Bellflower

It's become a recurring theme recently of films by first-time directors that have extremely appealing portions to them, even entire half-films that are very good, and then an ugly twist to them. Such a thing was apparent in CHRONICLE, and here, again, it reappears in BELLFLOWER. The film has a lot going for it. It has some occasionally stunning shots, a cricket-eating contest, and a road trip to Texas just to try a shady gas station's day old meatloaf. But, ultimately, the film is immature. It considers a couple of lazy hipsters who are obsessed with MAD MAX and half-ass prepare for the apocalypse. Woodrow (Evan Glodell, who directed) and Aiden, the lazy hipsters, begin to assemble flamethrowers, a car named MEDUSA that shoots out flames, and loose plans for these instruments. But, Woodrow becomes distracted by Milly, a girl who beat him in a cricket eating contest, and as he falls in love with her, his MAD MAX obsession becomes secondary. What happens though, is that Woodrow gets dumped by a girl who he liked only because of her willingness to discard things she considers excess or compulsory. He shows his depression by wearing a ridiculous beard, and through some cop-out imagery that's the apex of the film's immature notions. Mainly though, the film portrays its characters as important, nice, or evil (any number of vague projections), when they really don't inhabit much more than being immoral or lazy. The acts of Woodrow and Aiden in the eventual apocalypse of sorts isn't anything but obvious given what we've already seen of them, and when the fall out comes, it's just as obvious. We learn as they begin to wreak havoc, nothing. We already knew they were violent idiots, but then, when the whole thing falls out, it's just as obvious. We already knew they were lazy, violent idiots, and the whole film just becomes the daydream of some violent little wretch. How boring.

★★ out of Five

And Everything Is Going Fine

I've heard the saying that a great filmmaker can make a movie about anything and it could be good, but AND EVERYTHING IS GOING FINE leads me to believe that this saying is either false, or, Steven Soderbergh isn't a great director. I've liked many of Soderbergh's films, and his talents are on display here, but the film is the definition of indulgences. In a time when so many good films are accused of having excesses (like Lars von Trier's shots in MELANCHOLIA), this is a film without any of von Trier's gloss, but all the indulgence in the world. For, Soderbergh here uses stock footage of monologuist Spalding Gray's interviews and shows, to create a final film for the man, a quasi-tribute that ends up just being a piece that shows nothing but an admiration. Soderbergh's editing of the hundreds of hours of footage is impressive, and done quite well, but the major edit this film needed was to cut every bit involving Gray. Gray, who committed suicide in 2004, uses a self-important droning on about his life to fill up the stage. Monologuing in general takes the focus away from the audience having a good time, to the performer having a good time, but as I watched the film, I became convinced that Gray not only did not care for his audience, but he used them as an outlet for his incessant whining. Gray's stories are all boring and long, he cannot go long without insulting himself, but he also cannot go long without praising himself. In short, I found Spalding Gray to have little to say of any importance. Furthermore, I found him to be an idiot, and couldn't stand an 89 minute movie of just an idiot talking. What I refer to in terms of indulgence is that Gray's excesses are all that he acts in, and that Soderbergh's tribute to the man is just as needlessly in unquestioned admiration.

★ out of Five

The Human Centipede

The opposite of the last entry, IN THE CITY OF SYLVIA, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE is the cinematic equivalent of smell-o-vision or a video of a sneezing panda on YouTube. It is purely a gimmick, unconcerned with plot, aesthetics, story, or moral. The plot is of no significance because it is a contrivance worthy of creation at a watercooler. Its sole purpose is to put structure around the gimmick in order for it to be sellable. What it actually does is elongate an unworthy gimmick in an unworthy film. This is not cinema, but a juvenile musing of "wouldn't this be cool" translated into a film. The idea of a human centipede, or people connected surgically by a mad doctor from end to end as a form of torture is not only perverse, but, when seen on the screen, pretty stupid looking and unrealistic. What is so funny about this awful film is not its idea or even its plot, but the idea that this was cool or gross, when it actually looks shoddy at best. THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE is unworthy to even be called a film, there should be a name for this kind of thing.
The Human Centipede: Zero Stars

Blue Valentine

BLUE VALENTINE tells the story of Dean and Cindy: two perpetually down on their luck Americans. Dean (who is played by Ryan Gosling) isn't even a high school graduate, but goes all out to charm the lovely Cindy (Michelle Williams). She quickly falls for him, traversing the road to being a doctor by day, and by night serenaded by Dean. This happy story is only half of BLUE VALENTINE, however, for director Derek Cianfrance interchanges these hopeful, romantic, and sometimes eerily self-concously indie scenes with scenes that tell of Dean in Cindy six years later. This tale is a darker one, rife with sexual desperation on the part of Dean, who loses the affections of wife Cindy as fast as he loses his hair. The couple aren't pleased with each other, and even their daughter, who represents all that is happy in the courting scenes, is an annoyance to them. This side of BLUE VALENTINE is raw and ugly. Every indie gesture from the happier side is here even sarcastic. For, director Cianfrance's intertwining of the two stories manipulates one to see the couple at their happiest, and then at their ugliest. The strength of his film is exhibited by his lead actors: Williams & Gosling. Their performances do what few films do: they bring out the ugly sides of likeable people; it brings to light that which we would not normally want to see (or hear). Despite these strengths in the film, there is a self-importance here that is accentuated by Cianfrance's self-concious structure. His camera movements, and constant close-ups make us uncomfortable. This uncomfortableness would be alright in spare, but its constant use makes everything seem raw. Rather, it demands that everything is, but when the film only touches on the rawness with its actors and their dialogue alone, it seems pretentious. BLUE VALENTINE is no grand statement, but it really should be given the grandness Cianfrance brings to it. This is ultimately disappointing and sigh worthy. His film should not be dismissed, and more importantly, the performances of Gosling and Williams don't deserve it. This is a good film, but whatever potential greatness it had, that was squandered by the effervescent quality of its director.
Blue Valentine: ★★★

Kick-Ass

Creating a world that completely adheres to every wish of its creator is a silly prospect. When comic-book films like THE DARK KNIGHT or SPIDER-MAN come out, there's always some ridiculous outcry from devoted fans of the comics who say that the film has forgotten some major aspect of the character. But in viewing a film like THE DARK KNIGHT, it would be ridiculous to try and adhere to every wish of the fans, because then the film would be just for the fans of the comics and for nobody else. This is what has happened in KICK-ASS. Every detail of the film has been over-scrutinyzed for the sake of the original graphic novel's fans. This film has everything I hate about comic book films: the nerdy geek who gets the really hot girl, the rock music placed at fight scenes, and the obligatory super-weapon that fucks up whoever you run into. In KICK-ASS, the beginning of the film is promising, where we are introduced to a nerdy high-schooler (Aaron Johnson) who, while contradicting himself in narration, wonders why no one has actually decided to dress up as a superhero and fight crime. When he tries this, his ass is inevitably kicked. But the real superheros are Nicholas Cage as Big Daddy and Chloe Moretz as his daughter, Hit Girl. Big Daddy is one hell of a fighter, and his scenes are the most satisfying in the film. But he has been training Moretz in an african-child-soldier fashion, and she is a brutal killer who only makes her audience wince when she says: cunt, or fuck in every other sentence. This 11-year-old killing machine is anything but empowering and seems just gratuitous to some misplaced moral idea within the heads of a comic book geek. Sure, this film is fantasy, but when your fantasy is cringe inducing and idea implanting, the fantasy becomes the reality. Besides that quibble, for Hit Girl is only a good third of the film, which would allow for the film to get a decent 2 1/2 stars, every other aspect of the film is gratuitously swayed to its fans. Consider rock music playing to slicing and dicing, killing people who surrender to you, killing someone who pissed off your girlfriend, the geek getting the girl, a bad script that is Bond-esque in its goofiness, and a slow middle. Not a good film
Kick-Ass: ★1/2

Mother and Child

Through the first hour of MOTHER AND CHILD, I had my problems, but for the most part the film was eerily charming despite these problems. The film is about mothers and their children, and yet its so unconventional and manipulative, that its impossible to like. It attempts to be profound, and is profoundly revealing about how bad it is. In the film, everyone is connected through an adoption agency. There is an older women named Karen, who, when she was 14, had a child and left it up for adoption. Karen is a bitch, and Annette Bening plays the part well. (Actually, everyone in this film plays their part well). Karen is cruel and demanding to the point of being demented. But she ends up meeting a kind man her age at work. He's an extremely likeable man, like all of the men in this film. But why would he ever like Karen? As the film progresses in Karen's storyline, she is softened by this man, but her transformation is unbelievable, and the film's gestures are so obvious and inane, that she is ultimately an unbelievable character. Then, there's Elizabeth (the wonderful Naomi Watts). She is Karen's daughter, went through hell in foster homes, and turned out to be an extremely independent, but ultimately cruel and selfish, lawyer. She has an affair with her boss (a kind Samuel L. Jackson) while also screwing her married neighbor. Turns out she's pregnant, and not knowing whether her baby is the boss' or the neighbor's, she flees. At her new home, the film exhibits its stupidity with scenes where a blind girl explains that her mother is always frightened for her safety, but she delivers this speech on the roof of an apartment building. Lastly, there's Lucy (Kerry Washington), who is trying to adopt a boy from a crude mother who wants to get the life-tour of the adopting parents. The routes the film takes from there I will not spoil, but christ are they manipulative. Every character we hate, and then they meet hateful people who do hateful things to them. We're supposed to sympathize, don't, and then film compromises with a death or interconnecting these stories. Arcs are fine in films, but the arcs here are ridiculous. This is a bad film with actors who deserved better for their fine work. There are so many scenes that are so frustrating because of how they were written and directed, that actually, these scenes make up just about the entire film.
Mother and Child: ★★

Rabbit Hole

RABBIT HOLE is a truly awful film. It deals with the aftermath of the death of a child. We learn about halfway through the film that the child ran out into the street after his dog, and was hit by a teenager who served to evade the dog, and hit the oncoming child. Aaron Eckhart and Nicole Kidman play the grieving parents. Eckhart is alright in the role, but Kidman frankly comes off as a bitch: taking out her anger on her family and friends and fellow grievers at group therapy, and then acts really nice to the kid who hit her child. She also sports a slight Boston accent every once in a while, which is so contrary to the mormon-esque poses that misled director John Cameron Mitchell employs. The film is so repetitive in its material, that it serves only as disaster porn. We get it, it's awful. We don't need to immerse ourselves in 90 minutes of pure mawkish depression. I love many depressing films like LEAVING LAS VEGAS to name the best example, but RABBIT HOLE is obnoxious in its approach. It tries to hint that it can be funny at inappropriate times, it sums up everything in a clichéd manner, and those who are supposed to be wise and profound come off as ditzy. The film deals with such a terrible event, its a shame it couldn't have given better credit to that subject. Instead it tries to make that event stylized. After all of these annoying aspects of the film are viewed as a whole, RABBIT HOLE exhibits itself to suck.
Rabbit Hole: ★

Bigger, Stronger, Faster*

The documentary BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER* suffers from the same major faults as many documentaries. 1) The narrator/filmmaker plays dumb, and never sheds any light on his own opinion, making himself seem stupid. 2) The film doesn't show as many not attackable facts as it should. The film deals with the use of steroids within sports, and is narrated/made by a guy who fits into the profile of someone who would have/ should have been using them. We watch as he watches and we see his older brother and his younger brother become vigorous "gym-rats" whose aspirations are ridiculous. They both use steroids, and the middle child Chris Bell, our narrator, is at odds for what to do, and what his stance towards steroids is. We watch as he makes the case that, as children, we are told that a certain body-type is what is okay, and how that was mostly manifested in the 80's movie stars like Hulk Hogan, Sylvester Stalone, and Arnold Schwartzeneger. The film, from that point on, engages in two depressing fashions. The first being that it is naiive about cheating and shows us the revelation that everyone in sports uses drugs, the second that it thinks we are that naiive. It has many nice scenes dealing with a hypocrisy in how we treat drugs, and that makes the film worthwhile. Otherwise, its just the true-life stories of a bunch of sad sacks who never learned that their dreams were unattainable. A decent film.
Bigger, Stronger, Faster*: ★★★

Rocket Science

Rocket Science is a film that is purely a gesture, it does not seem to want to entertain, for it is self-indulgent of its director. The film concerns Hal Hefner, a 15-year-old high schooler with a very odd, dysfunctional family (obligatory in indie films) and a terrible stutter. This has made Hal a loner. He seeks help from a speech therapist, but the guy is an idiot. One day as Hal looks longingly up at the school's legendary debater, he sees himself as a man who can talk as fast and with as much conviction. This creates the tone for the film, which is so unrealistic and idealistic that it's obnoxious. Songs that don't have anything to do with the story enter into inappropriate scenes as well. This shows the director's need to show us what he wants to, even if it doesn't fit. As Hal (Reece Thompson) is recruited by a girl debater named Ginny (Anna Kendrick), another indie cliché is set up, where the kid who couldn't gets the girl and the esteem. However, the film throws a curveball on this, and although the film is essentially a bad sports movie in disguise as an inspirational indie film, the curve helps. The main problem the film encounters, despite how much we care for its characters, is how obviously constructed it is. Entire lines of dialogue and actions feel excrutiatingly labored over. You can just imagine the filmmakers sitting around discussing how the clichéd film their making would usually go, so they ad-lib some words or pieces of furniture or "edgy" things. "Hey guys, instead of him throwing a chair lets have him throw a cello!" Rocket Science contains decent sequences and amiable characters, but the way they are undermined by a pretentious and clichéd plot makes it not only a mediocre film, but constantly frustrating. The film lastly feels as if it were made to please its director, who obviously has a personal stake within the stuttering portions. Doing this makes it unappealing for anyone else.
Rocket Science: ★★

The Art of the Steal

With The Art of the Steal one is presented with a finely crafted documentary whose beliefs and messages might not necessarily meet the feelings of some reviewers. It tells of the Barnes Collection: a collection of art containing masterpieces by van Gogh, Renoir, etc. The paintings were collected by a billionaire in the 40's named Barnes. Today, the paintings are together worth an estimated 25 billion dollars. During his lifetime, Barnes was bitter towards art critics and the establishment, so he kept his treasures within his house. In the documentary, we see how his collection was "stolen" by the city of Philadelphia. And here's the part I don't agree with. For, Barnes never wanted his art to be seen by rich establishment people. He felt as if they couldn't appreciate the art. So, through a foundation he would have it all preserved within his home and open to a selective group of people. After about thirty years of the foundation within a Barnes-loyal woman, the foundation is handed over to Lincoln University. Barnes had named Lincoln University in his will as a possible inheritor of the foundation. It would have been a real sock-it-to-ya in the 1950's to hand over billions of dollars worth in art to a bunch of negroes. But by the time the art reaches Lincoln, they're practically bankrupt. So, the head of Lincoln parades the art around the world in order to upkeep the collection. This is seen and demonized by the film, for Barnes would not have liked it. To make a long story short, after heaps of legal action against a group Barnes named as inheritors, the art ends up being moved to a Philadelphia run gallery. The Governor Ed Rendell sees this as great, for it will bring much needed tourism to the town and it will allow great art to actually be viewed. The other side (the film's side) sees this as a travesty against Barnes. But I question this travesty. None of the people on film knew Barnes or seem to care so much about a (debatably) violated Will. Rather, they seem upset that it will be used commercially by the city. I question what is wrong with that? What is wrong with making money off of the paintings if it helps the state? Barnes was an elitist who was ashamed of being rich. The people in the film are elitist. Statements arise like "I was afraid what the foundation might do to me" and "THOSE people don't KNOW art". This I cringe at, for it weakens the case for the documentary. If anything, the film exhibits how Barnes was not so smart, for he had an illusion within his mind that the paintings would forevermore be on the walls of his house. But Barnes is dead. The people he hated and didn't want to paintings to go to are dead. Let the art be enjoyed. This is not a bad film despite my problems with it's message. It is admirably passionate while telling a coherent story.
The Art of the Steal: ★★1/2

Knife in the Water

Knife in the Water is the first film by Roman Polanski. Polanski is, today, one of the greatest living directors--his talents are focused and defined. However, it was apparent in Knife in the Water that Polanski was toying and fiddling with many ideas that would eventually become honed-in-upon trademarks. For, in his debut, Polanski almost fervently employs his themes of claustrophobia, guilt, and tension. Hell, the entire film (or 90% of it) takes place on a boat. The story isn't much too. A couple pick up a young, unnamed hitchhiker and end up persuading him to go sailing with them. As the film progresses, there becomes a dualist nature of young and old with the married man and the hitchhiker boy. Eventually, violence breaks out and sex enters the playing field. And I enjoyed the scenes where the tension broke through, but the earlier scenes which made up about half the film were just too boring. The characters seem fine with everything, and I think it was Polanski's need to have something strange occur. There was no real tension in the earlier scenes, and that is apparent because of the dialogue (which is infantile in its use and depth). I admire much of the camerawork and toyed around with themes, but the film ultimately fails to simmer and then abruptly comes to a boil.
Knife in the Water: ★★1/2

Enter the Void

I only saw the first forty minutes of the two and a half hour long Enter the Void. Usually, it would not be appropriate to write a review for a film of which I only saw 25% of. This is the exception however, for Enter the Void is so aimless and spectral a film, that you could come into it where I left off, see forty minutes and have the same experience that I had. It's an idiotic, pretentious film. Using blasting lights and camera tricks galore, talented filmmaker Gaspar Noe has made a true anti-masterpiece. Let me describe what story there was. We meet a drugged out loser in his hotel (or possibly apartment) in Tokyo. His girlfriend (Paz de la Huerta) leaves, he gets high, we get a light show. He leaves, goes to make a drug deal while baked, and is shot and killed. He leaves his body and floats around to see his girlfriend and a menagerie of other characters. So fucking dumb. I'm sorry, but the only way I could possibly see myself liking this movie is if I were baked. For, I don't see any difference between Oscar (the dead drugee floating around) dead or alive. Either way, he's baked. I wish I was, I would have been more entertained. But that's the problem with the film: we don't care about Oscar and no matter what his spirit views he can't change it because he's dead. By the way, for all the camera tricks, the camera is so incessantly shaky and hover-like that it ruins every image. Dumb. Stupid. Pretentious. Unredeemable.
Enter the Void: ✰1/2

Jack Goes Boating

I expected to like Jack Goes Boating, so perhaps that made me want to like it too. Phillip Seymour Hoffman has always been great, and to hear that he was directing and starring in a film was a joy. So here's the film, which centers upon two relationships. The first is between Jack (Hoffman) and Connie (Amy Ryan): they are possible lovers. The second is between Jack's friend Clyde (John Ortiz) and his wife (Daphne Rubin Vega). Jack is one of the most pathetic characters in movie history. He has nothing going for him except his prospects with Connie. He's trying desperately to become a better person as well, but Hoffman plays him with the same note throughout. He's either sad, or really sad. Connie is a weird one too, she's dysfunctional, but at times pretty weird and then abruptly serious (which doesn't fit her character). Clyde and his wife seem to be the opposite of Jack and Connie. For, as Jack & Connie's relationship is born, we see Clyde and his wife's relationship die. Everyone is so dysfunctional in this film that they become pathetic: especially Jack. This pathetic nature makes the film mawkish and uncomfortable, as it tries to be poignant while being odd and depressing. The only thing about Jack Goes Boating that is enjoyable is a couple of scenes at the pool with Jack and Clyde, but that's about 6 minutes within the entire film. The film also likes to employ indie songs like the Fleet Foxes, but it employs them terribly and at the wrong times (which feels amateurish and out of place). Indie songs and indie feels should be employed in films about youth and life and when the lyrics make some sense with the story, but with the overly maudlin and depressing Jack Goes Boating it feels forced and silly. This movie sucks, not only can we not connect with the characters because the writer thinks that three dimensional characters means they have split-personality, but because what happens ends up being a sort of dualism statement on life and perseverance after it hasn't gained the audience's trust to make such statements. Jack Goes Boating--a truly pretentious and awful film.
Jack Goes Boating: ✰

Avatar

Avatar is a difficult film. At times it seems humble and simplistic, and at others it feels pretentious. I suppose the most problematic thing about Avatar is that it pretty much took the story of Pocahontas and then replaced it with aliens. It's obvious what the film is trying to say, and how it compares the two situations. But, the film is so hateful towards humans regarding something we haven't done except in the fantasy world of James Cameron! This bothered me during the first hour of the film, but admittedly, some of the ideas that were brought up in the film were interesting. The idea that a soldier becomes part of the alien tribe and then fights back was appealing to me despite my reservations. The power of the imagery is overwhelming. It's done so well, it creates a world. It reminded me of Star Wars in its epic scale. Every inch of the screen is filled with wonder, the flying scenes, the end result is great. The last scene where the world fights back was appealing. It was well done. And yet...there's a scene in the film where one of the supposedly evil soldiers says something I found true. "You throw a rock in this place and you'll hit some holy fern". Yes! Exactly! That's bullshit! And then, the film goes on to explain the biological interconnectedness of the alien world. But that's bullshit!! That creates a fantasy argument for indigenous peoples, rather than dealing with the issues in a more realistic way. There's also a lot of hippie-scientists who try to be one with the tribe. That's also bullshit. And yet...it's done so well and it's so appealing. Oh Avatar, what to do with you? Perhaps I'm looking at the film too cynically, too literally. Therefore:
Avatar: ★★1/2
(Avatar is a groundbreaking film and one-of-a-kind. It deserves recognition for that but it should be viewed fairly for what it is).

What the Bleep Do We Know!?--Down the Rabbit Hole

And now for one of the stupidest, and yet most pretentious movies I have ever seen. WTBDWK with it's ridiculously puerile title and ongoing silliness (including delusions of originality with amateurish cuts and animations) tries to convince us that the world is a very complicated and groovy place. They have a chiropractor who talks about the molecular structure of water being altered by though waves (oh yeah, because they teach you that at 'fake back doctor school'), and a bunch of actual physicists who admit that they make up shit to understand what's impossible to understand. Most of the people interviewed are bullshit physicists. For example, this line came up "I'm not actually a physicist yet, but I'm trying! I've written two books about the subject already". Oh how this movie BLOWS. We have a quasi-interesting story about a deaf woman who is pissed off about something they don't even explain and have her go loopy over the wonder of the world. She apparently misses her job by thinking about this bullshit, and then ends up making it to work on time even though she just got chewed out for being late. The interviews with the scientists and intermittently placed around the film. I admit wholeheartedly that conversations about time and life and why we're here fuel my existence. Which is why it does nothing but piss me off that such an amateurish, pretentious ("It's the epitome of human arrogance to put god in our image, god doesn't exist. Actually, I'm god, I control everything and morality doesn't exist"-overweight sleep therapist talking about quantum physics...), and shit film would take such interesting ideas and actually warp them and dumb them down.
What the Bleep Do We Know!?--Down the Rabbit Hole: ★

South Park, Season 14

I wholly believe that South Park is one of the greatest things to ever happen to television. I will not use this post to attempt to convince anyone that it is. However, I will say that it is genius because it lures stupid people in and shows them truth through satire. South Park did this for many years, but it was around season 12 or 13 that they began to fall. They started to just make fun of the freak of the week and made their characters less important than the people they were pissed off at. This season especiall featured some absolute shit: Sexual Healing (about Tiger Woods), Scrottie McBoogerballs (Butters is a shock writer), You Have 0 Friends (about Facebook), It's a Jersey Thing, Poor and Stupid, and Crippled Summer. I admit that 200 wasn't awful, the BallCancer one was marginally funny, and the ones about the Coon were decent. But South Park should not be making bad episodes. In their good years, they never made a bad one. It wasn't until Season 13 that they made a bad one. I am reminded by one of their great episodes entitled Free Hat (Season 6). In it, the boys are pissed off that Spielberg and Lucas are fucking with their old films. They implore the Directors that their work belongs to their audience. The creators of South Park should now realize that they are failing at their work. "South Park is our life", said one of the creators. But it also belongs to their audience, shocked at how shitty the episdoes are getting. "South Park used to be about showing people how retarded a lot of things were, but now all they do is tell you: hey that thing that you already know is retarded, we're going to prove to you they are"- Paraphrase of Owen Peterson.
South Park Season 14: ★★