Southland Tales

Ever watch a movie late at night, when you're really tired, and find yourself utterly clueless what is going on in the movie because you're dozing off for several seconds every few minutes? This was my experience watching Southland Tales, except it wasn't that late, and I was wide awake every second. Yet still I kept feeling like I'd missed something.

The structure is a complete mess. It has the feel of a movie that was much longer until the studio or distributor forced some edits for a decent running time. Within the story's timeline, days seem to pass while some characters do nothing but drive from one place to another, never leaving the city...yet other characters manage to traverse citywide distances in almost no time at all, from one scene to the next. Some characters are unconscious until the plot requires them to wake up, whether it's a few minutes or several hours, while others never seem to eat or sleep or even leave their rooms. I know the movie is supposed to have an otherworldly quality to it, and the nature of our known existence may not always apply, but still...even an alternate reality has to have structural integrity - rules of its own - which is not being upheld here. It's a big ol' convoluted mess.

I am a fan of Donnie Darko, more so the director's cut, and I use that as an example of Richard Kelly's ability to set up alternate realities, with different rules from our own, and abide by them. He doesn't do that here. He's attempted something so big and so far-reaching that he can't contain it within this movie. I suppose that's why there are three graphic novels leading up to the events of the movie, but guess what - if the movie doesn't make sense on its own, it isn't a good movie. If I don't know what the movie's about after thirty-five minutes, the filmmakers have done a poor job of telling the story.

For you Southland fans out there, please don't try to tell me I wasn't paying attention, or it's a movie you have to think about, or it was just over my head - I'm a pretty smart guy, and I've seen a lot of movies. I get that it's meant to be political satire in the realm of science fiction. I get that it's a story about things that don't always make sense and therefore it's not always going to make sense. Donnie Darko did the same thing, with psychological issues instead of political issues, and that movie makes perfect sense to me. The difference is in the storytelling, and the story is not being told here as much as it is merely being referenced...as if the movie is made for people who are already fans of, and therefore familiar with, the Southland universe.

I believe it is clear to me what Richard Kelly is attempting to do - it's just not working. He's trying to make a satire, a comedy, by casting mostly comic actors and having them play their roles seriously. But the movie isn't funny. The tone is not funny, or odd, or comedic or sarcastic in any way. It's a bit full of itself, but accomplishes nothing more than making the apparently serious not so serious. The cast is diverse and interesting, including five SNL cast members, one from MADtv, and even Christopher Lambert! What purpose their characters serve in the story, however...I have no idea. I will give Seann William Scott a lot of credit, for turning in a very interesting and more dramatic performance than he usually provides, because he's typically a comic actor in a comic film, and it's nice to see that he's capable of more. Too bad the movie itself doesn't support him.

There's a voice over narration from Justin Timberlake that feels useless and tacked on, a long music video right in the middle of the movie that serves no real purpose, many sequences that go on and on and do nothing but establish mood that doesn't relate to the story in any recognizable way...no real beginning, anti-climactic ending, and two, yes TWO separate third act instances of the jesus christ pose, which is such a pretentious and cliched image to put in your movie, at least when you're so obvious about it, that all I can do is scoff at what a dumb idea it was. And they did it twice.

Hopefully this is one of those things where a writer/director makes a popular, respected movie his first time out, totally craps a big one on the second film, then gets his act together for the third. So I will be looking forward to The Box next year, though I must point out that in adapting a story by the legendary Richard Matheson, Kelly has a lot going for his third film out of the gate - less to prove, more to start with, and a better chance of being able to simply focus on making a good film instead of "doing his thing".

Southland Tales is a big stinking mess. I get it, but I don't like it. The movie isn't whole enough to be appreciated. People who like it may be fooling themselves into thinking confusing means thoughtful, that weird and different is always good and better. Not so. Just watch the director's cut of Donnie Darko again. That's what a weird movie with true depth should be like, and the more I watch it, the more I appreciate it.

Oh, and, Earth to Netflix: the film is not 1 hour 40 minutes, nor 140 minutes; it's actually longer than that. And The Rock is not is this movie. Dwayne Johnson is, but The Rock receives no credit. Get your facts straight, please.

Cult Favorites

Yes, I'm finally getting around to this. I've been busy writing and working and studying and earning A's in all my classes; that's right! And I decided it's wrong to call these classics, because none of these movies are what I'd truly term classical in any sense. But they're definitely favorites just outside the mainstream, and that gives them a certain clout - a respect, for the half-assed brilliance they exhibit. For their unique oddness, for the oddity of their uniqueness. They're different but familiar. And they're my friggin' choices, so, there's possibly some kind of theme buried within the subtext here. I tend to do that. I also tend to put things in some kind of order, so here's the chronological:

Midnight Madness
It's goofy, it's silly, it's corny, it's part of the bridge from 70's punk to 80's pop...okay not so much the latter, but come on! Co-starring Michael J. Fox as a teenager, when he actually still was one! David Naughton post-Dr. Pepper and pre-American Werewolf! Stephen Furst as a villain instead of the sap from Animal House! Eddie Deezen & Paul Reubens in the same movie!! It's been spoofed on Robot Chicken, for Leon's sake! If you were born in the 60's or 70's, check it out. It'll take you back.

A Muppet Family Christmas
Okay, so it's a t.v. special, not a movie. So what. It has two important qualities that make it a cult favorite: it's a one-shot deal that combines & crosses over previously set boundaries of fictional realms defined by its own creators, and, it's unavailable in its original form. First, Jim Henson was still alive, so the show has all the magic (and voices) that made the Muppets what they were. Second, the show has characters from different parts of the Muppet universe that had never interacted before, and I don't believe they have since, for the most part - folks from the Muppet Show & Sesame Street, all in the same place? There'd been some crossover there before, but not like this...even the Muppet Babies put in an appearance. And the Fraggles turn up! Do you have any idea how weird that is? It's freakin' awesome, okay? Fraggles rock!

It's no longer available in its original form because, I believe, they don't have the rights to some of the songs, so the current video & DVD releases are missing some scenes, and otherwise edited. Also, Disney owns Henson productions, or at least some of the distribution rights, and they're always chopping things up to suit whatever stupid crappy concept they have for it. They suck. The good news is, there are still old recordings and VHS copies of the original special, and while I'm not lucky enough to own one, I would certainly recommend tracking it down if you have the means. Or you could always buy it for me.

UHF
I'm one of the dozen or so people who actually saw this during its ludicrously brief theatrical release in the summer of 1989. And it only cost $1 - back when there were second-run theaters, this could happen! Totally worth it. It was funny then and it's funny now. It's not the most eloquent of films, and the production values are often laughable, though sometimes this is intentional...a good farcical parody (or parodic farce) is hard to find, you know? It's going to be cheesy and cheap if it's going to be good. Look at all the junk they're churning out these days - Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Scary Movie 3...I think it's mainly the same group of guys (you know it's guys; women don't produce this kind of work) pooping them out, stinking up the cinematic landscape. Weird Al is a genius god next to these losers. Even Michael Richards was still talented back then - if there's an Oscar equivalent for playing a dumbass goofball, he earned it here.

Freaked
Not a very widely known film, but that's what makes it a cult favorite. If you ever wondered what happened to Alex Winter, widely recognized as Bill S Preston Esq. of Bill & Ted...well, this movie pretty much tells that story - he turned into a hideous mutated freak and moved behind the camera. It has those same qualities as UHF that make it fun - cheap and cheesy, with good comic timing. Randy Quaid as an evil madman! Keanu Reeves as an uncredited Dog-Boy! A cameo by David Bowe from UHF! Shakespeare with monsters! A movie doesn't always have to be good to be good, if you know what I mean...as long as it isn't lousy.

S.F.W.
This movie is a product of its time - I'm not sure people really get it anymore. Folks of a certain generation will recognize the discontent complacency, the desire to change one's life without making an effort...I know these are contradictory sentiments, but that's what it does. It shows how meaningless life can feel, as if all anyone could do is go along for the ride, whatever the ride is. The movie reflects this, the music reflects this, and Stephen Dorff's performance says it all. He exists, but he's not doing anything about it.

I wouldn't say anything in this movie is brilliant, exactly, but it certainly captures the essence of its own story, by making it a semi-comic satire of the world around it, and within it. Besides, it's got a young Reese Witherspoon...the "fuckin' special" version of Radiohead's first big hit 'Creep'...Jake Busey as a douchebag! You can't go wrong, if you look at it right.


I left out things like Creepshow & Killer Klowns From Outer Space because...well, I've talked about those before, and they're more widely accepted for being what they are, or more well known, or something. I just didn't want to, okay? And no promises this time regarding my next topic, or its expected date of publishment. I does what I does and we'll sees what that is. Thanks for reading!

The Mist

Okay, so I haven't written anything for a while. I've been busy. And I have seen a few movies since Michael Clayton, but not much that really warranted reviewing, and nothing I had time for. While I have not forgotten about my intended Cult Classics post, it's just going to have to wait. Because I really want to point out how much I hate The Mist.

I heard good things about it. It got decent reviews. They said it was a quality B-movie, suspenseful, creepy...I was totally up for that. I was even willing to give Frank Darabont a chance to prove he might actually be capable of becoming a quality writer/director. Yes, I am one of those people who hates The Shawshank Redemption, because it has some good qualities but is overwritten and overdirected and is possibly the most overrated movie I've ever seen; even the word "overrated" doesn't have quite enough hyperbole for me. But we're talking about The Mist, and since I made a point to put my negative opinion of Darabont aside in order to watch this movie, anyone who disagrees with me about his films in general should put their positive opinion aside and look at The Mist on its own terms. Doing that, I honestly don't know how anyone could even call it decent. It's truly awful.

There is no suspense. There are long drawn out periods in which people talk about bullshit and nothing happens; that's not suspense. Suspense is when there's a thick mist surrounding a full supermarket and nobody knows what's out there...this would be great but it doesn't last, because the first thing that really happens to anyone is when a giant tentacle grabs some idiot bag boy and drags him outside to the loading dock. Okay, so, now we know: there are monsters out there. Suspense over. This is very early in the story. Once you know that, it seems pretty clear: don't go outside. But some people don't believe there are monsters, and when those who've seen the tentacle finally get around to showing those who haven't, oh gee, it suddenly dissolves into a big puddle. How unfortunate. No wait, I mean, how fucking stupid.

That's just the first monster. Later there are cat-sized bugs, and eagle-sized bird/dragon things that eat the bugs. Then big spiders, then giant crab-thingies, and so on. Of course, these monsters are always hungry when people go outside, but never actually try to get into the supermarket. And the same monsters never come back, even after discovering a ready source of food. How convenient for the story, so it can continue introducing newer and bigger and scarier monsters without needing any motivation or plot progression to do so.

I don't even know what to say about the anti-religious aspect of the human conflict. And I'm not a big fan of religion, but if you take out the wacko religious nut character, then these people are doing absolutely nothing, and as it is all they do is talk talk talk talk talk and never act. Often they don't even react, and when they do, they do the stupidest thing possible. They notice all these big bugs landing on the window, so what do they do? Each and every person who is holding a lantern carries it over to the window to get a closer look at the bugs. Um, bugs are attracted to light, duh. One guy even says this, and so what happens after that? Some other guy flips on all their emergency floodlights they've set up around the store, after stating the floodlights are only for when something is in the store and they need these lights to see them. So once they realize oh, maybe we shouldn't have all these dozens of lights on for no reason, they still don't turn them off. They stand around, screaming, or just watching what's going on.

That's a big problem in this movie. Say there are half a dozen people in one scene, and if there are tentacles or bugs or spiders attacking one or two people, the rest of them aren't doing anything. They look on in horror or scream or something. Now I know some might defend this and call it human nature or lack of bravery or something, I mean yeah it's probably not an easy thing to do to put yourself in harm's way when there are giant spiders attacking someone you barely know, but...this is a movie. It's pretty damn boring to watch a bunch of people stand around watching something, then talk about it later for ten minutes. They need to do something! So many times in this movie, people don't run when any normal person would move his ass. They just stand there. Sometimes, they stand there screaming. Stop looking at the big spider and get the fuck out! Pacing is a big problem in the movie, because of things like this; it's nearly two hours when it could easily be twenty minutes shorter, and additionally, it never feels like the story is moving because none of the characters are moving! Literally, not moving! They stand there whenever something happens, instead of acting or reacting. This is simply bad direction.

These may seem like little things, like nitpicking, but these are the things that make bad storytelling. Characters and actions, monster or human or otherwise, need to be motivated. You don't create tension or suspense by not having a number of characters run when the audience is thinking it's time to leave...those characters have to have some kind of motivation not to run, something that outweighs their fear. Stupidity can outweigh fear, but you also have to motivate stupidity. You have to motivate everything, and you have to do it from inside the story, not out. You can't have one character accidentally knock over a bucket of lighter fluid and set himself on fire just because you want your movie to have a guy who gets burned very badly. You have to motivate the story element of the bucket being knocked over. He can't just walk into it, oops, now I'm on fire...that's fucking stupid.

All the characters are one-dimensional or less. Mostly less. The dialogue is bad. The acting is bad. The writing is bad. After the tentacles kill that one guy, everyone who witnessed it stands around talking about how they're going to tell everybody; half of them are drinking cans of beer (thank you product-placement team!) like buddies at a barbecue...why? That's easy - so the main guy who doesn't believe they saw a monster can say he doesn't believe them because they're drinking. Ooh, what a tough situation; how will they convince him now? It's fucking stupid. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself but there's no better way to put it.

I'd heard there was some controversy to the ending, in addition to some people calling it brilliant and others saying it was just wrong, and I honestly don't know what they're talking about - there is no ending. Yes, seriously. Nothing happens at the end. Call it a spoiler if you want, but, really, there's no point - five people get away in a car, then run out of gas while they're still in the mist, and the only thing they can think to do, the FIRST action they opt for, is to use their one gun and four bullets to kill themselves rather than let the monsters get them, or, say, I don't know, sit there and wait until they decide they need the bullets, or possibly even get out and walk and bring the gun with them in case they need it at some point. No, they immediately opt for one guy to shoot the other four, and now he feels bad because one of the four was his young son, and oops, suddenly the military shows up and the mist magically dissipates, oh golly, doesn't he feel like a sucker now for shooting his son in the face just a minute too soon. The only thing controversial about this is how anyone could think it was anything but totally fucking stupid.

So there is no ending, because once he kills these four people in the car, nothing happens. The military, who is supposedly responsible for causing all this in the first place, comes down the road with tanks and trucks and flamethrowers, though what they're actually doing, who the hell knows. And of course the mist is suddenly gone. Even though the mist itself had nothing to with anything, ever. The danger was the monsters, not the mist. The only point of the mist is that it hides the danger. That's where the suspense comes in. But we know almost right away that there are monsters out there. Well, if we know there are killer monsters, fuck the mist! It's the monsters that are scary! And there's no suspense. Poor, poor storytelling.

What's really scary is that Frank Darabont keeps making movies, and normally intelligent and respectable people not only let him, but actually praise him. It's insane, really, and while I'm usually content to politely and cheerfully disagree with people who have differing opinions in regards to film, I really don't know how anyone can watch this and not think it's incredibly fucking stupid. Yes, the unknown is suspenseful, and monsters can be terrifying, but these things are not played for their strengths in this awful, awful movie. The tone is all wrong, and the direction is horrible in the way these events are played out. The script's reliance on thoughtless religious zealotry is tired and simplistic and a poor excuse for revelation of character; no pun intended on that 'revelation' bit.

I would not have been surprised to find this movie less than brilliant, but I'm absolutely perplexed by the overall positive response that seems to exist out there. I mean, it's a really bad movie. Really really bad. I suppose because it isn't bad in the obvious, Battlefield Earth/Manos: The Hands Of Fate kind of way that some people still like it, but if you just look at it in terms of story and character, how the film is executed...it really is rather obvious, and I am surprised so many people think there's anything good about it. Just because a movie has quality elements doesn't mean it's a good movie. Eggs and flour and chocolate chips don't make good cookies unless you mix and bake them properly...Darabont keeps proving, time and time again, that he's a lousy baker.

For a good version of this type of story, the group-of-people-trapped-somewhere-with-unknown-scary-monsters-trying-to-get-them, check out Pitch Black. Strong performances, interesting characters, and cool monsters that don't disappear and show up whenever it suits the writing. Everyone has clear motivations they follow throughout, and that includes the creatures. Also, Vin Diesel before he was a joke! But please don't bother with the sequel.

Next time: Cult Classics! I swear I'll do it!