Film Threat Review: The Country Teacher

2008
Un-rated
113 minutes

Three and a half stars

Loneliness is terrible. And sometimes it makes an otherwise good person do terrible things. That is the theme of “The Country Teacher” (“Venkovsky ucitel”). Bohdan Slama’s film centers on Peter, a homosexual science teacher who takes a job in the Czech countryside to escape the darkness of his life in the big city. Unfortunately for him and a mother and son he befriends, the darkness comes along.

“The Country Teacher,” which screened at this year’s Philadelphia Film Festival/Cinefest, is an interesting film on a provocative subject. It’s difficult to love a film about molestation but there are a lot of things to like about this one. For starters, life in the Czech countryside is beautifully captured on 35mm film. When Peter befriends a lady farmer and helps her with her chores, the audience is given real insight into what it’s like for these rural folks day to day. They love their land, they love to drink beer and dance, and occasionally, they have to hand-deliver calves by yanking them out of the mother cow by hand.

I also appreciate the way Slama handles Peter’s homosexuality. He makes sure to show, early on, that Peter has not been subject to external oppression for his sexuality. When he comes out to his mother (his father already knows), her response is simply “you shouldn’t be alone.” She only wants him to be happy. When his ex boyfriend (with amazing Judd Nelson hair and dark glasses) comes to town, he serves to represent Prague and its progressiveness. Any torment Peter feels is entirely self-inflicted. So when he develops an extremely unhealthy attachment to the teenage son of his farmer friend, we know they aren’t saying, “Gay people are pervs.” Just that “Peter has problems.”

Where “The Country Teacher” seems to fail is in its conviction. For a very long time, it’s not clear whether or not the boy in question is bi-curious himself. With his indie haircut and tight t-shirts, the boy certainly has that “Gus Van Sant extra” look to him. At one point he tells his girlfriend that he’s not sure they “fit together.” And how many times have you gone on sunset boat rides with your tutors? Not that, if he turned out to be gay, it would make Peter’s actions acceptable. But it would definitely change things.

I’m also not sure how I feel about the ending. I will try to keep things spoiler-free, but if you plan to see this film, you should be warned: loneliness is terrible. And sometimes it makes an otherwise sensible person do nonsensical things.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 4, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment

Film Threat Review: Sun Dogs

2009 PHILADELPHIA FILM FESTIVAL/CINEFEST FEATURE!
Un-rated
91 minutes
Gargantuan Films


One and a half stars

“Sun Dogs,” which screened at the Philadelphia Film Festival/Cinefest and is written and directed by Jason Affolder, is another self-important movie about an underachieving 30-something who scrapes by on pseudo-philosophy. The protagonist is Michael (Matt Palumbo), a high school teacher on summer break. He makes money by donating plasma every 3 days and spends most of it on booze. In his spare time, he cavorts with, and dispenses advice to, a latchkey teenage boy. It takes a lot of chutzpah to write and direct movie like this. You have to be pretty confident that your dialogue is groundbreaking or, at the very least, realistic. If it isn’t, you’ll have a tedious mess on your hands. And that, my friends, is “Sun Dogs.”

When he’s not attached to a needle, swigging from a whiskey bottle on a park bench or selling contraband to teenagers, Michael likes a bit of karaoke. But he only does one song: “Cupid” by Sam Cooke. One evening, a girl named Ashley catches his performance and violently rips the mic away from him, before storming out. Thus begins their irritatingly complicated love affair. She doesn’t believe in love. He does. She doesn’t want a commitment. He does. She has secrets. He also has secrets. Will these secrets tear them apart?! Whatever!

Michael also spends a lot of time with a high school student named Andy, teaching him to drive and dispensing love advice. Andy is ignored by his single, working mother. You can tell she ignores him because they are out of cereal. In fact, this movie is full of hackneyed short-hand moments like that. Michael and Ashley are whimsical because they dance in the street when there’s no music! Chess is a metaphor for life! Puh-lease!

“Sun Dogs” is supposed to be about quirky, lonely people who say offbeat things that double as universal truths. It’s tries very hard to be “Me, You and Everyone We Know.” But Miranda July’s movie works because her story is full of humility. Her characters have real reactions to life as it happens to them. They take it one moment at a time. In “Sun Dogs,” the characters see everything as a metaphor for the big picture. Michael says things like “I’m watching the present become the past”, “You gotta pick the golden peanuts out of the shit pile” and “It’s an accidental world” and you can hear Affolder’s smugness in every line. There’s a desk calendar out there that could use his brand of wisdom. But in script format, it’s a bloated mess.

The dialog wouldn’t be so intolerable if the characters were at least somewhat interesting. But Affolder doesn’t give us any reason at all to care about them. So he’s a lonely teenager. So she’s a waitress who paints trees and doesn’t get along with her mother. So he’s a poor, alcoholic high school teacher. So what? Do they do or say anything we haven’t seen or heard before? The most interesting thing about Michael is that he has a beard. But then, at Ashley’s request, he shaves it. . . into a soul patch. He’s a soul patch kind of guy. How much do you want to bet that Jason Affolder also has a soul patch?

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

April 15, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment

Film Threat Review: God’s Forotten Town

2008
Un-rated
90 minutes
Imagina

One Star

“Intrusos (en Manasés)” or “God’s Forgotten Town,” is an excruciatingly silly “horror” film from Spain starring the poor woman’s Penelope Cruz, Belén López. Lopez plays a paranormal journalist who takes a team to a ghost town to investigate the disappearance of its residents 60 years ago. It’s a silly, meandering movie with a little pretension thrown in for good measure. To call it a B movie would be an undeserved compliment.

As the film opens, Julia and Roberto, a young couple who also work together in some journalistic capacity, interview a woman who claims to be haunted by ghosts. Her daughter draws crude pictures of herself with the ghosts, so we know this woman is telling the truth. But Julia and Roberto don’t believe her (even though it’s their job to investigate ghost stories?!) and tell her to get physiological help. On their way out, Julia gets a weird feeling and decides to go back just in time to see the lady throw herself and her daughter off the balcony. Julia regrets not believing her and plunges into a deep depression.

Julia lays low for a few weeks and takes baths. (Yes, there are boobs. That may be the film’s only saving grace.) She comes out of hiding to go back to work with Roberto and explore a haunted town called Manases. In 1945, all of the town’s residents disappeared after a Nazi plane crashed there. The Nazis were after the “Scepter of Power,” an object that, like the Holy Grail or Ark of the Covenant, would have helped them win the war. Apparently the Nazis had no real strategy for WWII. They just kept hoping they’d find a magic object. It’s amazing they had any time at all to kill Jews.

Aiding Julia and Roberto on their assignment are Syra, a stoner camerawoman, and Ruben, a super straight-edge grip. Ruben wears a t-shirt with Xs on it and constantly tells Syra not to smoke pot. She rolls her eyes at him and tells him to lighten up. What foils these two are! Can they ever make it work?

Of course, once in Manases, they encounter scary ghost business in the form of, well, everything. In addition to straight-up ghosts, there is also flying pottery, mirrors that smash themselves, ghostly voices, mysterious footprints, ghosts in mirrors, ghosts on video camera night vision, first person ghost-vision and possession. It’s like a ghost story checklist. And it’s all ridiculous.

Eventually, a little ghost girl shows Julia what happened in the town and how to save her and stop the evil ghost Nazi from activating the Scepter of Power. It’s at this point where the whole thing goes from stupid to redonkulous. They also decide to explain everything in nauseating detail. The ghost girl’s flashback goes on forever. Then later, there’s another flashback to explain what happened during the first flashback. And then there’s the ending. I won’t spoil it for you even though you have no business watching this movie. But I will tell you that it’s one of the maiziest (Spanish for corn!) things I have ever seen in a movie pretending to be a horror film.

But, at least there are boobs. Twice!

Originally Posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

April 11, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

SXSW Review: My Suicide

2008
Un-rated
105 minutes
Go Code Productions

Two Stars

“My Suicide” is the title of both the movie and the movie-within-a-movie, in which an alienated, pop-culture-obsessed teenage boy named Archie decides to film his suicide for his film class project. But his plans are complicated when the announcement of said project finally wins the attention of the popular girl Archie has had his eye on.

The premise sounds promising to be sure. But the execution (no pun intended) is excruciating. My issues with this film were so numerous that it’s difficult to know where to begin.

I’ll start with the clichés. My god, the clichés! Why does Archie want to kill himself? Well, his parents ignore him. They let him live in the pool house and leave him be edit his movies. (I would have killed for that kind of freedom when I was 16.) Also, ignoring him is the girl of his dreams. A beautiful, blonde, popular rich girl named Sierra who seems to have the perfect life. But guess what? Even the beautiful people have problems! Never saw that coming.

Archie is a product of the information age. He speaks almost entirely in movie quotes, many of them non-sequiturs. He’s constantly doing impressions. He blames his mother for taping him as a child, but he has chosen to perpetuate his life on camera. He is an anti-social narcissist. And he’s very annoying. I couldn’t wait for him to stop doing Brando and get around to killing himself.

The day Archie announces his big project to the class is the day he enters the radar of his peers. His announcement results in his arrest in front of the entire school. Sierra is impressed and decides she wants to interview him. (Does every teenager own and operate a video camera these days?) After a duel-action invasive interview, camera-to-camera, they become inseparable. They’ve entered into a suicide pact. At that moment, I realized Archie is probably not going to kill himself. Redemption is sure to come in some form or another. Because this movie is a cliché so only clichéd things can happen. Damn.

The good news is that the acting wasn’t that bad. It helped that they used actual teenagers to play the characters instead of twenty-something name actors. Too bad about the dialog. (Or rather, what little dialog there was, not pilfered from superior films.) Also, David Carradine was somewhat entertaining as the grizzled documentarion whom Archie idolizes.

Perhaps the core problem with the film is the fact that director David Lee Miller is an older man. I’m not good at the guess-my-age game, but it’s likely that someone with gray hair would not have the freshest recollection of his teens. Even if he did, the 60’s, 70’s and even 80’s were vastly different eras than the one we’re in. Hell, I didn’t even have the internet in my house until high school. The notion of a video editing suite and green screen in my room was a pipe dream at best. So maybe that’s why nearly every note in this film rang false.

Then again, his directorial debut, “Breakfast of Aliens,” was just horrible in every imaginable way, from the acting to the story. So perhaps David Lee Miller is actually just a crappy filmmaker. Either way, sitting through “My Suicide” made me contemplate my own.

Originally Posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

April 1, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

SXSW Film Review: Grace

The horror genre is a mixed bag. You have your intentionally humorous horror (Evil Dead II), your unintentionally humorous horror (Leeches) and your unintentionally, irredeemably horrible horror (Cabin Fever). But there’s a smaller sub-genre which is, in my opinion, superior: The Dramatic Horror film. Included in this sub-genre are films like Rosemary’s Baby, 28 Weeks Later, Repulsion, King of the Ants, and the Devil’s Rejects. These are films which, while sometimes containing supernatural elements, are rooted very strongly in reality. They are devoid of cliches and often feel completely plausible. And that is why they are so damned scary.

Grace falls into the latter category. Unfortunately for the film (and the unsuspecting audience), most people won’t know that going in. This is not a campy horror film. There are no cheesy one-liners (Save one at the end…Which I’m convinced a producer insisted on including). This is a seriously, utterly horrifying film. And I absolutely loved it.

It tells the story of a woman named Madeline who, after losing both her unborn baby and her husband in a car accident, decides to carry her dead fetus to full term. Miraculously, her stillborn child comes back to life. But Madeline soon learns that breast milk will not sustain her special child. She needs blood…human blood. A zombie baby! Sounds hilarious, doesn’t it? Well, it’s not.

The antagonist of this film is Madeline’s mother-in-law, Vivian. She is a closed-minded control freak who blames Madeline for the death of her son and is determined to take Grace away. When we meet Vivian at the beginning of the film, she is picking at the vegan dinner which Madeline has made and asking if tofu can provide enough nutrition for a gestating baby. Everything she says to her daughter-in-law is condescending and/or insulting. Madeline gracefully ignores her. She knows what her baby needs. She doesn’t trust doctors, opting for natural home-birth. Her husband complies with his wife’s decisions but never defends Madeline to his mother either. So it’s no wonder that Madeline feels she needs to carry Grace to term. She needs to meet the only person who would love her unconditionally. Even if that person is dead.

I became intimately aware of the horrors of miscarriage after watching Lynn Shelton’s revelatory documentary The Clouds That Touch Us Out of Clear Skies. She tells the very personal and detailed stories of the miscarriages of several women including her own. It’s profoundly devastating. And it’s not exactly over quickly. After the child dies in utero, the mother still must give birth. The first time they meet their child, it is dead. This is a real-life horror. And it happens more often than you think.

Grace is filmed from that perspective. The most intense scene comes when Madeline gives birth with the aid of her midwife and doula. The pain of childbirth is usually countered with purpose. At the end of the pain will come the joy of a new life. But not this time. No one in that birthing pool expects the pain to end. The professionals can’t offer any words of encouragement. Tears stream down everyone’s faces.

The midwife pulls the blue baby out of the bloody water and hesitates when Madeline asks to hold her. But she complies and leaves the mother to say goodbye to her child. However, there is no goodbye. Madeline nurses her newborn and the blue cheeks turn to pink. Grace is alive. Everything is fine.

But everything is not fine. The baby is sick. Though she is hungry, she can’t keep breast milk down. Madeline soon learns what the baby really needs. There are no cheesy zombie prosthetics on little Grace. She is a normal, pink baby. Who needs to drink blood. And though Madeline is a vegan, she is willing to comply.

As Madeline struggles to keep her baby healthy, Vivian plots to have Grace taken away so that she can raise her. At the post film Q&A, an audience member asked about the “clear anti-vegetarian message” of the film. The director corrected him. He said he had no political message. He was just showing different perspectives. I wonder how someone can interpret the film as anti-vegetarian when we see the nefarious lengths that Vivian, a staunch meat-and-potatoes proponent, will go to in order to steal her grandchild. If there is a message it’s that every child is different. There’s no one correct parenting ideology. If the mother listens to her baby, she will learn what the baby needs and it will thrive.

But mostly, Grace parallels one of the greatest horror films of all time, Rosemary’s Baby. At its core, it’s about how a mother will do anything to preserve the life of her child, even if she suspects what she is doing is wrong. Even at the cost of her own well-being. Like parenthood, Grace is all at once frightening and beautiful. And it’s not for the faint of heart.

March 26, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

Watchmen Watched

Yes I’m one of those nerds who loves and deems Watchmen the greatest graphic novel of all time. And yes, I’m a little biased in that I already think Zak Snyder isn’t a very good filmmaker. So I was never going to LOVE a movie adaptation. But I’m pleased to report that I wasn’t horribly disappointed. This was no Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy experience for me. Zak Snyder isn’t terribly inspired or original but he knows how to pick source material. Dawn of the Dead is a good story. It didn’t need to be told again but he did and people liked it. 300 is a bloody, violent orgy and, embedded right wing messages aside, he pulled off the violence with flying colors.

It’s like that with the Watchmen. His opening credits are a bit heavy-handed and on-the-nose. Some of his music choices are so literal that I could have sworn McG produced this thing. But if you get a handful of pretty decent actors, you don’t change the dialog and you keep the visuals true to the comic book, it’s hard to screw up. (Filmmakers who’ve tackled the Punisher story, take note.)

One of my biggest fears going into this was the acting. I’d only seen most of the leads in one or two things and no one had ever really stood out for me before. Patrick Wilson was great in Little Children but I had no way of knowing he WASN’T the Prom King, you know? (Incidentally, Jackie Earl Haley was ALSO in Little Children as a repentant child molester so he was the only one I was sure could harness the darkness.) Richard Dean Morgan has made a career of being the dead dad so he already had flashback experience, but could he pull off the necessary antagonism the Comedian required? Apparently, yes. They all could. Everyone not only LOOKED like their ink and paper counterparts, but they nailed the characters. Some critics have said that Malin Akerman’s Laurie is on the stiff side but I always felt that way about Laurie in the book. She IS the eye candy of the group. If she weren’t a masked avenger, she would be finding some other way to get back at her mother and it would probably involve slinky clothing. Even if it was an accident on Akerman’s part, Laurie was definitely Laurie.

So there was no squid monster. I didn’t really miss it. There was no pirate comic. I KIND of missed it, but at two hours and forty minutes, the movie didn’t need to be any longer. All the major points were hit. They didn’t cut any of the Dr. Manhattan story which is my absolute favorite part of the book. They boiled down Laurie’s relationship with her mother (something for the ladies!) to a few shorthand scenes. The essence of Ozymandias was there even if the circumstances changed a little. I was very happy to see Bubastis, his mutant kitty. Even if her presence wasn’t explained, it was a nice nod to the fans.

There were a few places it could have been tightened. There was a tiny bit of flashback review which always burns my bacon. Hello! We can remember what happened 20 minutes ago. While we’re consolidating backstory, Brugos noted that Rorschach’s could have nipped a wee bit for the theatrical release. They could always put it back in for the extended edition DVD. People who have never read the book are probably going to think it’s too long. It’s hard to say what they will think otherwise. It’s dark and slick. It’s probably the most faithful adaptation you can get out of a big-budget blockbuster. The book is better, but when is that not the case? I didn’t want to claw my eyes out and I may even want to see it again. That should mean a lot coming from a comic book jerk like me.

March 6, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . . Author: Baxter . Comments: 9 Comments

Fantasy Thundertrailer

Someone called WormyT (possibly a hobo?) made a fake Thundercats trailer as an effects and editing exercise. The result is, most likely, better than the actual movie is going to be. This thing is more detailed than

December 22, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions, YooToob . . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

Stop Punishing Us!

Today the third attempt at a Punisher film is being released. That film is Punisher: War Zone and it’s getting atrocious reviews. I’m not terribly surprised. I’ve been following the progress of this film for quite some time. Though it showed early promise (new, grizzled Frank Castle; female director who acknowledged the flaws of the Tom Jane version) reports began to surface that things were not going well. I heard some rumors that the director wanted her name off the thing after she was stripped of creative control in the editing room. These things did not bode well but I still held out naive hope that they would perhaps accidentally make something good. After all, how hard can it be? Any of Garth Ennis’ books could be used as a storyboard for a decent Punisher film. Change nothing and you’ll win.

To see it or not to see it. I’m torn. This Onion review of the movie sounds like it’s written from my own head in the future. On the other hand, Aint It Cool News says that it’s bad but in a Starship Troopers kind of way. I heart the camptastic Starship Troopers. But I went in ignorant of the characters. People who loved the book Starship Troopers hate the movie. And I LOVE the Punisher.

It should be pretty simple. Frank Castle is a vengeance-driven badass. He’s constantly getting shot and beaten to the point of death and always recovers just enough to get his man. He’s utterly devoid of a sense of humor and every sentence he utters is the toughest thing you’ve ever heard. He’s walking testosterone.

But he’s not devoid of a heart. If anything, his moral code is pretty black and white. If you kill an innocent person, he will kill you. Occasionally, someone will almost get through to him but they will never succeed because his humanity is broken. He is probably incapable of ever really loving again. But he knows who needs protection and who deserves to die. Imagine Robocop as a flesh-and-blood Frank Castle, and you’re not far off. He’s not complex. The fact that circumstances have turned him into a revenge automaton is what’s so compelling about the character. You would think it difficult to screw it up. And yet…

Yeah, I’m probably gonna see this crap anyway. But the outlook is not good. And unfortunately, these misdeeds will continue to go unpunished.

December 5, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions, YooToob . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment

Let the Trite One In

On my way to seeing a vampire movie (not that one), I lamented to my fella that I hadn’t seen a good supernatural-themed movie in a while and was really hoping to enjoy Let the Right One In. I was pleased as punch to find that I did enjoy it immensely. It had its flaws: the low-budget special effects were sometimes out of place in what was essentially an art-horror film and there were some continuity issues. But for the most part, it was a very original (albeit based on a book) way to tell a coming-of-age tale about a bullied boy who falls in love with the vampire girl next door.

The story didn’t over-explain itself. Though I recognized budget-slimming gore shorthand from my low-budget horror-crafting days, I was impressed with the violence. The young leads were also quite good, despite this being the first movie for both of them. They conveyed the less-is-more method of child acting. In other words, it was a lot of wide-eyed close-ups. But it totally worked. I walked away from the theater quite happy and have been warmly recalling the experience ever since…

…Until now. Why, Hollywood?!! Why must you always RUIN EVERYTHING?! This film JUST came out and now they are talking American remakes. This movie already HAS an American crap-terpart. It’s called Twilight and it’s doing just fine, thank you. Of course, that’s probably just it. Twilight is doing SO well that they want to cash in while the cashing is good. And who wants to read subtitles or watch two unknowns when you can make the same movie with a Sprouse and a Fanning (I don’t know if that’s who they will cast, but I’m sure I’m not far off).

I didn’t like Cloverfield very much. I thought the monster was cool but the characters were completely two dimensional and I didn’t care what happened to them. So I don’t have much faith in the director to remake this film. Especially when he says ignorant crap like “It’s a terrific movie and a fantastic book. I think it could be a really touching haunting and terrifying film. I’m really excited about what it could be.”

What it COULD be? He compliments the source material and then basically says he can do better. What an asshole. In fact, that entire article pisses me off. It’s that “Americans can’t relate to any film in a foreign language” attitude that keeps artistic film far underground and crap like Twilight number one at the box office. And even then it would be fine as long as they left the art films alone. But they have to go and put their grubby little paws on everything. I’m sick of it. But there’s nothing that can be done about it either.

Damnit.

December 2, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions . . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment

How to Lose Fans and Alienate Audiences

There is probably an audience for “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People”. I’m just not sure what it is. Perhaps it’s the same as the Dane Cook audience: People who enjoy watching jerks be jerks, have a small moral revelation, get the girl they want, reject her and then get the other girl. Though Cook’s last couple of movies with this premise didn’t fare so well at the box office so I don’t have high hopes for the success of How to Lose Friends. Not that I necessarily WANT it to succeed. The Simon Pegg fan in me does, I suppose. I love all his work with Edgar Wright such as “Spaced”, “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”. But apart from a couple of Star Wars references and Gillian Anderson, there is none of that Simon Pegg here. Yes, I realize he’s ACTING. But he’s acting like a total douche.

how to lose friends and alienate people posterBased on the memoirs of Toby Young, “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People” tells the story of SIDNEY Young, an obnoxious, usually bumbling, self-centered “journalist” with dreams of making it big in the celebrity profile circuit.

But it’s not just the character that’s the problem. Without any prior knowledge of the book or the story, I had no idea what the hell Sidney’s deal was. Was he a party crasher? A paparazzo? A star effer? A LOOKYLOO?! (By the way, is lookyloo a magazine industry term? Because EVERYONE says it. A LOT). It wasn’t until Sidney was offered a job at a “Vanity Fair”-type magazine (for being really good at sneaking into places, I think) that I realized he was supposed to be a journalist.

This movie is all over the map. At times it’s a silly slapstick comedy with Pegg in a latter-day Steve Martinesque role. There is a even a pig gag. Apparently, pigs are the new monkeys. At other times it’s (an attempt at) a biting commentary of pop journalism and Hollywood ass kissing. At still other times, it’s a romantic comedy in which the leads are (HELLO!) obviously with the wrong people and true true love is right in front of them.

OK, so Sidney’s serious, lesson-learning montages show potential but the mess that is the rest of the film is just too, well, messy. And stuck in the middle of this big pile of pig slop is poor Kirstin Dunst. Let’s talk about her character, shall we?

Kirsten Dunst plays Alison, Sidney’s other love interest. The ones he’s really supposed to be with once he realizes that Megan Fox, the Hollywood starlet his loins yearn for, is actually a vapid windbag. Alison also works at the magazine and has a mysterious boyfriend for whom she waits in bars having ordered him a White Russian, while she hand writes her novel into a journal. Of course, her mystery man never shows and Sidney always seems to be there to help her feel really bad about it. If she’s waiting for Lebowski, he’s probably out looking for his missing rug. It really tied the room together.

I really like Kirsten Dunst. She’s fantastic in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and I just like her snaggletoothed ways in general. So it pains me to see her play a character like this. Somehow she manages to do it with grace, but she’s still a lonely, pathetic girl with awful, awful taste in men. OK, so I guess it’s the same character she played in Spotless Mind. But a good script apparently makes that character seem more relatable.

SPOILER ALERT!! But who cares. If you’ve ever seen a movie, you know what’s going to happen.

dunst and peggSo for the first half of the movie, Alison hates Sidney. And rightly so. He’s an ass and he says horrible things to her. She calls him “loathsome” and she’s right. So for some reason, I had hopes that she wouldn’t end up inexplicably falling in love with him. Maybe he with her. But she would reject him and live happily ever after with Lebowski or even just become a single, successful novelist. Anything but falling in love with the loathsome Sidney Young. But nay. The obvious and inevitable does happen. Without explanation. It just switches suddenly because it’s the third act and it’s time for Sidney to stop being a dick and realize he loves Alison. And since things don’t really work out with Lebowski after all, she’s single and therefore available to date someone she previously hated. That’s just the way women are, you know.

Were there any saving graces to this movie? Well, Jeff Bridges is kind of entertaining (Yes, Lebowski actually IS in this thing. But it turns out he’s not the mystery man). Megan Fox is pretty good as Sophie Maes, the aforementioned vapid Hollywood Starlet who loves to be the center of attention and can’t resist the opportunity to make her nipples hard in front of an entire party. But I’m pretty sure Megan Fox isn’t acting. What else? Um…The lady behind me who was shocked by everything was pretty funny. A cry of “OOOOH JESUS!!” erupted every few minutes. I think those were the only times I laughed. And I guess the pig was kinda cute.

Lookyloos!!!

October 1, 2008
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

« Previous Page — Previous page Next page — Next Page »