because of Leo and Tobey Maguire trying to block it and to be quite honest, I have no idea why and this is after watching it from start to finish in it's entirety.The plot, many friends try to get dates where they go to this hangout place at a diner, they talk about sex, drugs and all other kinds of stuff. There really isn't all that much else to say about the plot mainly because this movie is minimalist, the only other thing of note is that it sometimes cuts to a character's internal thoughts which is them talking in a bathroom mirror with scratchy audio.Okay, I'll say all the things I found wrong with this movie. Some stuff is really speratic and right the hell out of nowhere. One of the character's close to final notes is an internal thought described above where she was molested as a kid... That's not the kind of stuff to just bring up and throw away. It also makes out in the opening that Amber Benson is the lead when she's not. After trashing a car a half hour in we never see her again. Tobey Maguire has some really awkward line deliveries (although, why he sees this as more embarrassing than the dancing in Spiderman 3?... I have no clue) And at the end I feel as though in spite of the character insight nothing really was accomplished, like this is how these kids spend every Saturday night. That could work if it was a short movie but it's not.Okay now to address the elephant in the room. There are many stories to suggest why this movie was never released and to be quite honest I can debunk so many of them. It was claimed Leo had a nude scene and claimed he was bisexual in this movie. Is Scott Bloom really the spitting image of Leo that you can't tell the difference? It was also claimed that it would ruin Maguire and Leo's image at the time, well today Leo has an Oscar and played FAR more unpleasant characters than some misogynistic prick that spends the entire movie putting people down (so I wouldn't think if released today it would harm his image) and with Maguire, he's usually a peacekeeper in those situations, as I may have said he's a little awkward - sure but I think that's deliberate. So I honestly don't know why they don't release it now because problems aside it can be pretty interesting to watch even without the crap in this paragraph.Okay, the good things. Well the acting from all involved is pretty good and while I know it was mostly improvised I feel as though it did come across pretty damn good. I get the story is trying to be this deconstruction of the characters and their relationships with one another and while as I said that was rushed that idea is pretty intriguing. While it's also in black and white the cinematography at times can be really good.So if you want me to be honest, had this been released properly I probably wouldn't have watched it but I'm glad I did mainly because of the stuff I've said above. To be quite honest if you're looking for reasons why this is the most personally despised film of Leo and Maguire's respective careers I personally think it's a head-scratcher. It's just a minimalist drama that seemed to be doing what Clerks did but instead got a lot of flak from either the media's coverage of the lawsuit or word of mouth from those events. If you can find a copy, if ANYTHING of what I've described above is your thing, while the characters aren't really likable I'd suggest watching it.

GryByteman Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey MaguireSubject: REVIEWER PANS DICAPRIO/MAGUIRE FILM (MOVIE BANNED IN USA AND CANADA: DON'S PLUM)I used to enjoy your work tremendously, but now that I understand that you are suppressing the History of film (by getting the independent film "Don's Plum" banned in the USA and Canada), you both have dropped down from good actors to merely okay actors. This may not bother you, but it will affect reviews that I post online. (I am one of Amazon's top reviewers, ranked about 2000 out of millions of reviews, high enough that people write to me asking me to review things.)Further below is what I wrote about you after watching part of, and not enjoying all of, your banned film (I "watched" all of it while doing other things in the same room, which is how I watch many movies; the good ones I watch again, the bad ones I write two-star or one-star reviews for). I assume you got it banned because you did such a terrible job in the film. You were lackluster in your role playing. Your improv may have been a bit humorous at times, but I'm not going to waste time trying to watch it again, not even for the nude scenes. You probably don't want to admit that you were not excellent in one movie. You were merely one (two) among equals in this film, Neither one of you stood out from the rest.Here is what I wrote as a review on one site. I will adapt it for other sites.This was a most interesting experience. I'm 64 and found it hard to relate to the movie, but in watching part of it, and leaving all of it playing while I did other things in the same room, not really paying much attention after I couldn't really get "into" it, I can see how it would appeal to the people who were that age at that time.Like other commentators, I too have trouble seeing why this was suppressed. I thought that our country had gotten past banning books and movies based on content. I guess that Leonardo (in spite of his speech saying that film history is important) wants to suppress film history when it is an embarrassment to him and his colleagues.I can't think that his alleged "length" argument carries much weight as far as common sense hating of the film is concerned. If he was wanting to get paid more because it was a longer movie than he allegedly agreed to, he could have sued for the additional funds. By suing to get the film suppressed, I can only guessed that he was so embarrassed by his bad performance in the film that he didn't want his fans to see it. In other words, perhaps he was mad because he didn't come out looking like "the big star" in this movie. It's like "Friends" where it was an ensemble, everyone equally good (or equally bad) depending on your perspective.I'm glad that you gave me the opportunity to watch your film, Dale, but if I were reviewing this on Amazon, I'd be giving it two stars. It was okay, but I didn't like it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it. I do recognize that many people would give it 4 and 5 stars (out of 5).I used to be more positive in my feelings about Leonardo (I loved him on Growing Pains and he did a great job in Titanic and other films) but knowing that he suppressed this film for whatever reason (the true reason, not the one he claimed in court) has brought him down in my book from a 5-star (excellent) actor to a 3-star (okay or humdrum) actor. I will no longer go out of my way to see his films. Instead of going to see his films in the theater or renting or buying the film, I will merely borrow it for free whenever it is available as part of a membership (like Amazon Prime) or from the library. Given that I know that he earns money each time someone watches his movies on NetFlix or Prime, I'll probably do the library thing IF I decide to check it out (check it out has at least two meanings here) so that I don't put money in his pocket.

TyTanner Remarkably, but at the same time not surprisingly, my critique is just the thirteenth review on IMDb of Don's Plum.Shot in six days but over a span of two years, this black and white low-budget drama has been the subject of litigation in America.Briefly summarised, actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire, stars in this film along with an ensemble cast, sought to prevent the film's release by claiming it wasn't intended to be viewed as a big-screen movie, rather it was done as a favour for a friend for an acting exercise.Two law-suits later, one by the producer David Stutman and the other by John Schindler (who both claimed DiCaprio and Maguire intentionally interfered with the distribution of the movie) and this film can not be shown commercially in the US or Canada, but it was released everywhere else.So it's fair enough why such a movie has little recognition.But it is also puzzling why there aren't more evaluations of this title considering in this day and age you can download movies with the press of a button, and also because the movie features two of Hollywood's highest-grossing actors of all time.Independently filmed in the mid-90s but not released until 2001 (because of the law-suits), Don's Plum is a hidden gem. Shot in a similar fashion to that of Swingers (starring Vince Vaughn, 1996), Don's Plum has a type of raw energy that needs to be seen in order to be appreciated.Shot almost exclusively in a Los Angeles diner (no prizes for guessing the name of the diner), you could be pardoned for thinking this black and white 90-minute feature might fail to keep you engrossed in the story-line.But you should think twice, because captivated you will be.Centred around a group of four twenty-something-year-old friends who attempt to lure girls to join them down at Don's Plum each Saturday night, the dialogue, topics of conversation, raw passion and events that arise over coffee and fries are authentic and vivid portrayals of the human condition.Each character has a unique personality and all execute classic performances of obnoxious, smart aleck, attention-seeking, but sensitive, vulnerable and innocent youths shouldering issues and struggles which make life and our subsequent social behaviour so fascinating to watch and scrutinise.The other minor characters whom come and go during the duration of the film add further depth and potency, as does the retro-style soundtrack.Throughout the film, we witness cuts to the diverse but comparable characters' retreats to the diner's bathroom where each initiates conversation amongst themselves in the mirror, reflecting (pun intended) on their own plights, qualities and thoughts about what is going on.This offers not only a break from the continuous conversation and bantering around the table, but an insight in to the characters' own lives too.Dialogue (largely improvised) with obscene language about sex, masturbation, drugs and family problems amongst a group of juveniles is surprisingly and extremely compelling and perceptive; a great credit to each of the characters.It would be my recommendation for you to find a copy of this film to view just how good some independent and low-budget features can be.It may even be beneficial that this film has little acknowledgement as that means only the people willing to search for this feature will have the privilege of witnessing its quality.

dancingmufun_sama This movie isn't the most incredible thing in the world, but it's really entertaining to witness just how insane Leonardo DiCaprio and Toby Maguire are. I am a HUGE Jenny Lewis fan, so I was super excited to watch her, and she has a fairly large role (one that includes making out with Leo). If you want to watch it just for Amber Benson, I'm sorry to say she only appears for about 3 minutes, so don't bother.Check it out if you have a thing for black and white movies about people dealing with their "issues", or if you care to see Leonardo act like an idiot in fake hillbilly teeth.