Have you ever wondered what a movie written by a blithering idiot Kerry supporter would be like? Look no further than Blue State.
John (Brekin Meyer) is an annoying political activist who promises to move to Canada if George W. Bush is reelected. When Bush wins, John is pressured to go. From such a worthwhile premise, we get an exceedingly terrible romantic "comedy" written and directed by Marshall Lewy.
John decides he needs a road buddy for his trip to Canada. No explanation is given, but this acts as a setup for the romantic part of the romantic comedy. John places an ad, and then we get the usual scene of interviewing prospective trip-mates. As even any mildly retarded viewer would expect, there is something weird about each of the people John interviews. This is supposed to be funny. It's not. The writing sucks. And we've seen this hundreds of times before.
When the last interviewee leaves, John is sad that he's found no one to his liking. But, as is also standard in such things, the last potential road buddy enters the coffee shop just as John's about to leave. It's a girl some might say is moderately attractive (not me).
There's something off about her--something mysterious. John doesn't seem to notice. Is this an attempt at dramatic irony? I hoped she was some sort of crazed killer that would put John (and me) out of his misery. But no, she's just AWOL from the army. Why couldn't she get into Canada on her own? Same reason as John. Apparently you need two people to cross the boarder.
On the romantic angle, there's the standard progression of: the girl doesn't really like the boy, his awkward charm wins her over, he does something stupid and loses her, he wins her back. Very few movies are able to make this entertaining and not obvious. Blue State doesn't even attempt to. I gave up counting how many times I rolled my eyes.
Throughout the movie John makes tiresome heavy handed speeches about the Iraq War and voices other common liberal complaints about the Bush administration. It's unclear whether Lewy tries to make a political statement or wants John to be completely unlikable as a character. He succeeds in the latter. Not so much in the former. John Kerry would vote for Bush after watching this movie.
This is a considerable step down from Garfield for Breckin Meyer.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Paranoid Park Review
Paranoid Park 2008
Elephant with the shooting spree replaced by clips of kids skateboarding
Were reviewers who gave this film good ratings on drugs, or are they just stupid? It's no surprise that Time Out New York liked it, but the New York Times too?
Director Gus Van Sant, who made such gems as Drug Store Cowboy (1989) and My Own Private Idaho (1991), has lost it. First time actor (you could tell) Gabe Nevins plays Alex, a skater kid who accidentally kills a train yard security guard one night. He feels guilty, worries the cops are after him, breaks up with his annoying girlfriend, writes a letter to make himself feel better, and skates from place to place. He also walks a lot.
That's the movie. If you saw the trailer, you saw everything worth watching, but in a condensed form that made it look interesting. Running only 85 minutes, it feels at least 3.7 times as long.
As I watched the backs of Alex and his friends skating and walking for seemingly endless durations, I had the nagging feeling that I've seen this before. But where?
In Last Days (2005), Van Sant pointed his camera at the back of a depressed rocker who wandered around the house and nearby woods, mumbling to himself. This was interesting, particularly for Kurt Cobain aficionados.
Elephant (2003) also had a lot of walking, through school halls mostly. This was also interesting, because we got to see the layout of the school and its surrounding area. Additionally, Van Sant followed around multiple characters, and switched from one to another in cool ways, furthering the plot and providing some character development.
Paranoid Park, on the other hand, seems like a hodgepodge of clips from Elephant (Alex's back looks like that of any of the first time actors' in Elephant, and hell, it was filmed at the same location) interspersed with skating footage. There's no point to all the walking and skating. Then there's the repetition of the walking and skating. Not only did I see this in Elephant, I saw it in Paranoid Park too, over and over again.
The repetition, you might say in the movie's defense, serves to show how Alex remembers the events surrounding his accidental murder of the guard. He's writing a letter, and as an awkward teenager, who by his own account sucks at creative writing, is prone to repeating himself. Moreover, he's avoiding recounting the death of the security guard because it's traumatic.
If you'd say this, you would be wrong. Who remembers walking to places? No one. And not even an imbecilic teenager would write, "I walked, then I walked some more, then I skated, then I walked some more." No, such writing can only be in Van Sant's artsy fartsy screenplay. And if the book by Blake Nelson was the same way, then the book sucks too.
But, you might interject, Van Sant is trying to be realistic--this is how life is, with lots of walking and nothing happening.
If I want to see what real life looks like, I won't spend $11.50 on a movie when I can walk behind people and look at their backs for free.
If it's trauma and denial the movie strives to show, Alex's burning of the letter and suddenly feeling good about himself at the end is not realistic at all. And who's that girl that tells him to write the letter? Lisa Simpson?
And what's up with the casting? All the kids suck at acting. More realism? Their awkward acting, as opposed to acting awkward, makes the movie all the more fake.
None of this is entertaining. Nor is it in any way enlightening.
If you really want to see this movie, wait until your pretentious David Foster Wallace reading friend buys the DVD.
Elephant with the shooting spree replaced by clips of kids skateboarding
Were reviewers who gave this film good ratings on drugs, or are they just stupid? It's no surprise that Time Out New York liked it, but the New York Times too?
Director Gus Van Sant, who made such gems as Drug Store Cowboy (1989) and My Own Private Idaho (1991), has lost it. First time actor (you could tell) Gabe Nevins plays Alex, a skater kid who accidentally kills a train yard security guard one night. He feels guilty, worries the cops are after him, breaks up with his annoying girlfriend, writes a letter to make himself feel better, and skates from place to place. He also walks a lot.
That's the movie. If you saw the trailer, you saw everything worth watching, but in a condensed form that made it look interesting. Running only 85 minutes, it feels at least 3.7 times as long.
As I watched the backs of Alex and his friends skating and walking for seemingly endless durations, I had the nagging feeling that I've seen this before. But where?
In Last Days (2005), Van Sant pointed his camera at the back of a depressed rocker who wandered around the house and nearby woods, mumbling to himself. This was interesting, particularly for Kurt Cobain aficionados.
Elephant (2003) also had a lot of walking, through school halls mostly. This was also interesting, because we got to see the layout of the school and its surrounding area. Additionally, Van Sant followed around multiple characters, and switched from one to another in cool ways, furthering the plot and providing some character development.
Paranoid Park, on the other hand, seems like a hodgepodge of clips from Elephant (Alex's back looks like that of any of the first time actors' in Elephant, and hell, it was filmed at the same location) interspersed with skating footage. There's no point to all the walking and skating. Then there's the repetition of the walking and skating. Not only did I see this in Elephant, I saw it in Paranoid Park too, over and over again.
The repetition, you might say in the movie's defense, serves to show how Alex remembers the events surrounding his accidental murder of the guard. He's writing a letter, and as an awkward teenager, who by his own account sucks at creative writing, is prone to repeating himself. Moreover, he's avoiding recounting the death of the security guard because it's traumatic.
If you'd say this, you would be wrong. Who remembers walking to places? No one. And not even an imbecilic teenager would write, "I walked, then I walked some more, then I skated, then I walked some more." No, such writing can only be in Van Sant's artsy fartsy screenplay. And if the book by Blake Nelson was the same way, then the book sucks too.
But, you might interject, Van Sant is trying to be realistic--this is how life is, with lots of walking and nothing happening.
If I want to see what real life looks like, I won't spend $11.50 on a movie when I can walk behind people and look at their backs for free.
If it's trauma and denial the movie strives to show, Alex's burning of the letter and suddenly feeling good about himself at the end is not realistic at all. And who's that girl that tells him to write the letter? Lisa Simpson?
And what's up with the casting? All the kids suck at acting. More realism? Their awkward acting, as opposed to acting awkward, makes the movie all the more fake.
None of this is entertaining. Nor is it in any way enlightening.
If you really want to see this movie, wait until your pretentious David Foster Wallace reading friend buys the DVD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
