I get super bored when I'm looking for movies and a thumbnail of some young guy used for the movie Teenage Cocktail was, pathetically, enough to make me click. I didn't use an "accepted" service initially but after I found this on Netflix I've watched it probably once every six months since I found it.
The twist is a little loose and predictable but it's still the beginning of a harrowing denouement that's so hard to stomach after the very safe (by comparison) moments of the film. This is an amazing teenage romance story that doesn't play on the leads both being girls in the way you'd think.
Annie is the new girl at school, but the movie artfully distills this fact into a quick montage of scenes involving an altercation in the hallway and a chat with the rather hilarious guidance counsellor, who has a few golden moments in his interactions later in the movie. The cold open has already established our heroines are going to be in an accident. We introduce their nemesis early on too, and he's woven back into the story in the second act. Jules and Annie's relationship grows organically, but I feel one of the taglines for the movie gives something crucial away about Jules. She's definitely framed as someone who can be manipulative and we're worried for poor, wholesome Annie, even with her youngish parents (it's apparent Annie's mom had her very young and she's struggling being the cool mom who's not entirely cool with everything Annie does, including possibly having a girlfriend). Annie's dad is kindly but altogether too soft, the parenting dynamic is definitely not good for Annie with their "Won't tell your mom" and "haven't told your dad" lines. They have a younger son who's more well behaved, and annoying to Annie, but I love his performance and the dynamic between him and his dad. He delivers a pretty hilarious nun joke I won't spoil here.
Jules meanwhile has absent parents; a mother who took off when she was twelve and a dad we never meet. She's practically living alone, her doors are unlocked and she's out doing whatever she pleases. She's a dancer longing to escape their boring suburban town, and her plan to bail is brought up not long after she and Annie meet. Jules is already making coin as a tame camgirl who doesn't do much but lie around her underwear and a kitty mask, and convincing Annie to play along takes very little. But when things go awry and they need to make a quick getaway before the school hands down punishments for their alleged involvement in underage porn, they call upon Frank, the predator pool cleaner who's already got a history of cheating on his wife, to do them a few favours. Frank's son might look up to him but his beleaguered wife isn't too fond of their kid aspiring to take up pool cleaning with Frank. He's unhinged by Jules and Annie's deceptions and does little to nothing to save his relationship with his wife, but we don't see the catastrophe looming.
The ethereal, soft aesthetic of the shots matched with the gentle, synth-heavy but kind of kitchy 50s flavour soundtrack make this such a dreamlike journey right up until the nightmare ending. I think this has found more love via Netflix than it may have done after SXSW. All the characters seem real and flawed enough. You don't entirely buy Jules being abandoned but she's meant to have far less boundaries than Annie, and she just wants to be loved. She's not a tough girl. But you could question her motives right up until the very end.
It isn't making a statement on young parents (I'm assuming they're in their late 30s, as am I, could've had a teenage kid by now if I'd been knocked up at 18), it just works with the narrative her parents are young and don't want to be the assholes their parents were, but don't want their kids to wind up hurt. It's a very believable story, to a point. I think the ending had to be graphic to make the exploits of the two girls seem like they were too easy to get away with; or too good to be true. Frank's a product of his own shitty choices, and sadly, so are the girls. So the ambiguous ending makes sense. Nobody wins.
This wasn't a story you could tell with a boy/girl romance, but it doesn't demonise the same sex relationship aspect. It's touching and genuine and simple, and tragic.
Saturday, 17 November 2018
Tuesday, 13 November 2018
Sequels we never asked for - late Halloween edition.
Hocus Pocus managed to cement itself as a Halloween staple and cult classic despite initially under-performing. 25 years later, a new generation of kids are all caught up in the spirit along with the original fans, which is great. And of course there were discussions of a sequel that now seems to have been reduced to a book.
Book or graphic novel sequels seem to be big now they're a safer, cheaper way of playing with an idea that wouldn't work as a movie or be as popular. Disney decided to release a book that was one part retelling of the movie with added pieces of info, and two parts new story that could've been a Goosebumps story with no relation to the movie whatsoever.
The reviews were all unanimous in regards to their relative dislike of the new story, it affected some ratings. The biggest complaint was making the main character (Max and Alison's daughter - I think they were playing to the audience's hope this high school romance actually survived) a lesbian. Which is fine, but according to sources, they oversold this aspect and probably wasted character development for another classic Disney "LOOK AT HOW INCLUSIVE WE ARE!" moment.
On one hand, I appreciate them doing this to a point, but they could've been subtle about it. Their sexuality shouldn't be such an all encompassing thing, LGBTQ audiences are already hip to pandering. But the book was aimed at a younger audience, so of course you had parents bitching about not having a warning about it. The book doesn't owe you a warning. Rating systems do not have "contains homosexual content" because if they did, people's heads would fucking explode. If you don't want your kids reading it fine, but they're going to find this shit out and just because you're uncomfortable about explaining that to your kids, doesn't mean life owes you a "gay warning" on every piece of media content. If these authors can't write well-rounded characters who just happen to be gay, you'll forever be criticised for overselling a gay character. If your dialogue ends up coming off as "Oh, and by the way did we mention...?" you have to shut up at some point. Gay people like other shit. They have other facets. Write a character who's into heavy metal, comics, role playing and reading who just happens to be gay. Their sexuality shouldn't really be the peak of their personality.
Meanwhile, the hilarious part were people were so bent about this being sexually driven when the original story obsesses over the aspect of virginity (largely male virginity, because we're not even discussing Alison's status, so are we meant to assume she's a megawhore and ineligible for resurrecting witches? They gloss over Dani being an obvious virgin due to age, perhaps the writers thought people would question this if they didn't bring it up. Way to not trust your audience, brah) No, the girls are painted as "practical" and too suspicious and the silly boy lights the candle. I think they were starved for the criteria on who could or could not light the candle, or were playing into some pagan attitude to virginity - it's a clause to spells and curses, I guess. I don't know. But these readers were acting like the movie was 100% wholesome and didn't bring sex into anything. You had boy-thirsty Sarah, Billy the cheating bastard, who we all end up adoring because he switches sides and looks after Dani, and someone in a Madonna outfit. Did Disney forget she almost got arrested because they didn't want her performing simulated masturbation onstage? It's got sex in it, people. It's pretty damn racy for a Disney movie. And other people mentioned the smashed cat and child eating as well. So... yeah. But then, most animations were selling love and marrying off sixteen year olds to the first man they saw.
I don't adore this movie, I have another sad, personal reason for loving it but I see why other people hold it dear as a Halloween tradition. Of all the holidays, Halloween makes the least amount of sense to me. I don't appreciate it's becoming a thing over here when it used to be glossed over. We didn't have enough houses on our street to validate trick or treating until I was in high school. We didn't do anything at school for it. I think I went to one haunted house thing. I don't like zombies or skeletons, I especially hate skeleton unitards. I liked witches and vampires but I had a huge problem with silly costumes and depictions of them. I refused to dress as a long nosed witch for someone's dress up party but managed to hire a fuckin awesome Morticia dress that some idiot spilled cordial on, which everyone else found fucking hilarious. (Apparently my anger was a source of huge amusement when I was fifteen). But I won't rob anyone of their fun I leave people to it. The 25th Anniversary special was cliched and hokey as fuck, I skipped through most of it, but the audience was largely millennials, who were (should've been) mostly virgins. Hopefully it made virginity cool for a while.
But this book is a pointless cash-in, it looks like a tome and I have no interest in reading it. It also got compared to my most hated book series. Apparently writing in present tense is no longer fashionable or acceptable. This book didn't have to try hard to be good, though. It simply had to exist.
Turns out, it wasn't worth the wait.
Book or graphic novel sequels seem to be big now they're a safer, cheaper way of playing with an idea that wouldn't work as a movie or be as popular. Disney decided to release a book that was one part retelling of the movie with added pieces of info, and two parts new story that could've been a Goosebumps story with no relation to the movie whatsoever.
The reviews were all unanimous in regards to their relative dislike of the new story, it affected some ratings. The biggest complaint was making the main character (Max and Alison's daughter - I think they were playing to the audience's hope this high school romance actually survived) a lesbian. Which is fine, but according to sources, they oversold this aspect and probably wasted character development for another classic Disney "LOOK AT HOW INCLUSIVE WE ARE!" moment.
On one hand, I appreciate them doing this to a point, but they could've been subtle about it. Their sexuality shouldn't be such an all encompassing thing, LGBTQ audiences are already hip to pandering. But the book was aimed at a younger audience, so of course you had parents bitching about not having a warning about it. The book doesn't owe you a warning. Rating systems do not have "contains homosexual content" because if they did, people's heads would fucking explode. If you don't want your kids reading it fine, but they're going to find this shit out and just because you're uncomfortable about explaining that to your kids, doesn't mean life owes you a "gay warning" on every piece of media content. If these authors can't write well-rounded characters who just happen to be gay, you'll forever be criticised for overselling a gay character. If your dialogue ends up coming off as "Oh, and by the way did we mention...?" you have to shut up at some point. Gay people like other shit. They have other facets. Write a character who's into heavy metal, comics, role playing and reading who just happens to be gay. Their sexuality shouldn't really be the peak of their personality.
Meanwhile, the hilarious part were people were so bent about this being sexually driven when the original story obsesses over the aspect of virginity (largely male virginity, because we're not even discussing Alison's status, so are we meant to assume she's a megawhore and ineligible for resurrecting witches? They gloss over Dani being an obvious virgin due to age, perhaps the writers thought people would question this if they didn't bring it up. Way to not trust your audience, brah) No, the girls are painted as "practical" and too suspicious and the silly boy lights the candle. I think they were starved for the criteria on who could or could not light the candle, or were playing into some pagan attitude to virginity - it's a clause to spells and curses, I guess. I don't know. But these readers were acting like the movie was 100% wholesome and didn't bring sex into anything. You had boy-thirsty Sarah, Billy the cheating bastard, who we all end up adoring because he switches sides and looks after Dani, and someone in a Madonna outfit. Did Disney forget she almost got arrested because they didn't want her performing simulated masturbation onstage? It's got sex in it, people. It's pretty damn racy for a Disney movie. And other people mentioned the smashed cat and child eating as well. So... yeah. But then, most animations were selling love and marrying off sixteen year olds to the first man they saw.
I don't adore this movie, I have another sad, personal reason for loving it but I see why other people hold it dear as a Halloween tradition. Of all the holidays, Halloween makes the least amount of sense to me. I don't appreciate it's becoming a thing over here when it used to be glossed over. We didn't have enough houses on our street to validate trick or treating until I was in high school. We didn't do anything at school for it. I think I went to one haunted house thing. I don't like zombies or skeletons, I especially hate skeleton unitards. I liked witches and vampires but I had a huge problem with silly costumes and depictions of them. I refused to dress as a long nosed witch for someone's dress up party but managed to hire a fuckin awesome Morticia dress that some idiot spilled cordial on, which everyone else found fucking hilarious. (Apparently my anger was a source of huge amusement when I was fifteen). But I won't rob anyone of their fun I leave people to it. The 25th Anniversary special was cliched and hokey as fuck, I skipped through most of it, but the audience was largely millennials, who were (should've been) mostly virgins. Hopefully it made virginity cool for a while.
But this book is a pointless cash-in, it looks like a tome and I have no interest in reading it. It also got compared to my most hated book series. Apparently writing in present tense is no longer fashionable or acceptable. This book didn't have to try hard to be good, though. It simply had to exist.
Turns out, it wasn't worth the wait.
Monday, 12 November 2018
What Not To Watch
If you want me to recommend movies, it's easier for me to list what you shouldn't see. There are movies out there that exist to shock, or appall. They exist to make you uncomfortable, and pivot around an disgusting premise, like Human Centipede, which I personally refuse to see since I was filled with revulsion just from the trailer.
But I have a list which I'll present here with reasons why you probably wouldn't want to see these films. Most of them I did enjoy, but one caused a co-viewer too much distress to the point you're blamed for that. As in why did you make me watch that? I don't make anyone do anything (I hadn't known the explicitness of the content at the time, to be fair. I went in with a vague understanding of the theme). I tend to see these movies when I'm alone purely so I can't have other people affect my viewing with complaints. You'll also note none of the below are horror/slasher/thriller films. They're all dramas or black comedies.
A Serbian Film
I personally don't feel this movie needs to exist. It doesn't endear me to the plight of the country the subject of the film revolves around. By wanting to illustrate how Serbians are "fucked from birth", you have to condone deplorable things done to an animatronic baby, and a child. You have to basically watch a string of snuff films and you're expected to find the final scene "ironic". It's a genuine assault on the senses. Most of the worst frames in question are burned into my memory. If anyone had asked me if they should see this, I'd warn them and dissuade them, but if my warning fails to put them off I won't take responsibility for their future trauma. I brought this upon myself from a friend's Facebook status simply decrying "NEWBORN PORN". My mistake. But I do tend to want to see things to form my own opinion. (PS I don't need to watch/read everything to form an opinion over whether it's bad). I mentioned this film in my Duck Butter rant as a case in point I endured A Serbian Film and not this Netflix monstrosity.
The Doom Generation
First Greg Araki film on the list. I don't particularly think the acting in this movie is stellar, it's meant to be the second film of a trilogy that ends with Nowhere, which is markedly better but not great either, and beginning with Totally Fucked Up, which I've not seen. Doom Generation begins as a romp and ends with rape. We're meant to follow three disaffected youths on this misadventure that involves the FBI and leaves room for a threesome. I could probably watch this again but not enjoy it for it's overuse of weird cliches and running gags. i.e. everything they buy costs 6.66 and the threesome's last names are literally Red, White and Blue. (I only just now learnt this from the Wikipedia entry - yes I depend on this heavily without access to these films). I told people not to watch it when I saw they rented it and I hope they ignored me, but I also watched this in high school so I was 17 and it had an R rating. My mother decided to drop her stance by that age on movies after she wouldn't let me watch Terminator 2 at 9 and worried about my watching Gremlins at 7, when I wasn't bothered by the movie, but she took me to bed to read me a story, probably to make her feel better. Either way, you're not missing a masterpiece by missing Doom Generation.
Mysterious Skin
Second Greg Araki film, which I did enjoy but haven't watched in many years. It's as confronting as Happiness, or Palindromes to a lesser extent, which I'll add to my list here for the sake of argument as a double bill. It's one of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's best movies. He took to this role with finesse, while Michelle Trachtenberg is much less compelling and was probably at the end of her Buffy stint so I always found her so hit and miss in terms of dramatic acting. Mysterious Skin is graphic as it is touching. Depictions of pedophilia always make for problematic films, you could hint at Lolita for a comparison, where the child is more the instigator or willing participant, but in this case the child is the victim despite their predilections, the adult is the perpetrator, and the victim has to console another child who had blacked out the abuse and mistook it for an alien abduction. It's a maturer film and handled well with the arc of the two boys realising their actual victimhood through a series of incidents throughout the film. There isn't a solid narrative per se, but I do like this film and if you're willing to see beyond the explicit content to the story itself, it's worth the journey to the end. But it's difficult and discomforting so I wouldn't blame anyone for checking out before the end of the first act.
Happiness/Palindromes
Both films are from Todd Solondz, another of my favourite directors, and both feature pedophilic themes. If you go back to my review of Palindromes, you'll get a rundown on how I felt so I won't go much further into this. I think Happiness is the harder of the two films to watch. You can only identify with the main characters on a small, fundamental level because they're presented as real humans with needs and internal conflicts who are in search of love but from literally all the wrong places. But the needs of one character, once they're played out, you can't sympathise beyond that point. It was suggested the molestation of the boy wasn't carried out when we cut away, but the person who said this missed vital info in the following scene of the boy's arrogant, homophobic father actually getting mad at the boy for not realising what's happened. It's the father's comments to the pedophile about his son acting like a gay that crystalise the pedophile's plans to have the boy sleep over. And the pedophile commits another act of indecency which gets him caught and arrested. Again, it's a confronting film and most of the laughs come from unease. Philip Seymour Hoffman could do no wrong, his pervert character whose wish to rape Lara Flynn Boyel's character, (who is desperate for something horrible to happen to her to lend authenticity to her maudlin poetry), is so close to being granted that the opportunity turns them both off completely, thus further humanising him. The stories intertwine through the three sisters, Joy being the most sympathetic since she fails to keep a relationship and is conned into sleeping with a student from her adult education class, all the while being pitied by her sister, the oblivious wife of the pedophile, for being single. The two of them look up to Lara Flynn Boyel's character for being rich and successful despite her dissatisfaction, but as in transpires, none of them have a perfect life. There's plenty going on in this film but whether you want to endure it to find the humanity within the main characters is another matter.
Ken Park/Kids
Films with controversy attract me as well. I knew about Kids when I was a kid, but I hadn't really understood how involved it was in terms of visuals until I saw it, I just knew of the controversy. Ken Park was banned here, I believe it still is, and a predominant movie reviewer was arrested for trying to screen the film for a small audience, the charges being dropped due to the backlash over the overwrought censorship laws in Australia. I've watched both films a couple of times. Kids is remarkable given a kid basically wrote it, but I never know how to feel about Harmony Korine's movies. (I still think of him as a kid and he's in his 40s now). Larry Clark has pervy eye - there are shots in Bully that are obscenely unnecessary. He seems to justify his films containing teenage sex as art but you can't trust this completely. However, ignoring that teenagers have sex, do drugs, run around at night and disobey their parents (be they ineffectual or oppressive) is a gross oversight on the viewer's part. It's ten o'clock, and yes your children are fucking their brains out, probably contracting illnesses due to poor sex ed practices, and are possibly even overdosing in bathtubs. They're probably down the skate park rolling joints and beating other kids with their skateboards. Kids was a wake up call style movie, and yes, the protracted rape scene in the end is very uncomfortable to watch considering the consequences being played out. Shot around the time the AIDS epidemic was still a major issue, where the misconception of it being a gay disease kept people complacent, Kids had a hell of a lot to say about the fact children weren't immune from this and covering their ears or turning a blind eye was a huge mistake. You're left with the opposing factors of Rosario Dawson's character being unsafe in her promiscuity and not getting infected, and Chloë Sevigny only having unprotected sex once with the shitty boy Lothario Telly, who's already carrying the virus and is running around town nailing virgins because it's his thing.(the irony with his character being he thinks sucking nitrous is dangerous). So then you're stuck in a "race against time" narrative before Telly hits up his next conquest and subjects her to the same fate. This thread keeps the film from being completely exploitative and shocking for the sake of it.
The major problem with Ken Park is the lengthy explicit scenes between the three main teens, and with the initial scenes between the bored housewife and one of the teens, Shawn, who's dating her teenage daughter. You're supposed to be shocked by the image of them sitting down to dinner with the oblivious husband and daughter, and neither party are caught out, but there's no other resolution to this story line other than you believe they'll keep the culprits will continue to sleep together until one of them (the housewife probably) gets bored. The boy is consenting to this but the wife is deciding to be irresponsible from her own dissatisfaction. You feel worse for Peaches, whose father is so obsessed with her deceased mother, he won't condone her giving her boyfriend a blowjob. Even after the physical and mental abuse he inflicts upon her, including forcing her through an ersatz marriage ceremony to him where she's wearing her mother's wedding gown, this doesn't keep her from continuing her sexual relationship with Shawn and Claude, the other main character of the film. None of them claim to be together romantically, they're wasting time because they live in a white trash town where some kid killed himself. Tate is the most broken kid in the film, who co-exists but doesn't interact with the other three teens. While his passive nature around the neighbourhood girls playing skip rope makes him appear innocuous, he's stuck in his own paraphilic tendencies which he doesn't apologise for, while tormenting his grandparents, whom he's living with, for invading his privacy and supposedly cheating on Scrabble. That last argument ends badly. Needless to say he's a sociopath and hardly deserving of any compassion for his disposition. Claude is bullied by his stepdad, his later actions prompting Claude to leave his apathetic and pregnant mother who hasn't defended him. No one wins in this film. The punchline may as well be you can either waste your time fucking and doing drugs or blow your brains out, like Ken Park does at the start of the film. I think the film had an agenda to paint a picture of lower income suburban towns where kids are destined for so little, like working grills at fast food joints or winding up pregnant. "We might as well grow up, be adults and die," as Veronica Sawyer opined to a generation of disaffected youths back in the 80s. (PS I won't be watching the TV show, by the way, even if Greg Araki directed two episodes - otherwise I'll be here ranting for days).
If I think of any other films, I'll let you know. But for now, take the comments above as fair warning you're walking into some tricky subject matter watching any of these films.
But I have a list which I'll present here with reasons why you probably wouldn't want to see these films. Most of them I did enjoy, but one caused a co-viewer too much distress to the point you're blamed for that. As in why did you make me watch that? I don't make anyone do anything (I hadn't known the explicitness of the content at the time, to be fair. I went in with a vague understanding of the theme). I tend to see these movies when I'm alone purely so I can't have other people affect my viewing with complaints. You'll also note none of the below are horror/slasher/thriller films. They're all dramas or black comedies.
A Serbian Film
I personally don't feel this movie needs to exist. It doesn't endear me to the plight of the country the subject of the film revolves around. By wanting to illustrate how Serbians are "fucked from birth", you have to condone deplorable things done to an animatronic baby, and a child. You have to basically watch a string of snuff films and you're expected to find the final scene "ironic". It's a genuine assault on the senses. Most of the worst frames in question are burned into my memory. If anyone had asked me if they should see this, I'd warn them and dissuade them, but if my warning fails to put them off I won't take responsibility for their future trauma. I brought this upon myself from a friend's Facebook status simply decrying "NEWBORN PORN". My mistake. But I do tend to want to see things to form my own opinion. (PS I don't need to watch/read everything to form an opinion over whether it's bad). I mentioned this film in my Duck Butter rant as a case in point I endured A Serbian Film and not this Netflix monstrosity.
The Doom Generation
First Greg Araki film on the list. I don't particularly think the acting in this movie is stellar, it's meant to be the second film of a trilogy that ends with Nowhere, which is markedly better but not great either, and beginning with Totally Fucked Up, which I've not seen. Doom Generation begins as a romp and ends with rape. We're meant to follow three disaffected youths on this misadventure that involves the FBI and leaves room for a threesome. I could probably watch this again but not enjoy it for it's overuse of weird cliches and running gags. i.e. everything they buy costs 6.66 and the threesome's last names are literally Red, White and Blue. (I only just now learnt this from the Wikipedia entry - yes I depend on this heavily without access to these films). I told people not to watch it when I saw they rented it and I hope they ignored me, but I also watched this in high school so I was 17 and it had an R rating. My mother decided to drop her stance by that age on movies after she wouldn't let me watch Terminator 2 at 9 and worried about my watching Gremlins at 7, when I wasn't bothered by the movie, but she took me to bed to read me a story, probably to make her feel better. Either way, you're not missing a masterpiece by missing Doom Generation.
Mysterious Skin
Second Greg Araki film, which I did enjoy but haven't watched in many years. It's as confronting as Happiness, or Palindromes to a lesser extent, which I'll add to my list here for the sake of argument as a double bill. It's one of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's best movies. He took to this role with finesse, while Michelle Trachtenberg is much less compelling and was probably at the end of her Buffy stint so I always found her so hit and miss in terms of dramatic acting. Mysterious Skin is graphic as it is touching. Depictions of pedophilia always make for problematic films, you could hint at Lolita for a comparison, where the child is more the instigator or willing participant, but in this case the child is the victim despite their predilections, the adult is the perpetrator, and the victim has to console another child who had blacked out the abuse and mistook it for an alien abduction. It's a maturer film and handled well with the arc of the two boys realising their actual victimhood through a series of incidents throughout the film. There isn't a solid narrative per se, but I do like this film and if you're willing to see beyond the explicit content to the story itself, it's worth the journey to the end. But it's difficult and discomforting so I wouldn't blame anyone for checking out before the end of the first act.
Happiness/Palindromes
Both films are from Todd Solondz, another of my favourite directors, and both feature pedophilic themes. If you go back to my review of Palindromes, you'll get a rundown on how I felt so I won't go much further into this. I think Happiness is the harder of the two films to watch. You can only identify with the main characters on a small, fundamental level because they're presented as real humans with needs and internal conflicts who are in search of love but from literally all the wrong places. But the needs of one character, once they're played out, you can't sympathise beyond that point. It was suggested the molestation of the boy wasn't carried out when we cut away, but the person who said this missed vital info in the following scene of the boy's arrogant, homophobic father actually getting mad at the boy for not realising what's happened. It's the father's comments to the pedophile about his son acting like a gay that crystalise the pedophile's plans to have the boy sleep over. And the pedophile commits another act of indecency which gets him caught and arrested. Again, it's a confronting film and most of the laughs come from unease. Philip Seymour Hoffman could do no wrong, his pervert character whose wish to rape Lara Flynn Boyel's character, (who is desperate for something horrible to happen to her to lend authenticity to her maudlin poetry), is so close to being granted that the opportunity turns them both off completely, thus further humanising him. The stories intertwine through the three sisters, Joy being the most sympathetic since she fails to keep a relationship and is conned into sleeping with a student from her adult education class, all the while being pitied by her sister, the oblivious wife of the pedophile, for being single. The two of them look up to Lara Flynn Boyel's character for being rich and successful despite her dissatisfaction, but as in transpires, none of them have a perfect life. There's plenty going on in this film but whether you want to endure it to find the humanity within the main characters is another matter.
Ken Park/Kids
Films with controversy attract me as well. I knew about Kids when I was a kid, but I hadn't really understood how involved it was in terms of visuals until I saw it, I just knew of the controversy. Ken Park was banned here, I believe it still is, and a predominant movie reviewer was arrested for trying to screen the film for a small audience, the charges being dropped due to the backlash over the overwrought censorship laws in Australia. I've watched both films a couple of times. Kids is remarkable given a kid basically wrote it, but I never know how to feel about Harmony Korine's movies. (I still think of him as a kid and he's in his 40s now). Larry Clark has pervy eye - there are shots in Bully that are obscenely unnecessary. He seems to justify his films containing teenage sex as art but you can't trust this completely. However, ignoring that teenagers have sex, do drugs, run around at night and disobey their parents (be they ineffectual or oppressive) is a gross oversight on the viewer's part. It's ten o'clock, and yes your children are fucking their brains out, probably contracting illnesses due to poor sex ed practices, and are possibly even overdosing in bathtubs. They're probably down the skate park rolling joints and beating other kids with their skateboards. Kids was a wake up call style movie, and yes, the protracted rape scene in the end is very uncomfortable to watch considering the consequences being played out. Shot around the time the AIDS epidemic was still a major issue, where the misconception of it being a gay disease kept people complacent, Kids had a hell of a lot to say about the fact children weren't immune from this and covering their ears or turning a blind eye was a huge mistake. You're left with the opposing factors of Rosario Dawson's character being unsafe in her promiscuity and not getting infected, and Chloë Sevigny only having unprotected sex once with the shitty boy Lothario Telly, who's already carrying the virus and is running around town nailing virgins because it's his thing.(the irony with his character being he thinks sucking nitrous is dangerous). So then you're stuck in a "race against time" narrative before Telly hits up his next conquest and subjects her to the same fate. This thread keeps the film from being completely exploitative and shocking for the sake of it.
The major problem with Ken Park is the lengthy explicit scenes between the three main teens, and with the initial scenes between the bored housewife and one of the teens, Shawn, who's dating her teenage daughter. You're supposed to be shocked by the image of them sitting down to dinner with the oblivious husband and daughter, and neither party are caught out, but there's no other resolution to this story line other than you believe they'll keep the culprits will continue to sleep together until one of them (the housewife probably) gets bored. The boy is consenting to this but the wife is deciding to be irresponsible from her own dissatisfaction. You feel worse for Peaches, whose father is so obsessed with her deceased mother, he won't condone her giving her boyfriend a blowjob. Even after the physical and mental abuse he inflicts upon her, including forcing her through an ersatz marriage ceremony to him where she's wearing her mother's wedding gown, this doesn't keep her from continuing her sexual relationship with Shawn and Claude, the other main character of the film. None of them claim to be together romantically, they're wasting time because they live in a white trash town where some kid killed himself. Tate is the most broken kid in the film, who co-exists but doesn't interact with the other three teens. While his passive nature around the neighbourhood girls playing skip rope makes him appear innocuous, he's stuck in his own paraphilic tendencies which he doesn't apologise for, while tormenting his grandparents, whom he's living with, for invading his privacy and supposedly cheating on Scrabble. That last argument ends badly. Needless to say he's a sociopath and hardly deserving of any compassion for his disposition. Claude is bullied by his stepdad, his later actions prompting Claude to leave his apathetic and pregnant mother who hasn't defended him. No one wins in this film. The punchline may as well be you can either waste your time fucking and doing drugs or blow your brains out, like Ken Park does at the start of the film. I think the film had an agenda to paint a picture of lower income suburban towns where kids are destined for so little, like working grills at fast food joints or winding up pregnant. "We might as well grow up, be adults and die," as Veronica Sawyer opined to a generation of disaffected youths back in the 80s. (PS I won't be watching the TV show, by the way, even if Greg Araki directed two episodes - otherwise I'll be here ranting for days).
If I think of any other films, I'll let you know. But for now, take the comments above as fair warning you're walking into some tricky subject matter watching any of these films.
Sunday, 11 November 2018
The Bling Ring and taking me out of the movie
I keep going back to this movie with mixed to positive feelings coming out. I like the style of it revolving around the supposed Vanity Fair piece and the interviews of the culprits. The name changing was probably for legal reasons. But what I appreciated was the choosing of lesser known actors for some of the culprits' roles. And while Leslie Mann wasn't a no-name at the time of the filming, I didn't feel like her inclusion jarred me as much as the roles played by Emma Watson and Gavin Rossdale, the latter's acting being so profoundly poor by comparison to the kids around him that his familiarity isn't the biggest issue I have. But I won't go into that. I don't really understand why he was cast in the first place.
On the whole it's a pretty good film, it's constructed well as a timeline of events, beginning with a "how did they get here?" montage that doesn't feel hackneyed and ending with the publicity fallout and legal strife the Ring fell into. I particularly like Katie Chang's narcissistic Rebecca playing the ringleader role, she does falter a little to begin with but shines towards the end when the true attention seeking reasons for her crimes become apparent, along with her selfish compulsive lying. Israel Broussad was also a relative unknown who suited the notion of Marc being a shy gay boy who is seduced by Rebecca's magnetic and crazy personality while glossing over the real life counterpart's drug history and vague involvement in movies. Claire Julien and Tarissa Farmiga were probably the most convincing in their roles of bored ring members who are as callous and unconcerned as Rebecca but are happy to tag along on the sprees as a response to their ennui and dissatisfaction with their already rebellious lifestyles.
But it's Emma Watson's role of film drawcard as Nicki Moore, the famewhore of the group whose real life counterpart used the scandal for personal gain. Her rather desperate attempt to be convincing at a Valley Girl off the back of her PotterFame doesn't quite make it there for me. She sticks out like a sore thumb, and I imagine the weave was meant to look trashy, but it turned her character into the most try-hard among the ensemble. If she was going for intolerable, she nailed it. She doesn't seek to gain audience sympathy, she's probably as bad as Rebecca, but she dominates the second half of the film when the narrative centres around Marc as our entry point into the conception of the Bling Ring. Watson doesn't sell it for me, she almost gets there a few times, yet her next scene blows that up and I'm back to being frustrated with her. I don't find her to be a terribly good actress in all honesty. She can pull of the spoiled brat who convinces everyone around her somehow she's the victim in that she "attracted" these people into her life and has a lesson to learn from this, her disingenuous bullshit is definitely hard to swallow. Just her performance keeps falling short.
The "stars" of the film are the victims, but when you realise they were all living in the hills with open doors and easy access to their shit, you can't feel sorry for them. Paris Hilton really tried to milk sympathy, and look gracious by allowing Coppola to film in her mansion for the sake of authenticity and to have five minutes on screen in one of the club scenes. I felt a twinge for her when she stated the Ring stole something of her grandmother's which was irreplaceable, but the fact remains she has an excess of shit and was stupid enough to allow these repeated robberies to occur. The film doesn't present us with anything close to an opposing or even positive viewpoint of Hilton. You come out feeling little to no sympathy for her or the other victims because they're filthy rich and can afford to replace all their shit even without the insurance that shouldn't have paid out for them having easy access to their shit in the first place. There are "civilians" being robbed initially, but again it's people with big houses and unlocked doors and cars. You're not encouraged to like any of the characters or real life celebrities, besides Marc, who's essentially betrayed by Rebecca and is the softest and kindest member of the Ring who was just looking for social acceptance.
It's a beautifully presented film about excess and irresponsibility that you can use as a vicarious window into each robbery. It's a ride you're on until shit gets uncomfortable. But the moments of poignancy, like when Marc asks Rebecca if she'd ever rob him, aren't conveyed well enough to be thought provoking. The car crashes are convincing and the tension mounts in the right places, but it's an imperfect piece probably not up to Coppola's standards. Definitely check it out though.
On the whole it's a pretty good film, it's constructed well as a timeline of events, beginning with a "how did they get here?" montage that doesn't feel hackneyed and ending with the publicity fallout and legal strife the Ring fell into. I particularly like Katie Chang's narcissistic Rebecca playing the ringleader role, she does falter a little to begin with but shines towards the end when the true attention seeking reasons for her crimes become apparent, along with her selfish compulsive lying. Israel Broussad was also a relative unknown who suited the notion of Marc being a shy gay boy who is seduced by Rebecca's magnetic and crazy personality while glossing over the real life counterpart's drug history and vague involvement in movies. Claire Julien and Tarissa Farmiga were probably the most convincing in their roles of bored ring members who are as callous and unconcerned as Rebecca but are happy to tag along on the sprees as a response to their ennui and dissatisfaction with their already rebellious lifestyles.
But it's Emma Watson's role of film drawcard as Nicki Moore, the famewhore of the group whose real life counterpart used the scandal for personal gain. Her rather desperate attempt to be convincing at a Valley Girl off the back of her PotterFame doesn't quite make it there for me. She sticks out like a sore thumb, and I imagine the weave was meant to look trashy, but it turned her character into the most try-hard among the ensemble. If she was going for intolerable, she nailed it. She doesn't seek to gain audience sympathy, she's probably as bad as Rebecca, but she dominates the second half of the film when the narrative centres around Marc as our entry point into the conception of the Bling Ring. Watson doesn't sell it for me, she almost gets there a few times, yet her next scene blows that up and I'm back to being frustrated with her. I don't find her to be a terribly good actress in all honesty. She can pull of the spoiled brat who convinces everyone around her somehow she's the victim in that she "attracted" these people into her life and has a lesson to learn from this, her disingenuous bullshit is definitely hard to swallow. Just her performance keeps falling short.
The "stars" of the film are the victims, but when you realise they were all living in the hills with open doors and easy access to their shit, you can't feel sorry for them. Paris Hilton really tried to milk sympathy, and look gracious by allowing Coppola to film in her mansion for the sake of authenticity and to have five minutes on screen in one of the club scenes. I felt a twinge for her when she stated the Ring stole something of her grandmother's which was irreplaceable, but the fact remains she has an excess of shit and was stupid enough to allow these repeated robberies to occur. The film doesn't present us with anything close to an opposing or even positive viewpoint of Hilton. You come out feeling little to no sympathy for her or the other victims because they're filthy rich and can afford to replace all their shit even without the insurance that shouldn't have paid out for them having easy access to their shit in the first place. There are "civilians" being robbed initially, but again it's people with big houses and unlocked doors and cars. You're not encouraged to like any of the characters or real life celebrities, besides Marc, who's essentially betrayed by Rebecca and is the softest and kindest member of the Ring who was just looking for social acceptance.
It's a beautifully presented film about excess and irresponsibility that you can use as a vicarious window into each robbery. It's a ride you're on until shit gets uncomfortable. But the moments of poignancy, like when Marc asks Rebecca if she'd ever rob him, aren't conveyed well enough to be thought provoking. The car crashes are convincing and the tension mounts in the right places, but it's an imperfect piece probably not up to Coppola's standards. Definitely check it out though.
Thursday, 8 November 2018
If your trailer...
- Makes me cringe
- Fails to make me laugh
- Fails to move me or interest me
- Includes mentions of anything I've come to despise
- Contains spoilers, either in regards to plot, theme or allegory
- is basically a full synopsis that reveals most of the movie or leaves me able to guess the ending.
Wednesday, 7 November 2018
That Thing You Do Does Everything to Me.
I could come here and trash movies but I think most reviewers like to stop and look at a film they love unconditionally or unironically. It's usually something woefully underrated that didn't get the recognition it deserved. It wasn't successful here, I found a lot of people haven't heard of it, including a particular host of a morning music variety show who didn't know it when John Flansburgh of They Might Be Giants brought it up, but it's still an amazing and well-made film.
I'm talking about That Thing You Do, and to call this a guilty pleasure would be an insult. It's a genuinely good movie worthy of the praise it's received, whereas a guilty pleasure would infer it shouldn't be loved as much as you love it. But everyone should love this film, because it's that lovable.
I have the extended cut on DVD now which I've yet to watch, I'm saving it for a day I'm really in the mood. But if you want wall to wall feel-good without the massive cringe factor of most romantic comedies, if you still want a touch of drama and realism thrown in, and you want a genuinely good story, it's all right here. You're missing out.
Aesthetically it's a little polished for a movie set in the 60s, most movies from the 90s set in this period are a little too colourful but no less convincing, (see Matinee, another film of a similar bent and style that went horribly underrated and missed. It's delightful but not as fun as That Thing You Do). Tom Hanks took to directing this, I believe as his debut as director and he also wrote the screenplay, and he nails the pushy but benevolent manager Mr White, who adopts the Oneders and tells them to go with the Wonders since everyone's pronouncing it O-Needers, which is a great running gag.
Liv Tyler and Charlize Theron both have that amazing timeless look that make them perfect for their roles as Guy's respective love interest (Faye) and current girlfriend (Tina) who's a little bored with him and eventually leaves him for her hunky dentist. The love story is subtle, with our hero Guy not in competition with Jimmy for Faye, he simply respects her as his friend's girl, while Jimmy doesn't appreciate her at all. We don't see Guy and Jimmy coming to blows over Faye, she simply realises who her right guy is (pun intended), but also distances herself from Jimmy with her own bold statement, Guy doesn't have to intervene to rescue her.
Ethan Embry and Steve Zahn give the best comic relief moments as TB Player (the Base Player - a joke I hadn't picked up on) and Lenny, both of them wanting fame but never taking it as seriously as Jimmy. They're along for the ride while Jimmy wants a career as a real musician, and Guy's sort of aimless but loving the experience of being famous, if only for a moment. Capturing the very essence of the one hit wonder bands who just disappeared, the bands you always ended asking, "What ever happened to...?" that's the very self-aware punchline of the film, That Thing You Do is probably one of the only films to explore this story line and still have well developed, convincing characters who aren't hamming it up. You're on the road with them and invested in their arcs, you're reveling in each new step to the top of the charts. Somehow they also wrote a title song that never grows old, possibly because it starts as a ballad and turns into a pop song so you're not overexposed, and you're still into it by the final big performance. There's a break where they play the b-side, which is also fantastic and fun, and we spend time with the band in their infancy, Jimmy wanting to perfect their slow, thoughtful sound without realising he's written a fantastic upbeat pop song until Guy mischievously ups the tempo for their first live performance. Jimmy walks out of this the definite antagonist, you're not on his side and his arrogance is captured masterfully by Johnathon Schaech who's always had a knack for sinister or unlikable characters. Guy's fresh-faced, boy next door polar opposite comes from Tom Everett Scott, and he's so convincing as an oblivious nice guy who can't even see when a beautiful cocktail waitress is interested in him because of his fanboy moment with Del Paxton, his musical idol. He's sweet to Faye without expectation, and happy to be the backbeat of the band on drums, but also not letting the "Shades" persona Mr White places on him go to his head. And he's quite clearly the one the girls are crazy about, not Jimmy, the lead.
The most joyous moment is the radio scene, I challenge you not to crack a smile from their childlike hysteria hearing the band on the airwaves for the first time. The song would've been a hit in the day, but it was still cleverly written with a mass-market appeal for the 90s as well, Fountains of Wayne's bassist responsible for the track while apparently not expecting it to be chosen for the film. If you're a Beatles fan, this is just wall to wall references based on Hanks coming up with the idea from Pete Best being fired. I know next to nothing about the Beatles despite having a family member who's a fan. So I can't understand how this film wasn't more popular at the time. The narrative is structured in a sequence of events with underlying tensions arising from random events like the band having to pose as an in-movie jazz band, to the chagrin of Jimmy, or the random radio interviews that leave them open for moments of comedy while proving how innocent and out of their depth they are in the limelight. It doesn't slow down once the momentum to the top starts, and the sudden drop just hours after the peak is believable considering the theme of the film.
It's hard to find much fault with this film, hence the 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. It's inoffensive even with the light course language. It'd be a great date movie, there's fun to be had and so much heart to keep it compelling without going overboard into schmaltz. Apparently the extended edition has more character developments and insight into the relationships, Guy and Faye's attraction is a little more fleshed out, however I kind of like the obliviousness you get from not seeing them flirt, that you're waiting for the guardian angel bellhop to turn the light bulbs on so the pair don't miss out on their moment. I'll revise this once I've seen it, but for now, please go check this movie out and tell me I'm wrong. If you're not even mildly entertained by this, you've got no soul.
As an addition to this, I finally got around to watching the extended cut and it's really a detriment to the snappy pacing. I think the additional stuff with Guy at the end is a nice touch considering you think he kinda gets shafted by the whole thing but I prefer the kinda sombre but he still gets the girl conclusion. The extra stuff with Tina is cute but it ending with her fawning over the dentist and giving up on Guy is enough. There's more about White but them shoehorning a gay partner in there doesn't really add as much as you'd think. Otherwise the extra stuff with Fay and Guy still needs trimming. I think keeping the flirting in is fine but the part with him hitting the bumper is redundant. There's a back and forth over the song not getting radio play but it not being there doesn't remove the excitement of them getting played. There's just more to the scenes and montages but it really slows it all down, which is a shame. I don't think I'd personally ever watch this version again, I was ignoring it more because of the pacing. The first manager has more involvement, White gets snubbed when there's an alternate version to the band being signed pushed to the press. It's just dialogue you can tell doesn't have to be there. Even the lead up to their first big stage performance takes way too long. You could keep some of it but I'd still be trimming it way down. I think the length in this case lends to a drama with comedic moments where chopping it down makes it a comedy with dramatic moments.
I'm talking about That Thing You Do, and to call this a guilty pleasure would be an insult. It's a genuinely good movie worthy of the praise it's received, whereas a guilty pleasure would infer it shouldn't be loved as much as you love it. But everyone should love this film, because it's that lovable.
I have the extended cut on DVD now which I've yet to watch, I'm saving it for a day I'm really in the mood. But if you want wall to wall feel-good without the massive cringe factor of most romantic comedies, if you still want a touch of drama and realism thrown in, and you want a genuinely good story, it's all right here. You're missing out.
Aesthetically it's a little polished for a movie set in the 60s, most movies from the 90s set in this period are a little too colourful but no less convincing, (see Matinee, another film of a similar bent and style that went horribly underrated and missed. It's delightful but not as fun as That Thing You Do). Tom Hanks took to directing this, I believe as his debut as director and he also wrote the screenplay, and he nails the pushy but benevolent manager Mr White, who adopts the Oneders and tells them to go with the Wonders since everyone's pronouncing it O-Needers, which is a great running gag.
Liv Tyler and Charlize Theron both have that amazing timeless look that make them perfect for their roles as Guy's respective love interest (Faye) and current girlfriend (Tina) who's a little bored with him and eventually leaves him for her hunky dentist. The love story is subtle, with our hero Guy not in competition with Jimmy for Faye, he simply respects her as his friend's girl, while Jimmy doesn't appreciate her at all. We don't see Guy and Jimmy coming to blows over Faye, she simply realises who her right guy is (pun intended), but also distances herself from Jimmy with her own bold statement, Guy doesn't have to intervene to rescue her.
Ethan Embry and Steve Zahn give the best comic relief moments as TB Player (the Base Player - a joke I hadn't picked up on) and Lenny, both of them wanting fame but never taking it as seriously as Jimmy. They're along for the ride while Jimmy wants a career as a real musician, and Guy's sort of aimless but loving the experience of being famous, if only for a moment. Capturing the very essence of the one hit wonder bands who just disappeared, the bands you always ended asking, "What ever happened to...?" that's the very self-aware punchline of the film, That Thing You Do is probably one of the only films to explore this story line and still have well developed, convincing characters who aren't hamming it up. You're on the road with them and invested in their arcs, you're reveling in each new step to the top of the charts. Somehow they also wrote a title song that never grows old, possibly because it starts as a ballad and turns into a pop song so you're not overexposed, and you're still into it by the final big performance. There's a break where they play the b-side, which is also fantastic and fun, and we spend time with the band in their infancy, Jimmy wanting to perfect their slow, thoughtful sound without realising he's written a fantastic upbeat pop song until Guy mischievously ups the tempo for their first live performance. Jimmy walks out of this the definite antagonist, you're not on his side and his arrogance is captured masterfully by Johnathon Schaech who's always had a knack for sinister or unlikable characters. Guy's fresh-faced, boy next door polar opposite comes from Tom Everett Scott, and he's so convincing as an oblivious nice guy who can't even see when a beautiful cocktail waitress is interested in him because of his fanboy moment with Del Paxton, his musical idol. He's sweet to Faye without expectation, and happy to be the backbeat of the band on drums, but also not letting the "Shades" persona Mr White places on him go to his head. And he's quite clearly the one the girls are crazy about, not Jimmy, the lead.
The most joyous moment is the radio scene, I challenge you not to crack a smile from their childlike hysteria hearing the band on the airwaves for the first time. The song would've been a hit in the day, but it was still cleverly written with a mass-market appeal for the 90s as well, Fountains of Wayne's bassist responsible for the track while apparently not expecting it to be chosen for the film. If you're a Beatles fan, this is just wall to wall references based on Hanks coming up with the idea from Pete Best being fired. I know next to nothing about the Beatles despite having a family member who's a fan. So I can't understand how this film wasn't more popular at the time. The narrative is structured in a sequence of events with underlying tensions arising from random events like the band having to pose as an in-movie jazz band, to the chagrin of Jimmy, or the random radio interviews that leave them open for moments of comedy while proving how innocent and out of their depth they are in the limelight. It doesn't slow down once the momentum to the top starts, and the sudden drop just hours after the peak is believable considering the theme of the film.
It's hard to find much fault with this film, hence the 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. It's inoffensive even with the light course language. It'd be a great date movie, there's fun to be had and so much heart to keep it compelling without going overboard into schmaltz. Apparently the extended edition has more character developments and insight into the relationships, Guy and Faye's attraction is a little more fleshed out, however I kind of like the obliviousness you get from not seeing them flirt, that you're waiting for the guardian angel bellhop to turn the light bulbs on so the pair don't miss out on their moment. I'll revise this once I've seen it, but for now, please go check this movie out and tell me I'm wrong. If you're not even mildly entertained by this, you've got no soul.
As an addition to this, I finally got around to watching the extended cut and it's really a detriment to the snappy pacing. I think the additional stuff with Guy at the end is a nice touch considering you think he kinda gets shafted by the whole thing but I prefer the kinda sombre but he still gets the girl conclusion. The extra stuff with Tina is cute but it ending with her fawning over the dentist and giving up on Guy is enough. There's more about White but them shoehorning a gay partner in there doesn't really add as much as you'd think. Otherwise the extra stuff with Fay and Guy still needs trimming. I think keeping the flirting in is fine but the part with him hitting the bumper is redundant. There's a back and forth over the song not getting radio play but it not being there doesn't remove the excitement of them getting played. There's just more to the scenes and montages but it really slows it all down, which is a shame. I don't think I'd personally ever watch this version again, I was ignoring it more because of the pacing. The first manager has more involvement, White gets snubbed when there's an alternate version to the band being signed pushed to the press. It's just dialogue you can tell doesn't have to be there. Even the lead up to their first big stage performance takes way too long. You could keep some of it but I'd still be trimming it way down. I think the length in this case lends to a drama with comedic moments where chopping it down makes it a comedy with dramatic moments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)