245) The Kids Are All Right (2010)

245) The Kids Are All Right (2010) Dir: Lisa Cholodenko Date Released: July 2010 Date Seen: August 4, 2010 Rating: 1/5

The dialogue and the scenario in The Kid Are All Right are so perversely alien that all of writer/director Lisa Cholodenko's attempts at making a lesbian couple look normal--within a sitcom understanding of normalcy--are in vain. Her terrible dialogue, truly inane double standards and loaded plot undermines her film's very premise. 


Cholodenko's film tries to make Julianne Moore and Annette Bening look like the ideal parents--caring, compassionate and very up-to-date on what their kids are doing--only to complicate that image through egregiously pat and half-hearted plot twists (She drinks! She screws! They're flawed, wawawaaa). I haven't felt so angry at a film for being so lazy in its storytelling nor so inept in its attempt to make "other" characters relatable in a long while. I was actually wailing at the screen while watching the film in theaters (my sister will confirm this; she asked me at one point if I was going to carry on like that throughout the film and I yelled, to the nearly empty theater, "But it's so bad!"). 

And for those that claim that Mark Ruffalo's character only had the tables turned on him at the film's end: no, that ignores the way that Cholodenko's film limps towards that conclusion throughout the film. The fact that he wants to redeem himself and be involved in their lives gives him a momentary reprieve from judgment but he really starts to fuck things up for himself when he starts screwing around with Moore's character. That's when he proves that he's always secretly wanted more than Cholodenko's willing to give. But from the start, Ruffalo's character just isn't a sympathetic guy, according to the film's logic. He's a cartoon: all the straight women around him give him the eye and after sex, he, being a true-blue hippy dip, stretches out on his futon wearing all denim--denim jacket and denim pants, too. Hippy scum! Home wrecker! Or take the comment he makes about how he doesn't like or necessarily believe in the good that institutionalized learning can do for students: this guy is an enemy to traditional family values! Spare me.

244) Step Up 3D (2010)

244) Step Up 3D (2010) Dir: Jon Chu Date Released: August 2010 Date Seen: August 2, 2010 Rating: Ewww/5 (ok, ok more like 1.5/5)

I'm on Keith Uhlich's shit list for life for not having seen the first 17 minutes of this film and yet giving it "0 Stars" at Slant Magazine. That and for not loving Femme Fatale. But mostly Step Up 3D. In any case, read my review for Slant Magazine and find out what all the fuss is about. And yes, if you must know, I realize that that's not an official poster for Step Up 3D but rather  retrofitted poster of...Step Up 2 the Streets, I think. So nnnnyah.

243) A Serbian Film (2010)

243) A Serbian Film (2010) Dir: Srdjan Spasojevic Not Yet Released Date Seen: August 1, 2010 Rating: 1.75/5

The difference between a film like this and The Human Centipede is that A Serbian Film relies on its grisly content for all its worth to supply it with a grandiose and patently ludicrous, one-note political message while The Human Centipede is A) much more democratic in its misanthropy B) is actually unnerving C) is admirably perverse instead of just overheated and dull. Looking back on this film, I can't imagine how I could watch A Serbian Film,  a movie that had so much screwing and so many new and ugly forms of torture, and yet be so bored. Really lousy.

241) Go Go Tales (2007)

241) Go Go Tales (2007) Dir: Abel Ferrara Date Released: January 2011 Date Seen: July 31, 2010 Rating: 3.75/5

Again, largely drawing a blank. I appreciated the fetishized seediness and Dafoe's performance but the story is pretty inconsequential. I remember thinking of it as something like "Abel Ferrara Makes His Own Fellini Movie." I'll rewatch and hopefully, within the context of his films from the aughts, I'll have something more to say.

240) Sweet Home (1989)

240) Sweet Home (1989) Dir: Kiyoshi Kurosawa Not Yet Released Date Seen: July 31, 2010 Rating: 3.5/5

I wish this movie left more of an impression on it. I remember it going on for a lot longer than it should have but I enjoyed the cheesy special effects for the monsters and the set pieces, too. Otherwise, a blip on my radar, unfortunately.

239) Dracula's Daughter (1936) and 242) Mr. Vampire II (1986)

239) Dracula's Daughter (1936) Dir: Lambert Hillyer Date Released: May 1936 Date Seen: July 30, 2010 Rating: 3.25/5

242) Mr. Vampire II (1986) Dir: Ricky Lau Not Yet Released Date Seen: July 31, 2010 Rating: 3.75/5

A pity I couldn't fit Mr. Vampire II into my vampire piece for the L Magazine. It's mostly very bouncy, even if it is a bit soggy. I mean, that slow-motion chase scene is worth the price of admission alone. That gag is so funny, so inventive and oh yeah, so damn strange. In any case, see my piece on vampires for the L Magazine. NOW.

238) Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

238) Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) Dir: Edgar Wright Date Released: August 2010 Date Seen: July 29, 2010 Rating: 3.75/5

RV!: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) Dir: Edgar Wright Date Released: Still August 2010 Date Seen: November 6, 2010 Rating: 4/5

I'm all Scott Pilgrim-outted at this point but I did write about it twice. Below is my first piece. And in the comments sections is my DVD review for Slant Magazine.

So this piece never ran on Cinematical but I've been told that that's not a reflection on my writing but rather a sign of my editors refusal to snipe at peers, even if they have been sniped at first. I admire that. A lot, actually.

Still, I think the piece is worthwhile and didn't just want to kill it. It'll go up on Extended Cut eventually. I just don't want to go through the hassle of figuring out what chronological # it should be assigned (long story short: I # all the feature films I've seen from start to finish for the first time in my online film journal. It's a curse.)

By now, I'm sure some of you have read Vanity Fair's James Wolcott's response to Todd Gilchrist's recent review of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World that he filed from Comic-Con. Wolcott's piece, which quotes from Shone's piece that originally responded to Gilchrist's piece (exhausting, innit?), is petty and flat-out ugly.

Briefly: both Wolcott and Shone assume that Gilchrist's presentation of the way director Edgar Wright handles Bryan Lee O'Malley's original source comics is a form of croneyism. They assume because this Cinematical that Gilchirst is a fanboy and is defensively covering for Wright, who is conspicuously also a big geek. Shone takes great offense to the following passage, excerpted in turn in Wolcott's post:

"But what's most surprising is how the movie sneaks up on you, and how it seems to know that these are its shortcomings, particularly at the beginning of the story. That I was initially bored by his dating life with Knives feels intentional in the context of the film's ending, and that he is sort of infuriatingly inactive becomes an integral part not only of the character but his eventual journey, both physical and emotional, as he navigates adversaries and obstacles of both varieties."

Shone then replied thusly:

"So Cera's infuriatingly inactive but it's integral to "his journey," and the dating scenes are slow as a setting cement but it's "intentional." For crying out loud. It's not Francis Ford Coppola we're dealing with here and even Coppola might just be able to hold himself together if Cinematical let slip with the occasional frown. But no, apparently Edgar Wright is so sensitive a creative flower that every comment must come sugar-coated, ever criticism soft-pedalled, every barb softened and proferred atop a bed of pink fuschia petals as the critic backs out of the room, blushing, curtseying and promising absolute fealty to his liege. What are these guys so terrified of? Why are these guys even reviewing?"

Yeah, why /are/ we reviewing, anyway?!

I saw Scott Pilgrim vs. the World last night and before I get into this, allow me to say: I don't know Todd Gilchrist. I just started writing for Cinematical. I did not have a long-standing love affair with the site, though I did enjoy it before writing for it. Ok? Ok. Let's go.Spoilers ahead.

I couldn't help but watch Scott Pilgrim thinking of what Todd admittedly alludes to only obliquely in his review. Wright's handling of the Scott Pilgrim comics is very literal-minded, which is not surprising considering Wright's previous projects and also in light of O'Malley's equally literal-minded comic.

But Wright's film is nothing if not deliberate. In fact, if anything, Wright's direction is over-determined though very assured in its campiness. I can't speak for Todd and I won't but Wright's problematic aeshetic confidence is both why I enjoy Scott Pilgrim vs. the World as much as I do and why I think it's a rather limited romantic comedy.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World announces its dogged devotion to the comic book logic and naivete of its main character's psyche in pretty much every damn scene. It's a story about a kid that doesn't want to grow up or face his responsibilities, so naturally his life looks like a comic book, is filled with video game references and is shot in glitzy panoramic shots that are all front-lit like a mother. Wright doesn't follow through on that line of thought and instead allows his main protagonist to mature in his own immature time and way, held by the hand by everyone around him until he really has no other choice but to grow a spine.

Then again, the same can basically be said about O'Malley's comic. That's not a valid excuse for Wright: O'Malley's comic frequently feels rushed while Wright's film announces how mannered and controlled it is--for an Edgar Wright comic book adaptation--in practically every one of its carefully blocked widescreen shots. It's like Wright took a lot of plays out of David Fincher's OCD gamebook, though that doesn't necessarily make Scott Pilgrim vs. the World or its story any more exact. I'm specifically thinking of:

• The Knives/Ramona fight at the end is tacked on. We need a way to end Knives's story arc but by pushing that subplot to the end instead of figuring out a way to resolve that tension in another way earlier on, it feels like Knives never really got over Scott unlike in the comic, which over-emphasizes that point. 
• We don't need Nega-Scott by the end. Felt silly in the comics, feels silly and vestigial in the movie.
•  I was going to say that Wright should have done something to speed up the whole "Seven Evil Exes" structure of O'Malley's comics but I think the only sequence that really bugs me, or just feels flabby or even unnecessary was the fight with the twins. 
• Subspace. I still don't know why this exists in the story beyond a very cursory way for Scott and Ramona to meet and it makes even less sense in the movie than it does in the comic.

And this is because Wright's adaptation's main problem is that it's not very ambitious nor especially thoughtful beyond a point. It's main strength is its abundance of energy, which pays off wonderfully throughout. But Wright's film eventually feels as rushed as O'Malley's comic. That race to the finish makes the film's ending rather dissatisfying: Scott Pilgrim doesn't really grow up nor does he really earn his newfound sense of self-esteem. He was guided every step of the way by his coddling friends and given more than a little help from Wright and O'Malley, who for the most part do everything they can to protect Scott's ego by allowing him to tough out his problems on the terms of his own fantasy world of friends, parties and video game references. O'Malley's comic's final volume is one long epilogue while Wright's film doesn't give itself time for any such resolution. It's too beholden to the jokes and the structure of the original comics to give itself time for genuine closure.

But in spite of my reservations, I can see Todd's point. Wright's control of his material is not what I want it to be but I understand what Todd's saying about the way Wright sympathizes with his hero's emotional journey so much that he ends up making the less kinetic scenes in the film the slowest parts in an otherwise blisteringly quick two hour-long film. Then again, even if I didn't see Todd's point, I wouldn't call him out for his opinion and assume I knew where he was coming from as Wolcott and Shone have. Because, hard though it may be to believe, that's Todd's opinion and criticizing him for it is just obnoxious and unnecessary. "Meta-criticism at its most eunuch," indeed.