Review: "Southland Tales"

[The original script] was more about making fun of Hollywood. But now it's about, I hope, creating a piece of science fiction that's about a really important problem we're facing, about civil liberties and homeland security and needing to sustain both those things and balance them.

a tapestry of ideas all related to some of the biggest issues that I think we're facing right now . . . alternative fuel or the increasing obsession with celebrity and how celebrity now intertwines with politics.

[Southland Tales] will only be a musical in a post-modern sense of the word in that it is a hybrid of several genres. There will be some dancing and singing, but it will be incorporated into the story in very logical scenarios as well as fantasy dream environments.

                                                                                               - Richard Kelly

The director of "Donnie Darko" certainly can't be called someone with a lack of vision. But, what exactly are his eyes trained on? And, is he seeing the world through a kaleidoscope?

Southland Tales (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When I first read the synopsis for "Southland Tales", I got really excited with what could've potentially been the best comedy since "Dr. Strangelove". Basically, the epicenter of the end of days is Hollywood and our hero is an amnesiac action star trying to get a screenplay that he co wrote with a porn star made. This could've been SO much fun.

Instead, what I (and the studio) got was the equivalent of witnessing a first year film student burning money in a trashcan for over 2 hours.

I should note that even though I own this movie on DVD, I am not re watching it for this review. Instead, I'll be going on memory - sad, frustrated, disappointed memory:

A few years after a nuclear attack on Texas, the U.S. has become a full blown police state, keeping it's citizens under constant surveillance. Yet, this invasion of privacy is unable to track the most famous movie star in the world (who walks around in broad daylight), who has been shacked up with a porn star, who has ties with an underground organization bent on overthrowing the government, who also has vague ties with a mad scientist that has created a new energy, which may also be responsible for a rip in the fabric of space time, which threatens to...

...convolute everything. Man, was it hard to sit through this. Kelly crafted such an awesome story in "Donnie Darko", I thought he could pull it off in his second time out. That film - though with a smaller budget - similarly dealt with very unique personalities part of a larger story. Both stories are about mysterious situations and how the characters weave in and out of them. But, where DD succeeded, ST failed miserably. It lacked a certain focus, and seemed to confuse ambiguity with brilliance.

You know the phrase "your eyes are bigger than your stomach" in reference to a kid who can't finish his meal? That sums up this production. The ambitions are grand - taking on such political and even religious themes - but it's handled as if it'll just work itself out in the end. With a budget under $20 million and some higher profile stars to deal with, I suspect that Kelly was too busy carrying everything on his shoulders, that he let some important things fall to the wayside. What a shame.

This is the only explanation that makes sense to me. His feature after this one was "The Box", which was pretty entertaining and weird. And "Domino" - which he only wrote - was constructed very well despite it's big story. So, Kelly is certainly capable of excellent work, he just was in over his head a bit.

I've read in interviews that he's quite proud of "Southland Tales". No, for real. Hopefully, it's because he learned something from the experience. If not, then he's just lying to us and himself.

This review was requested by a friend on my blog's facebook page (look to the right of this page). If you have anything you'd like me to watch and criticize, feel free to suggest something. And if Richard Kelly happens to be reading this, please take no offense - I honestly can't wait for your next movie.

1/5 *'s

Review: "Wrecked"

Wrecked (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do you remember the end of the movie "Snake Eyes", and the condition of Nicolas Cage's character? He was limping, bruised, bleeding and a bit hysterical (of course). Wasn't that cool? Now, imagine that a near unknown independent feature comes along, with little to no dialogue, just one main setting, and an actor that has to START the movie from where Cage ended the one listed above. Oh, and the actor is Adrien Brody. How much would that rock?

Luckily, someone already imagined it. In "Wrecked", Adrien Brody plays a man with no name, who wakes up in a crashed car in a forest. A few dead bodies surround the area, making him the only known survivor. His leg is broken and trapped, his face is cut up and heavily bruised and he is scared shitless. Remember, this is the beginning of the film.

Throughout the next 90 minutes, we witness Brody (who I explained in an earlier post is a sex symbol) cry, piss on himself, hallucinate, crawl through the woods and make friends with a dog. Slowly, through flashbacks and some evidence on the ground, we get the idea that he was somehow involved in a bank robbery - but he has more pressing matters to deal with; finding help and staying sane.

As an oscar winner, Brody ought to be choosing cushy roles - the kind that guarantee large paydays and maybe critical acclaim. Instead, he fucks a genetic hybrid ("Splice"), kills alien hunters ("Predators"), portrays Salvador Dali ("Midnight in Paris") and stars as Psycho Ed ("High School"). When he picks a role, it must be because it sounds fun.

And, you know what, watching Brody grunt for an entire movie IS fun.

Holding this movie back are the flashbacks and the ending. It would've been much better to have seen Adrien not remember ANYTHING, and just watch his character struggle with a broken/infected leg, trying to survive another day. Instead, we find out exactly how he ended up in the accident, what the hallucinations meant and that it was all some weird PSA for seat belts.

What was the point of all of this? *Spoilers* Brody was a hostage who caused the accident to get away from the robbers, and the hallucination was his wife, who we thought was a representation of guilt or something (which he shoots at one point). Was this just about survival? A guy loots the car at one point, and is later found dead in a cave - what happened and what did that mean?

I think this was all just an excuse to watch Adrien Brody do a mix of "127 Hours" and "Cast Away", minus the dialogue and hope. A new genre called Brody-sploitation has been created, and for that, I thank the filmmakers. Oh, and Adrien Brody, of course.

3/5 *'s

Solo Thoughts Episode 2

Adrien Brody, bruised and bleeding, pees on himself? I HAVE to stop the movie to talk about it...

A full written review to follow.

He Said, I Said Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

 

The first images we see are of the bat symbol being formed out of cracks in ice. No, it's not a hint at a Mr. Freeze appearance, but a summation of the story to come; about people on 'thin ice', falling through, but ready to rise to the surface. And, if anybody can rise when needed, it's Batman.

Yes, I very much liked "The Dark Knight Rises". Let's see what fellow #TeamNOLAFilm guest Mike Scott thinks:

By the time the film finally gets down to business in its soaring third act, it does, indeed, rise to the occasion, as Nolan crafts a fitting and exhilarating ending to what will be remembered as one of the best trilogies in Hollywood history.

For the most part, I agree. I didn't get to see this in IMAX, but I suspect I would've been blown away by the final 30 minutes of footage. I'm not sure how this stacks up with a Trilogy like, for instance, The Original "Star Wars" Trilogy, but this series is certainly up there.

For much of the bloated two hours that precede that final act, however, this "Dark Knight" doesn't rise as much as it flounders and frustrates, in what would appear to be a case of a filmmaker prioritizing ego over efficiency, and engaging in generally muddled storytelling.

...you mean you DIDN'T FULLY LIKE IT!?

No worries. After my first viewing, I too felt that the first act was paced wrong, and featured more characters and details than needed, which kinda pulled me out of the story. But, come the second viewing, everything cleared up. Not exactly sure why, but issues like editing choices, pacing and even amount of characters seemed to fit better and didn't bother me at all. I suggest giving it another shot.

That should by no means be seen as an indictment of the rich emotional layers Nolan has woven into the story since embarking on it with 2005's "Batman Begins." In his hands, this trilogy has become far more than your standard summertime blockbuster. This is Batman as metaphor, with Nolan elevating superhero myth-building to an art form rather than using it as a cheesy, breezy vehicle for, say, a tights-wearing Adam West or a nipplesuit-wearing George Clooney.

Indeed. For me, whatever negative the film has are vastly outweighed by the positives, which would be the characters and their conflicts. We get to see - and more importantly feel - the emotional turmoil facing Bruce and those around him. What I love about this movie in particular is how the turmoil brought upon Gotham by Bane can be partially blamed on Bruce and Commissioner Gordon; what started as a tragic lie to protect the city became the foundation for it's near demise. Their actions from the previous film have major consequences, and it's great to see them acknowledge and deal with it head on. 

Aint nothing wrong with good old' Adam West, btw.

As successful and bar-raising as "Dark Knight" was, and as hot a property as Nolan has become, I would suspect few people have earned the right to bluntly inform him during production when they thought he might be approaching that fine line separating art and self-indulgence.

Back to the ego thing, huh?

The big action sequences and grand scope was what helped this film differentiate itself from the previous movie, and the shadow of Heath Ledger's Joker; how do you top that? By putting a major city under siege. By giving us something rarely seen in a big Hollywood Superhero flick. Nolan is no Michael "Hey - let's put an explosion here and a racist joke here, and repeat for an hour" Bay, but perhaps it's a good thing that his series is over now. Maybe the reboot will be a smaller story involving Batman just fighting a crime syndicate, or something. Because the only way to top "The Dark Knight Rises" would be for Batman to fight Predator (which would be cool, I have to admit).

Nolan is a visionary filmmaker, and his smart, stylish and brooding treatment of the comics-inspired tale -- particularly in the film's third-act payoff -- transcends the genre.
The preceding two-thirds of the film feel bloated and often self-indulgent.

The final chapter in the Nolanverse Batman series is a thrilling, emotional and even thought provoking spectacle. Don't miss the forest for the trees by letting the small problems hinder your experience.

5/5 *'s

Only the 2nd on these reviews, and I'm really starting to like it. Maybe one day, Mike and I could do one for NOLA.com :)