Episodes
Tuesday May 29, 2012
Jim Reviews Young Adult
Tuesday May 29, 2012
Tuesday May 29, 2012
Young Adult
I have never made even the slightest attempt to hide my complete and utter disdain for the movie “Juno.” From my very first viewing I found it insufferable. I hated the characters, found the dialogue unbearable in it’s hipster cuteness, and in general found it to be one of the least pleasant movie going experiences I’ve ever had.
Apparently, I am in a very small minority with this reaction. During the screening every person in the theatre was laughing hysterically at every line that had even the promise of comedy. I was able to identify every intended joke, but they elicited little more than a mental groan from me. Don’t get me wrong, I found the term “pork sword” to be screamingly hysterical… when I was in middle school. So it struck me odd that I was sitting there in a room full of adults who unleashed torrents of gut busting laughter at its utterance.
I kept looking around to see if people were maybe listening to something different on headphones or something, like maybe everyone else was given an iPod with a bunch of Richard Pryor or George Carlin stuff on them and that was what they were laughing at. Honestly, I cannot accurately describe how little I liked this movie.
And don’t try to change my mind on this one. Many people have, and have left the conversation liking “Juno,” less. I have put much more thought into my reasons for hating it than you have put into your reasons for liking it.
“Juno,” was followed up by “Jennifer’s Body,” which found a way to be worse. That thing… oh, crap was that thing awful. I didn’t eve bother finishing it. It honestly felt like she somehow heard my criticism and responded, “Oh, you think that one sucked? Son, I’ll show you a movie that sucks.”
Hell, casting Amanda Seyfried as the “plain” girl who is too into her popular, beautiful friend and then naming her “Needy” Lesnicky… I don’t even know how to respond to that. Why not just remove all subtext and call her “Codependance McSexuallyConfused.”
I haven’t seen “United States of Tara,” because it looks stupid. Yes, Toni Colette is a fine actress and all, but this show always looked like crap to me. Yeah, people love it and say it’s brilliant… just like they did about “Juno,’ so that means nothing to me. There is too much great television out there for me to waste my time on something I have no interest in.
All of her writing looks like this to me
Now we have “Young Adult.” From the moment the first poster hit the net I was dubious to say the least. It looked like… well, like more crap from a writer I do not like. The reviews hit and it was more of the same. It appeared as though Cody’s deal with Satan was still in full swing. But I was given some pause. People who I actually respect, and who dislike “Juno,” were actually behind it. They didn’t love it, but they gave it an “it’s not so bad,” pass.
So, I sat down and watched it. And…
Meh.
That’s about all I can say about it. It isn’t terrible or terribly good. It’s ok. There were some things I found interesting in it, but mostly I found it to be pretty forgettable. I think the word I am looking for is “bad.”
“Young Adult,” features yet another unsympathetic protagonist. Note, I didn’t say unlikable, I said unsympathetic. Likeable is too subjective a term, and I have no problem with an unlikable character. Hell, there are some characters that I love for their unlikability. There are characters I HATE that other people absolutely adore. But sympathy… that’s a little more universal.
Juno, I didn’t like her, but I could sympathize with her. I mean, that is a difficult position for a teenager to be in. Granted, I think she behaved like an asshole, but I could sympathize.
The protagonist of “Young Adult,” is Mavis Gary, a recently divorced ghostwriter for a series of young adult novels. She was the coolest, prettiest girl in her high school and is now living a somewhat glamorous life in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Things aren’t going great for her. As I said, she just got divorced, the book series she writes for is being cancelled, she has a very serious drinking problem (by that I mean she is a full blown alcoholic), and to top things off she just got an e-mail from her high school boyfriend announcing the birth of his first child.
So she does what any normal, rational, mature human being would. She drives back to her hometown to try and steal this man away from his wife and child.
Up until that last bit, this is a character that I could see as compelling. She is a train wreck in full crisis mode. Right off the bat I was, if nothing else, curious about this person. I mean, this is someone who has it all. Good job, hell, GREAT job. She gets paid to do what thousands of people would literally kill to do. She is beautiful, successful, and there is no reason why she shouldn’t be happy.
But she isn’t.
Who can’t relate to that? We have all had times in our lives when things were going as well as we could hope, but for some reason it’s just not enough. The one thing you need to be happy isn’t there. You may not even know what it is, but you know that it’s missing.
This is a good basis for a character. There is a possibility for depth and empathy if they are handled properly. The problem with this movie is that you have a brilliantly set up, horribly executed person.
What starts out with the promise of depth quickly vanishes into a one-dimensional, ID driven monster that I can’t describe as unlikable because there isn’t anything to really connect to.
Not only that, but she is a completely static character. She doesn’t grow, she doesn’t change, and she doesn’t evolve. She is just as revolting a human being at the end as she was at the beginning.
Now, I am not saying that a character has to go through a huge change and learn a big lesson that changes their life in order for it to be a good movie, but there has to be some level of growth in order for the conflict to have any meaning. I know that this doesn’t always happen in real life, but this is a movie and not giving your character some level of growth or self-awareness is just lazy.
There is some really great stuff in this movie, but almost all of it is tempered by something that doesn’t work.
Patton Oswalt is fantastic as Matt Freehauf, an outcast Mavis went to high school with. His performance is probably the best thing about the movie.
But, I just didn’t buy his character. Here’s a guy that Mavis only remembers as “The Hate Crime Guy,” because in high school a bunch of jocks thought he was gay and beat him with a crowbar, crippling him, mangling his genitals, and then left him for dead in the woods. I don’t understand why he puts up with her. This is a woman who represents everything that caused him to be brutalized. Not that she formerly symbolized it, but that she currently symbolizes it. She is the exact same superficial piece of trash she was in high school, but she speaks to him and suddenly, he’s like a puppy falling at her feet. I just didn’t buy it. I am speaking as someone who was bullied in middle school. There is no part of me that would be willing to hang out with the person who did that to me, or with someone who facilitated what happened.
But other than the unrealistic relationship they formed, Oswalt created a completely believable and sympathetic man who has gone through some shit and is somehow able to maintain his dignity.
The direction is superb. Jason Reitman is really shaping up to be one of the best directors working today. He has a feel for character, pacing, and visuals that is absolutely incredible.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but my problems with this movie come back to the script. Granted, it wasn’t soaked with banal hipster dialogue like “Juno,” and “Jennifer’s Body,” but it was just lacking. It felt like a half developed premise that Cody didn’t feel the need to go back and hone. By the time the movie was over I found myself searching for a point.
Because, let’s be honest, this is a movie without a point or anything to really say. What was I supposed to take away from this? Am I supposed to feel sorry for Mavis because she has everything except fulfillment? Was I supposed to hate her? Was I supposed to pity her? What? What was the point of this?
All “Young Adult” gives you is a narcissistic borderline sociopath who feels entitled to everything and doesn’t care in the slightest about anyone other than herself. I wouldn’t have a problem with that if she had at least been interesting.
Monday May 21, 2012
Alpha to Omega: Rocky 2
Monday May 21, 2012
Monday May 21, 2012
Alpha to Omega
The film franchise is an inescapable part of the modern movie landscape. In this series I will address a series of films from the first to the last, looking at each film as a standalone and how it fits into the series.
Rocky II
In any film series, particularly one that achieves cult status, there is usually at least one film that falls between the cracks. A lot of times it’s because the movies are just bad. Studios are all about money, so when you have a property that is recognizable they will seize on that and start cranking them out. Did you know that there are 4 “Iron Eagle” movies, 11 “Shaft” movies? I didn’t.
Sometimes, though, it’s nothing to do with quality, many of these films are quite good, but for some reason they are almost doomed to live in the shadows of the other films. There are 22 Bond movies (not including the yet to be released “Skyfall”), and a lot of those are relegated to a more obscure position than they should be. I personally think “The Spy Who Loved Me” to be one of Roger Moore’s best, but more people have seen “Moonraker,” “Octopussy,” and “A View to A Kill,” and those border on un-watchable.
Essentially, Bill Goldman was right… nobody knows anything.
As a “Rocky” fan I have had countless conversations about how moving and inspiring the original is, or about how mind blowingly bad ass “Rocky III” is, or the jingoistic merits of “Rocky IV,” hell, I’ve even talked at length about the relative merits and weaknesses of “V.” But I found that as I embarked on this… I have never had a conversation about “Rocky II.” If you listen to our Stallone show, you have heard, quite literally, everything I have ever said about that film.
Why?
Honestly, I have no memory of actually seeing it. I mean, yeah, I’ve seen the ending during the montages in the other films, but I don’t remember ever sitting down and watching it.
Well, a few weeks back I rectified this as part of my “Rocky” marathon. Actually, it was the reason for the marathon and, indirectly, this series of articles.
So, what did I think?
In short, it is criminally overlooked. It isn’t the best of the series, but it is far from the worst… very far from the worst. From a strictly narrative standpoint it is the most necessary and has the strongest emotional link to the original (until “Rocky Balboa” that is).
Done properly a sequel will advance the characters and/or the narrative of the original film. It becomes a necessary step in the evolution of the world of the first film. “Rocky II” does that brilliantly by not only advancing the story and the characters, but by evolving the themes and building on the emotional impact of the original.
Quick recap- Robert “Rocky” Balboa is a scrappy ham and egger (boxers who lack sufficient skill to fight for big prizes, they go paid so little that they couldn’t afford steak) who was given a shot at the heavyweight championship of the world. He didn’t stand a chance, but had enough heart to be the first fighter to ever go the distance with Apollo Creed, the Ali-esque undisputed champ. To Creed it was a show, to Rocky it was a chance to be some thing more than just some “bum from the neighborhood.” He loses the fight, but wins the love of Adrian, the shy sister of one of his closest friends.
The movie came out of nowhere and became the biggest hit of the year, win Oscars, catapult the cast into the A list, and became a fixture in American pop culture. So, naturally there had to be a sequel.
“Rocky II,” is a direct sequel, picking up exactly where the first film left off. In essence, if you removed the credits the two could play as one movie. It does what the best sequels do, it continues the story of the original while developing its themes and allowing the world of the film to grow with the characters.
The movie begins with both fighters being rushed to the hospital for treatment after the brutal fight that ends the first movie. In the aftermath of the fight Creed realizes how much the split decision could harm his reputation and once at the hospital he publicly challenges Rocky to a rematch. Rocky declines and announces his retirement.
From here he attempts to enter normal life. He has a bit of money from the fight and doesn’t think it will ever run out. He buys an expensive car that he doesn’t know how to drive, nice clothes, fancy jewelry, and a house. He is living the dream. His newfound fame affords him a chance to make more money through endorsements and he thinks it will lead to a job.
The problem is, as he said in the first movie, he isn’t someone who can make a living off his brains. He tries to do commercials but can’t read lines. He tries to get a job, but lacks education and skills. He even tries going to work at Mickey’s gym, but because he was a contender for the championship and is now cleaning spit buckets and moping the floors he isn’t given any respect by the fighters.
So, broke, broken, and desperate he starts working in the meat packing plant with Paulie. He marries Adrian and she is soon pregnant. Everything seems to be shaping up well for Rocky.
Meanwhile, Apollo is getting deluged with hate mail. Fans see his split decision as an indictment of his championship. If he’s so great, how did this ham and egger go the distance? He is desperate to clear his name and embarks on a public smear campaign of Balboa in hopes of goading him into the ring.
This is where the movie gets interesting. In the first film Creed wasn’t really a villain. He was Rocky’s opponent, but he wasn’t a bad guy. He was a businessman seizing an opportunity. Here, however he turns bad. What makes him bad is the same thing that makes Rocky good; his pride and his desire to be the best. The line that best encapsulates him doesn’t even come from this film. It comes from “Pulp Fiction.”
“The night of the fight, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps.”
Creed cannot turn his back on his pride. He is the undefeated champion of the world. No fighter had ever gone the distance with him before, but it wasn’t enough. He needed to be perfect, and Balboa was in the way of that. In his mind, and against the advice of his trainer, he has to get Rocky back in the ring and beat him.
“He's all wrong for us, baby. I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man kept coming after you. Now we don't need no man like that in our lives.”
Eventually Rocky has to accept who he really is. He is a fighter, and the only way he can really provide for his family is by doing the only thing he knows. He decides that, against the advice of his doctor who fears for Rocky’s eyesight, he has to fight Creed. In his mind it’s the only way he can support his family and regain his pride.
Things go from bad to worse for Rock when Adrian, who is staunchly against the fight, falls ill and ends up in a coma. He abandons his training and sits by her side.
This sequence reminds you what makes these films work. Rocky isn’t really about fighting. It’s really a love story between Rocky and Adrian. She is his heart, and as the movies are about having the heart to keep going… you see what I’m saying.
Well, as you might expect Adrian comes out of her coma, the baby is fine, and she tells him to go and beat Creed.
The fight comes and Creed is gunning for blood. He vows to knock Balboa out in the first two round to prove that the first time was a fluke.
But he doesn’t. He keeps beating on Rocky, gaining an insurmountable points lead. But Rock won’t go down, reaching the final round.
In the final round, Creed has the fight won on points. All he has to do is dance around Rocky for three minutes and the fight is his. But then pride starts fucking with him. He trades blows, going for the knockout. Finally, after standing toe to toe, pounding on each other, Rocky gets a clean shot in and knocks the champ down….
But he falls off balance and hits the mat at the same time.
Two boxers, one count, and the one to get to his feet before the count of 10 wins.
Finally, after suffering defeat, humiliation, rejection, and almost losing Adrian, Rocky digs deep, because that is what Rocky does, and gets to his feet in time too win.
In many regards this is a perfect sequel. It takes Rocky in a very necessary and important direction and shows his growth as a person. It also shows Creed as a flawed and very human character. Both men represent different sides of the same coin.
Both are dedicated to what they do, they are committed to giving their all, not for money, but for pride. But, whereas Rocky is the embodiment of how pride can help you pick yourself up, Creed shows how dangerous it can be when it gets in the way of common sense.
So far as the Rocky canon goes, this one is difficult to place. It’s not the best, but it is far from the worst. Yet, it still gets less respect than it should. It is a solid addition to the world created in the first one. It moves the characters forward, not just from a narrative standpoint, but also from a personal standpoint. But for some reason it gets lost in the shuffle. If you haven’t seen it, correct that. It’s really good. If you’re like me and can’t remember when you saw it last, you should really take the time to reexamine it. There is a reason Rocky has become as iconic to American cinema as he has, this movie is a big part of it.
Saturday Apr 07, 2012
Jim Reviews The Hunger Games
Saturday Apr 07, 2012
Saturday Apr 07, 2012
The Hunger Games
"The movie was good... but the book was so much better."
You. Don't. Say?
I use to say this. I did. It's not something I proud of, but it's the truth. There isn't anything harmful or wrong about this statement, it's just, if we're being honest, a non statement. Non statements are things you normally hear during political campaigns. Things like, "every American should have the opportunity to make their lives better." Wow, bold stance. Do you also think all babies should eat? They are safe statements because nobody can, or for that matter does, disagree with them.
There are statements like this about movies too. "Daniel Day-Lewis was really good in that!" You know, as opposed to all the times he sucked. "Michael Bay has a really strong visual style, but his stories are weak." Thank you for clearing that up. "Sean Connery uses the same accent in every role!" Yeah, and when you are Sean Connery, you can do the same.
But to me the most annoying is "The book was so much better." Why do I consider this to be a non statement? Well, let's look at "L.A. Confidential," a very good book and a very good movie that are very different from one another.
The book is 496 pages, spans several years, and has around 100 characters in it.
The movie runs 138 minutes (for those who don't know that means the screenplay was around 138 pages long), spanned around a year, and had significantly fewer characters in it.
So, for an exceptional adaptation you had to lose 358 pages, 9 years, and 60-70 characters. The page count alone should invalidate comparison. How can you hope to compare a story to a version of itself that is 72% shorter? Is it even possible? Add to that the necessity of losing 70% of the characters, and 80% of the time that passed and you begin to see the impossibility of adaptation. Then take into account the loss of narration due to the visual nature of film storytelling and the whole affair begins to look hopeless.
Yes some are good, some are even better than the book (it does happen), but it is a rare thing.
So, I propose looking at the films as films, not as extensions of the books. I will go more into this at another time, the only reason I mention it is because I am reviewing "Hunger Games and I've hear a lot of people say this about the movie and book, so I felt the need to address it.
The only thing I've hear more of than "The book was better..." is, "I liked it better when it was called 'Battle Royale,'" First off, good for you! I am impressed by your worldliness. Tell me more of your adventures in international cinema!!!
Yes, there is a basic similarity between the two, but it's just that... basic. Saying that "Hunger Games" is the same as "Battle Royale," is like saying that "The Godfather" and "Goodfellas" are the same movie because they both involve the mafia, or that "A Beautiful Mind" and "Good Will Hunting," are the same because they both involve math. Hell, it's more accurate to call "Die Hard" and "Home Alone" the same movie because they both involve wise cracking loners separated from their families on Christmas eve who have to go against a group of thieves who disguise themselves using only his intelligence in gorilla style warfare. Both include humorous airport scenes, broken glass, jumping out of windows, unlikely sidekicks with personal problems who save the day at the last minute, useless cops, and eventual familial reconcilliation.
If you criticize "Hunger Games" as a "Battle Royale" rip off, then you have to criticize "Battle Royale" for ripping off "The Running Man," "The Long Walk," "The Most Dangerous Game," "The Condemned," "The Man With The Golden Gun," or "Series 7: The Contenders." The only thing that makes these two more similar is the use of kids and the laziness and lack of research on behalf of the person making the comment.
"Battle Royale" is good. But let's not make it more than it is.
"The Hunger Games" is a different animal. It's set in a dystopian future. America was destroyed by an unmentioned apocalyptic event and a country called Panem rose from the ashes. Panem consists of The Capital, where the very wealthy live in absolute luxury, and the 12 districts, where people live near starvation and work to provide the capital with all the material trappings that give them that luxury. As "penance" for a past revolution each year the districts are required to offer one male and one female between the ages if 12 and 18 as tribute to participate in "The Hunger Games," a fight to the death tournament with only one survivor. Win, and your family is given a new life of wealth and comfort and your district is showered with gifts and food for the next year. Each district is required to watch. For the districts it is a cruel exercise in domination, being forced to watch their children murder each other. In the Capital it is a giddily anticipated entertainment, like the olympics.
We follow Katniss Everdeen, a young woman from District 12 (the mining district) who enters the game as a volunteer to take the place of her 12 year old sister who was drawn at random. Her life is a struggle to support her family in a world that seems bent on consuming them. We follow her to the capital and through the pageantry that surrounds this blood sport, and ultimately into the game itself.
The book itself is pretty streamlined story telling. There are parts that were excised for the sake of pacing and length, but they were parts that could be excised without damaging the narrative as a whole. The character of Katniss is strengthen somewhat in the movie. In the book she seemed less sure of herself at first and more vulnerable, whereas in the movie she seemed much more in control and confident. It's a subtle change, but I think it benefits the character immensely.
Normally, when I see a movie after reading the book I am a bit let down. I go in knowing that it won't be as good, but usually I end up pissed off because they leave out things that I think are important or put in things that don't make sense or rush things too much trying to put in as much as possible. That didn't happen here. Yes it is streamlined, but it's not hatched together. The things that are left out are minor and the film moves at a good enough clip and includes enough of the important that what is left out goes largely unnoticed. It's not the book and wasn't meant to be, what it is, though, is a well crafted story that works in the world of the source material while not attempting to alter it.
This is a very good movie. It's brutal and touching in equal parts, visceral and heartbreaking, and makes some fairly strong social commentary without beating you over the head with it. (Yeah, watching lonely people fighting for attention and affection on national television may not be as savage as kids killing each other, but we still take voyeuristic pleasure in the pain of another human being.)
The casting is absolutely perfect and the performances were a bit surprising.
Jennifer Lawrence kills it as Katniss. She is compelling as a young woman doing what needs to be done to protect and provide for her family in a desolate mining town (hmmm... Jennifer Lawrence as the oldest child forced to act as parent to a poor family in a mining town? This sounds familiar for some reason.). This is a difficult role and she nails it.
The other performances I was concerned about were Hamich, Cinna, and Rue.
Hamich- One of the best characters in the story. He is a former Hunger Games champion from District 12 who is charged with training and mentoring Katniss and Peeta (the male tribute). Whatever he experienced in the games has broken him and he spends most of his time drunk. This character could have been played as a caricature of the shell-shocked alcoholic war vet and played for laughs, but he wasn't. Harrelson showed an incredible amount of restraint and subtlety in creating a man who is doing what he needs to in order to get through the day.
Cinna- As Katniss's stylist he is the human face of The Capital. Where as everyone else there is a grotesque caricature of privileged excess and vanity Cinna is an actual human who seems to really care about Katniss as a person, not just as a source of entertainment. Lenny Kravits seemed like an odd choice, but he was absolutely perfect.
Rue- They could not have found a more adorable, less threatening actress to play Rue if they had tried. Amandla Stenberg is heartbreaking as a completely innocent child who you instinctively want to protect in the most brutal environment possible. She is heartbreaking and wonderful.
While the acting is superb there is a fair amount of praise for the direction. The visuals are evocative and add to the story. The editing style and visual effects are... well affective. There is some solid visual story telling here and it offsets and aids the narrative.
There is one thing I find maddening about this movie though. Earlier this year a documentary called "Bully" was released. It was made with the intention of shedding light on the problem of bullying in America and around the world. It was made to let kids who bully know that it's not acceptable and to let the victims know that they are not alone and that it does get better. I don't know if I would call it an important film, but I do think that it is an important issue and anything that can be done to shed light and help end it is a good thing (I say this as someone who was bullied at one point in my life). That film received an R rating because the word "fuck" was used a few times. "The Hunger Games," where brutal child on child murder is shown was given a PG-13 rating without even needing an appeal.
But I digress...
The Hunger Games is a solid adaptation that works for both fans of the books and the uninitiated. It's a visually striking, well acted production of a solid script. Forget the comparisons and check it you. You'll most likely enjoy it.
Until next time, may the odds be ever in your favor.
Monday Apr 02, 2012
King Kelly
Monday Apr 02, 2012
Monday Apr 02, 2012
King Kelly
“Gimmick” movies are nothing new. Split screen (Timecode), real time (Nick Of Time), found footage (The Blair Witch Project), different endings (Clue), and the quandary that is 3D (We pull this out every 10 years or so… but you’re right, this time it will last… oh, and that girl who cheated on you all those times? She totally won’t do it again.). Sometimes the gimmick is just that a gimmick. It’s there because the film needs something to set it apart. It adds nothing and is accepted for what it is, a throw away attempt to get people interested in something that is not that interesting. Other times it’s more than a gimmick and actually adds something to the themes and the narrative.
“King Kelly,” by Andrew Neel is shot entirely on cell phones held by the actors. It’s an interesting idea that takes the found footage movie into a new and interesting direction. In this case the gimmick is more than just a gimmick; it’s necessary from both a thematic and narrative viewpoint.
Today’s youth are oversexed, spoiled, hedonistic, entitled monsters filled with unearned confidence and who live in a consequence free world of instant gratification. Welcome to the YouTube generation! Fame whores to the left, star fuckers to the right, and boundless self esteem for all… or something like that.
It’s a growing caricature that is no more true today than any of the other sweeping generational characterizations.
The 60’s were a time of hippies, but it was also the time of young people who hated hippies.
The 70’s were a time of drugs and disco as well as The Ramones and death to disco.
The 80’s saw greed, materialism, selfishness, and charity in equal measures.
Hell, my generation produced as many well adjusted and productive members of society as we did angst filled, overeducated poets in shitty bands.
Sadly, generations are defined by whatever slogan ready group the media can prop up, so welcome to it kids. You are now known by the worst of you.
“King Kelly” is a movie about the worst of the worst. It is the story of Kelly, a young woman (I would have guessed mid teens by her behavior, but according to the director she is in her early 20’s) named Kelly, who is known as King Kelly on her live sex webcam show.
Right off the bat I cannot think of a more loathsome, selfish, annoying, and completely awful human being than Kelly.
The only think worse than her complete narcissism and self absorbed view of the world is her aggressive and restless immaturity.
She is a child who has grown accustomed to getting her way because she is pretty. She lives in a world of selfish hedonism inhabited by living props there for her amusement. Her every thought and action can be recorded an posted for the world to see and therefore it’s important.
The story follows her through one very dark night as she tries to get back a package that she was transporting for some dangerous people. Things go from bad to worse to unimaginable as she manipulates, betrays, and uses every person she can in a quest to cover her own ass.
I have a problem with protagonists like this. She is completely unlikable and seems completely OK with that. She always gets her way so she is oblivious to the fact that her actions have consequences, both for herself and for those around her.
That is my only problem with the film, but it’s a big one. It is an inventive film that looks good and has strong performances from a young cast and the story move at a good pace and it’s an interesting descent to some pretty dark places.
But God DAMN, I cannot stress how much I hated Kelly. At every step I was waiting for someone to punch her in the face. She was such an overwhelmingly annoying, dismissive, self absorbed imbecile that it was impossible for me to wish for anything but her to get knocked down.
In the end “King Kelly” is a well made, interesting, and inventive look at a generation that is being defined by its worst elements that would have been fantastic had the protagonist shown any sign of humanity, humility, respect, or redemption. She doesn’t.
Sunday Jan 29, 2012
It appears that The AFI has eclectic taste in music. Almost like a hipster.
Sunday Jan 29, 2012
Sunday Jan 29, 2012
It could be argued that music is a more integral part of movies than dialogue. I mean, it's been part of them for longer. It can add to or completely change the meaning of a scene. So it's only natural that The AFI would put out a list of the best music. But they went one... well, two further. They released three. That's right. This week we look at the best songs, scores, and musicals and we come across some very interesting placements and omissions. Enjoy.