What the Fuck

Joaquin Phoenix has quit acting.

Can we blame this one on Reservation Road, too?

Is that so?

Many people cite "Top That" as the pinnacle of 1980s gimmick rom-com epic Teen Witch, but in my humble opinion, "I Like Boys" is the song-and-dance number to beat. As I see it, it's a perfect aggregate of an era marked by excruciating musical and aesthetic vapidity. Matching purple track suits? Dancing on top of the lockers, in the showers, and under the hair dryers? Two minutes of repetitive lyrics about abandoning childhood whims in favor of the sweet, sweet cock? It's a revelation!

Fortunately, the cranky lesbian gym teacher came to put an end to these crazy boy antics just in time.

Today's Selection:
Don't Look Now (1973)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069995/

Don't Look Now is a mystery-horror movie (or as the movie bills itself, "a psychic mystery") starring screen powerhouses Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland. Directed by Nicolas Roeg, it depicts the tale of a couple in Venice who are plagued by psychic happenings after the death of their daughter.

It was first released in the UK in 1973, then moved to a limited release in New York on December 9th of the same year. The movie finally received a wide release in January. Box office data for the movie is hard to find, and it's difficult to tell how weird 70s horrors fare in this regard - but its two stars had quite a bit of draw 30 years ago, so I'm willing to believe it did well (at least in the UK if it got a release here). In Hollywood tradition, it is slated for a remake, probably starring Naomi Watts.


What Turned Them Away?

- Forgotten by time. This movie is highly regarded by those who remember it or have seen it, but 1973 was not a prominent year for movies. The Exorcist was by far the highest-profile release of the year, and let's face it - THAT is the horror movie that the world remembers from that time. This actually has the 18th highest amount of IMDB votes from that year, but I think that goes to point out the weakness of 1973 at large versus the clout of this movie. I just don't think I've ever seen it mentioned on this board, and I think that it's very much worth seeing. Hell, I'm surprised I've even seen it.

I guess I don't really feel that this is underrated - just underviewed.

- It's weird. Exceedingly so. I haven't read the source material, a short story by Daphne Du Maurier (whose works seem to turn out uniformly excellent when adapted), but this movie is filled to the rafters with bizarre ****. Psychic phenomena, midgets, Italians, seances, long and un-erotic sex scenes, and a straight razor. In its own special way, the movie is over the top, and subtle at the same time, which I love it for. There's so much to be seen here and all of it is kind of mindblowing. To think people call this movie uneventful!


What Should Have Kept Them?

+ The atmosphere. Don't Look Now's pace is somewhat slow, probably to mask a deceptively thin storyline, but you wouldn't think that for a second as you watched. The look and feel of the movie is utterly absorbing. Nicolas Roeg has created a tonal masterpiece; anything he tries to invoke in the movie succeeds absolutely. It's a fascinating fusion of one of Dario Argento's trashy giallo flicks and some sort of dreamlike alternate reality...a strange combination to be sure, but one that turns out incredible results.

Scenes that probably didn't mean as much in the screenplay are given unbelievable life here. The initial death of the couple's daughter. Julie Christie passing out in the restaurant. A mysterious figure lurking the streets of Venice after dark, a desperate seance, and sad omens aboard a gondola. Scenes like this just jump off the screen, enticing and morbid. It's the kind of movie you dream about.

+ Julie Christie. I'm not a huge Donald Sutherland fan. I think he's cheesy and self-aware. Christie does double-time for him in this movie, though. Watching her in just about anything is a treat, and this movie gives her so much to work with. She is beautiful but fragile, which extends the viewer's connection with her even more; she almost asks to be protected, and it becomes clear through their rocky relationship that Sutherland is not the one to do it. Between the death of her daughter and the promise of seeing and talking to her once again, her character is full of emotions. Christie refrains from melodrama or over-emoting, but she looks perpetually sad. It is an exceptionally intelligent, understated performance, one of the best in horror.

+ The ending. It's intense as hell! So perfectly paced and terrifying (not to mention bizarre), it comes out of absolutely nowhere and smacks you on the side of the head. If the rest of the film isn't all that scary, falling into the trappings of a 35-year-old horror movie, this more than makes up for it. The last ten minutes of the movie are enthralling.

Don't Look Now is probably one of the more appreciated titles I've covered so far, as it's a critical darling and has a small ardent fanbase, but again, I've never seen it mentioned on this board. I think that's a shame - as old horror goes, I almost think it deserves to stand among the greats, were it not for some narrative shortcomings. Anyway, I highly recommend picking this one up and throwing it on on some dark, rainy night.

Underrated, Underappreciated Movies, Day 6: Shadow of the Vampire

Today's selection:

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0189998/

Shadow of the Vampire is director E. Elias Merhige's first major Hollywood project, previously most known for his bizarre cult flick Begotten. Shadow is the tale of German director F.W. Murnau's attempts to film Nosferatu by making a pact with an actual vampire. It first received a 6-theater release on December 29, 2000, and widened to its peak of 513 theaters by January 26, 2001. The film brought in around 11 million dollars overall.


What Turned Them Away?

- No particular genre or marketing hook. As we've seen with movies like Bug and Fearless, movies that do not adhere to one particular genre ("drama" doesn't really count) tend to not perform nearly as well as things like "horror" or "comedy". The closest Shadow of the Vampire comes to a genre is horror, which seems to be the studios' go-to genre for darker movies of no real predisposition. This isn't a scary movie, unless you count the ethereal chill that the atmosphere of the movie gives. It's enthralling, hypnotic and darkly humorous, but not really scary at all.

- People simply don't seem to talk about it. To be fair, this is not really the kind of movie that inspires fervent praise. It is dark, mellow and unconventional; there's no quotable dialogue, no grandstanding machismo...it just exists. This is the kind of movie that sat in the back of the fourth grade classroom and cut centipedes in half with scissors, and then when it got to college it suddenly became really awesome and sexy but still a little creepy. I think people are kind of alienated by that weirdness, enough to skip over the beauty of the imagery or the many other things that it offers. The structure is very free-form, there's little outstanding scriptwork to think about, and a lot of the plot is left up to the viewer's imagination - it's an oddly European movie, and I wonder if people were threatened by that. Either that, or it's simply been forgotten by time, as some great works tend to be.


What Should Have Kept Them?

+ Atmosphere. This movie, in terms of composition, is unlike few others. As dumb as this will surely seem, it's like a silent movie with sound - the image is placed at the forefront and what the characters are saying is secondary. Some of the best scenes of the movie come when Murnau is filming his movie and what we are seeing is shown in grainy black-and-white film, interwoven with the "real" scenes in color. I think it's a reminder of some of the things that we take for granted about black and white film...The stimuli are different, sure, but the starkness of the image can make what you're seeing all the more visceral. The first time this technique is used, Murnau is filming the vampire's first appearance, and it is downright chilling to watch him emerge from the shadows.

The movie is very Gothic, not in the meaning of the term that most of us know, but in that it's evocative of crumbling European castles and creatures lurking in the shadows. It successfully captures two tones: that of the original Nosferatu, and something completely new, bleak and haunted and totally beautiful. It seems shallow to praise a movie so heavily for its aesthetic, but Shadow of the Vampire is truly remarkable work.

+ Willem Dafoe. This is the role that really brought Dafoe to the forefront for me. To be honest, I never paid any attention to him in anything else he's been in, even though people claim he's a real acting chameleon and stuff like that. His work in Shadow of the Vampire as Max Schreck, however, is too good to be ignored. It is a truly incredible immersion of an actor into his role, standing well among the work of DDL's much loved Daniel Plainview or any other transformative performance in recent years. Frankly, for him to have lost the Supporting Actor Oscar to Benicio Del Toro's work in Traffic is a travesty; Benny is good, but it was a boring role and he's done far better work in a lot of other movies. Dafoe is unforgettable. He is the only actor to have nailed his accent, for one. Regrettably, a lot of the other accents are God-awful; between this and Mary Reilly, John Malkovich seems unable to do much with his voice.

Dafoe must have watched Nosferatu a hundred times to prepare for this role. He moves like a vampire, looks like a vampire (thanks in part to the awesome makeup), talks like a vampire (a great feat considering Nosferatu didn't have any sound) and acts like a vampire, in more meanings of the term than one. There are so many dimensions to this role: black humor, longing, primal fear, vengeance, theatrics... the character is compelling enough as it is, and Dafoe nails every single one of these aspects effortlessly. You simply forget that it is a person playing this creature.


I think this movie is an acquired taste, and no matter how much I praise it, there are going to be people who it doesn't quite gel with. I don't really have a problem with that; it just depends on what you're watching a movie to see. But if you're looking for something of dark, fundamental beauty, Shadow of the Vampire is tough to beat. And for those concerned, it is only 86 minutes long, so you really don't have much to lose.

(I'm pretty sure that screenshot is actually from Nosferatu, but whatever.)

Underrated, Underappreciated Movies, Day 5: Land of the Dead

Today's Selection:
Land of the Dead (2005)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0418819/

Land of the Dead is George Romero's return to the zombie films that made him a household name, after a twenty-year sabbatical away from the genre to pursue other projects like Monkey Shines and Bruiser. Released on June 24, 2005, it opened to a respectable 10 million dollar weekend in 2200 theaters and took in 45 million dollars worldwide. Critics received it pretty well too. And yet I see it garner far more hate than it deserves around the Internet. What's the problem here, then?


What Turned Them Away?

- Revisionist zombies. A lot of George Romero/zombie movie fans really dislike Land of the Dead - as far as high-profile zombie movies go, it is by far the most maligned. One of the big reasons, as far as I can see, is the distinct set of changes made to the zombie itself. Previously a non-functional, shambling undead husk, the creature begins to develop a whole new skillset in Land of the Dead...tool use, primitive thought/reasoning, and analytical ability, to name a few. I myself see no problem in George Romero making this type of change to a monster that he single-handedly popularized anyway. Though it may not have been his change to make, who's going to contest him? It's not like it was that blind of a retcon anyway - look at Bud, from Day of the Dead. And further, the plot simply would not have worked with conventional zombies, which I'll get into a bit more later. To me, it seems perfectly natural that a zombie should be able to restore some of its lost processing abilities, but I guess the more hardcore zombie fans felt otherwise.

- Change in genre. This movie is not Dawn of the Dead! Let's face it - there is very, very little room for horror in the zombie genre anymore. They've become more campy than creepy. Romero was perfectly aware of that when he made this movie, and revised it as such. Instead of the conventional horror movies that Night, Dawn and Day were, he produced a gory action movie with a few scary touches and an exponentially high body count. Again, a step in a different direction, which I don't feel should be viewed as a flaw.

- Perceived lack of quality. Okay, so the special effects kind of suck. I can't argue that. It's the price Romero paid for taking a 20-year break from an effects-driven subgenre. But really, is it that huge of a deal? Are people seriously trying this hard to suspend disbelief while watching a zombie movie?


What Should Have Kept Them?

+ Same ol' zombie fun. Even if the movie itself is a lot less dark than Romero's previous forays, Land of the Dead is still an entertaining vehicle for undead carnage. The setting is very new for the genre; it's a post-apocalyptic, almost cyberpunk movie, and there's not much else cooler than zombie dystopia. The conflict, a battle between sequestered rich-man's haven Fiddler's Green and the slums of what's left of the world, may be somewhat predictable, but watching it come to a close is more than satisfying. Fiddler's Green is a near-impenetrable fortress...to the lesser zombies. Their development of intelligence is something that bad old Dennis Hopper never saw coming, and that much-maligned change in the zombie canon was a necessity for the final showdown. Even before the zombie war, the movie is littered with gory, exciting sequences. George Romero really knows his craft.

I'll never understand some of the snobbery over, of all things, zombie movies. In my opinion, it's one of the most harmless and fun genres of films ever. The balance between camp, violence and giddy horror that a good zombie movie reaches is downright blissful; Land of the Dead and its ilk make great movies to watch with friends, maybe after a few drinks.

+ Asia Argento. Okay, maybe not this reason so much as the other one. She's a decent actress at best, but she has ****loads of presence. Whenever she's on screen she's the first character you look at and listen to. This, I think, is partly because she's hot and partly because she's just damn interesting. Look for her in three 2008 movies, all of which sound to be at least entertaining.


I wouldn't call Land of the Dead a perfect movie, but then again it doesn't need to be. The writing's a bit heavy, the CGI is obvious, and of course it's not really a patch on Dawn of the Dead. It does stand on two very strong decayed legs as an excursion into the action-horror-zombie genre, however, and you can't say no to the return of an old master.

Underrated, Underappreciated Movies, Day 4: Fearless (Jeff Bridges)

Today's Selection:
Fearless (1993)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0106881/

Fearless, not to be overshadowed by or mistaken for by Jet Li's "last" movie, is Peter Weir's tenth directorial effort. It's about a man who survives a plane crash and finds himself completely unable to experience fear of any form - physical, emotional, social. A highly positive critical reception didn't mean much to its distributors. Getting a "wide" release of 749 theaters on November 5th, 1993, the movie pulled in a domestic 7 million dollars - scant, but impressive, given its rather small release.


What Turned Them Away?

- Size of release. Perhaps this is because I wasn't aware of much of anything back in 1993 (I was five years old, bite me), but there's really no reason that this received the crappy little release that it did. 750 theaters? I guess not every movie merits the 1800 theaters that Robocop 3 snuck into that same weekend (http://imdb.com/title/tt0107978/). Or the nearly 2000 that Look Who's Talking Now decided to stink up (http://imdb.com/title/tt0107438/). I know that we bemoan how American movies are dying but let's be honest - things like this have always been popular. Fearless was never meant to be seen by the masses.

- Jeff Bridges's character. The handful of poor dumb bastards who ended up in the wrong theater may have found themselves surprised to see Jeff Bridges playing an emotionally contorted, almost superhuman sociopath, instead of Kirstie Alley or robot explosions. He is a fascinating character, but a rather difficult one to like, and I can't imagine a lot of people giving him that chance. He is really a prick for the first hour or so of the movie; only once he begins his journey to heal himself and another woman is he redeemed. I'm not sure a lot of people made it that far.



What Should Have Kept Them?

+ Jeff Bridges's character. Max Klein is a man almost completely unique in the world of cinema. Before his accident, he seems to have been a loving father, competent businessman and all-around decent person. After it...he's something totally bizarre. His survival seems to have unlocked something in both his mind and body that completely prevents him from feeling any sort of fear. He screams at people he barely knows just for the hell of it, eats foods he's fatally allergic to with no repercussions, and does whatever he damn well pleases. Some of his actions may come off as unsympathetic or shocking to a viewer, but we have to look at them without our own cultural guards up. The things he does are totally removed from the way society has conditioned him; he is humanity at its root. Selfish.

The movie is largely about Max (and his interactions with another survivor who lost her baby in the accident), and Jeff Bridges does this bizarre figure justice. He sells Max as a sort of Crazy Jesus, alternating between calm and completely irrational. A lot of his actions may seem bizarre, but make almost perfect sense once you re-examine them, and Bridges is a really great guide for this kind of evaluating. You can't NOT watch him, and the movie demands that sort of attention from you - otherwise, the payoff wouldn't work. You wouldn't understand what he does.

+ The direction. Peter Weir gets a lot less attention than he deserves; his bigger, more general (but no less great) Hollywood movies like Witness and Master and Commander are widely-seen, but the smaller ones like this and Picnic at Hanging Rock seem to slip under the radar. His hand is just as steady and masterful in this film as in either of his blockbusters. His choices of visuals are unforgettable, such as a burning cornfield full of wounded, dead, terrified people, and a car slamming full-force into a brick wall in a cloud of broken glass and metal. His use of music is sparing, which makes its appearances all the more remarkable (see below). And the performances he draws out of his actors, like Bridges, Isabella Rossellini, and the Oscar-nominated Rosie Perez, are uniformly stunning. He's a real Renaissance director, talented in many fields and lacking in none.

+ The ending. Without hyperbole, I can safely say this movie has one of the greatest endings of all time. Obviously, elaborating too much would be spoilery, but the confluence of visuals, music, and emotional impact is just enlightening. Absolutely unforgettable.

Fearless, unlike my previous three selections, isn't widely-hated or misunderstood. It's simply great, which a lot of people have yet to recognize. You really owe it to yourself to watch this movie, no matter who you are or what genres you're interested in. If you can bring yourself to accept the initially dubious decisions that Jeff Bridges makes, you will be paid off with a moving, scintillating, dynamic parable.

Underrated, Underappreciated Movies, Day 3: Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Today's Pick:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0103893

Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the movie predecessor to Joss Whedon's smash hit television series, was also his first major writing credit (aside from a few episodes of Roseanne, but who cares about that show). It got critically reviled and publicly ignored, holding a 30% on Rottentomatoes and a 5.3 overall rating on IMDB, and pulled down a 16 million dollar theatrical run.


What Turned Them Away?

- Uh...the whole thing. Honestly, this movie is kind of a mess, and it would be a challenge for me to convince you otherwise. It's basically Heathers with vampires, and though it doesn't speak much for its originality, just try and tell me that that isn't a winning formula in and of itself. The movie never quite lives up to its premise, though, What it ends up being is a sanitized, theater-friendly packaging of healthy girl power and unselfish altruism coming from people you'd never expect it from. These very serious themes end up clashing with the first hour of the movie, which is a bizarre mixture of fluffy Valley Girl comedy and bizarre satire.


What Should Have Kept Them?

+ It may be a mess, but it's a very watchable one. I seriously can't imagine anyone sitting through this movie without cracking a smile or laughing, whether it's from the humiliating way the movie has aged or one of the movie's legitimately amusing moments. Donald Sutherland is taking himself entirely too seriously (of course), but it's all comically dispelled when Buffy asks him if he has any gum during a long huffy monologue about evil powers. And watching Buffy surreptitiously look for her first vampire to kill while walking through a dark alley and singing "Feelings" is one of the most surreal, amusing moments I've had in a while.

And even if you don't find these kinds of things funny, the movie is simply bad enough to enjoy in the MST3K style. Where most bad movies generally take themselves too seriously to torment, and most "camp" movies do it to themselves to the point where it actually gets tiresome, Buffy strikes the perfect balance. I really think there's something in this movie to please everyone, if they're willing to buck up and give it a shot.

+ The evolution of Joss Whedon. For those who are fans of any of Joss Whedon's other efforts, it's interesting to see where the master got his start - from some twisted rendition of anti-undead feminism to writing ratings gold (or in the case of Firefly, quickly-canceled but well-loved gold). And though I'm sure the studio nerfed it all to hell, there are glimmers of Whedon's trademark cleverness scattered throughout the movie. In the hands of anyone else, this would have been unwatchable on any level.

I classify Buffy the Vampire Slayer as underappreciated because I think people took it way too seriously, as they still seem to. Maybe it had been billed as a legitimate action/comedy flick 15 years ago - I wouldn't know - but in this day and age, it best serves its purpose as a laughable/laughably bad excursion into...vampire comedy? Yeah. I make no promises with this one but I'm sure some of you could find it in your heart to give it a shot.

Underrated, Underappreciated Movies, Day 2: Bug

Today's Pick:
Bug (2006)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0470705/

Bug is an adaptation of Tracy Letts's well-loved play of the same name. It debuted at Cannes in May 2006 and received a release in over 1500 American theaters a year later. Thrown into the fray with Pirates 3, Shrek 3 and Spiderman 3 still in theaters, it managed to pull down an opening weekend of 4 million dollars but plummeted significantly after that. Word of mouth and middling critical reception seems to have sunk the film. Why? Let's find out.


What Turned Them Away?

- The marketing. This is by far the biggest reason for the film's chilly reception. You first have to understand that Bug is a ****ing weird film. Marketers design their campaigns around broad genres: adventure, romance, drama, horror. Bug doesn't fit into any of these conventional categories, so Lions Gate decided to stick it into what seemed to work best: horror. If Americans were more tolerant of the "horrifying dramatic black-comedy paranoid love story" genre, Bug may have found a great deal more success, but alas, it was not meant to be.

- The movie itself. Once the marketing got asses into seats, people were alarmed to discover that they were not watching a horror movie. What they saw was half an hour of talky drama, followed by a few weird things that escalated into a bizarre, twisted fever dream of a movie. Certainly not your average summer fare, and with the 60% revenue dropoff from one weekend to another, highly unappreciated. This film is as far out of the box as you get. Bug sees the box, screams and flies away.

- It WAS a play. Ready for the shocker of the century? Plays tend to thrive on their dialogue. Bug is very, very dialogue-heavy, which is dangerous for any film to pull off. You have to give yourself completely to the actors and suspend all disbelief, and it gets especially difficult in this movie. To be fair, I do think it is one of the movie's faults - it really would have benefited from a more radical adaptation from the play.


What Should Have Kept Them?

+ It's unique. As I mentioned before, this went up against a handful of blockbuster threequels and got absolutely destroyed. It's a pretty telling statement for the rewards that originality receives in American media when three derivative formula movies gross a small nation's worth of profit and Bug can't even pull down five million. If I had to invent a genre in as few words as possible for Bug, it would be "absurdist psychological horror". You simply can't do it justice with anything less. It develops two compelling, tormented characters and sends them straight to Hell. Like recent darling There Will Be Blood, there are plenty of humorous moments interlaced with absolutely horrifying ones; it's as if the movie is challenging you to laugh at its insanity. Ashley Judd screaming "I am the super mother bug!!!" in the middle of a heated monologue about governmental conspiracy is about as bizarre as you can get, and surely is an unforgettable moment in the midst of a bunch of forgettable movies.

+ It's powerful. Bug is only a "horror" movie in that some truly unspeakable things happen to the characters we see. The movie allots time to let these people build: Agnes White, bereaved mother and on the run from her terrifying ex-husband, and off-kilter war veteran Peter Evans. Agnes is going through a difficult time emotionally, after the disappearance of her son and her husband's release from prison, and she finds emotional solace in Peter's presence. Sadly, Peter's not all there, convinced that the government is planting "bugs" in him; before you know it, he's got her on a psychological rollercoaster. Agnes is clearly a good, if troubled, person and the things she sees in her exposed state sting us by proxy. One scene, for instance, involves the removal of a bug's "egg sac" and is absolutely terrifying. It is filmed in cold, lengthy shots, not giving the viewer a chance to rest as we watch the painful process. There are never any "safe points" in the movie, riding a steadily mounting wave of fear to the several scary climaxes.

+ Ashley Judd. Who the hell knew she could act? And act she does in Bug; in fact, she acts incredibly well. It is certainly one of the strongest performances of the 2007 movie year, one that she was never going to be honored for but may have deserved it in some alternate world. Agnes White is the crux of the movie; it gives you a half hour to buy into her plight and understand why she so willingly buys into Peter's lunatic ravings. She represents the last bastion of rationale in the twisted chain of events that unfolds, and Judd plays her part with a tempered, wary sort of delusion. She gives off the impression that though she is externally agreeing to whatever she's told, there's some part left of her that simply can't buy into it all - a superb feat from an actress who hasn't been able to prove herself quite like this before.

Bug is a movie that you have to come into with a very open mind. If you expect typical horror tropes, you're going to be deeply disappointed. Allow the movie to be what it is, and you may find yourself shocked, disturbed and perhaps even entertained in a sick sort of way. As I said before, its play roots cause it to be a little long in the tooth in some spots, but a majority of the dialogue is riveting and clever. Bug is truly one of 2007's most underrated pictures.

Underrated, Underappreciated Movies, Day 1: Marie Antoinette

Welcome to the first post in what will (hopefully) be a series of underrated, underseen, underloved movies. I don't expect to change everyone's mind about the films I want to cover, but hopefully I can offer a new perspective on some of them. These are the kinds of movies that got unfairly dismissed for whatever reason and deserve another shot.

Marie Antoinette (2006)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0422720/

Marie Antoinette is the third film by daughter-director Sofia Coppola, and it is also her most ill-received. It started out inauspiciously when a few people at Cannes perceived it as "historically inaccurate" and booed it, which degenerated into sensationalized stories of crowd-wide hatred. The movie kind of snowballed from there until it finally hit the States, where it opened to a flimsy domestic box-office and mixed critical reception.


What Turned Them Away?

- The plot, or lack thereof. Marie Antoinette, as its title kind of obviously suggests, is a historical character study. (More on that later.) The film is very different in its narrative construction - Marie has no real character arc to speak of. The story is a collection of fragments from her personal life, touching on the highlights like her famed bitch fight with a royal prostitute and her sordid love affairs. It isn't really a movie in that way - it's like a chaptered retrospective of a tragic, naive figure. People claim it's style over substance, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. There is plenty of substance, but it's subtle, and the style masterfully expounds on that substance anyway.

- You don't get to see her beheaded. I'm sure a lot of people would have loved to see Kirsten Dunst's decapitated head rolling around the gallows of France, but Sofia Coppola's decision to leave it to the viewer had a lot of bloodthirsty viewers pissed off.

- Sofia Coppola herself. A lot of people thought she fucked up the third installment of the Godfather series. I mean, sure, she can't act, but why hold that against her in her behind-the-camera pursuits? The backlash grew especially venomous when Lost in Translation found critical and commercial success - people began to cry nepotism. The ill will was bound to explode at some time...


What Should Have Kept Them?

+ The visuals. Say what you will about her storytelling abilities, but it's undeniable that Sofia Coppola has inherited her father's talent for putting a stunning image on film. Between the lavishly-designed costumes, the flawless cinematography and the meticulous set design - surely aided by the fact that it was filmed in Versailles - Marie Antoinette is the kind of movie that leaves indelible images burned into your brain.




+ The sound. Some might not care for Coppola's jangly indie-rock "nouvelle vague" sensibilities, but there's a lot more to be appreciated on her soundtrack. She skillfully juxtaposes not only modern tunes against the historical backdrops of her film, but also makes sure to include several classical pieces as well. Between this and the distinct visual style, Marie Antoinette is a totally unique movie. If the vocal tunes aren't your thing, the instrumentals she selects are fantastic - haunting, simple tunes that fit the mood perfectly. People might like the movie's OST for The Cure and Bow Wow Wow, but Aphex Twin, Squarepusher and Dustin O'Halloran's contributions to her score are the real standouts.

+ The character. As I briefly touched upon above, Marie Antoinette was a character of great complexity. The movie doesn't hit all of the points of her tragic life, but few movies could without being four hours long. What it instead offers is scenes, vignettes that tell us as much about the queen as possible in the two hour run time. She wasn't malicious in the slightest, but simply a sheltered teenager placed in a position of incredible power. What 16-year-old is expected to know how to rule a country? Of course she was bound to make mistakes - she is, after all, a teenager. And when she begins to have emotional problems, such as her unconsummated marriage and the political outcries of her foes, she uses luxury to bury them just as anyone her age would. In fixing the focus on Marie, rather than the political turmoil of the country, Sofia Coppola manages to keep the character sympathetic while highlighting her flaws and mistakes at the same time.

I wouldn't call Marie Antoinette a perfect movie. I think it's slow to get off the ground - the first twenty minutes aren't easy to sit through. But the rest is gravy...beautiful, sumptuous gravy. It's a tale of inherent contrast: the vagaries of a teenage girl tempered by an oppressive, dangerous governmental climate. For my money, that's the kind of contrast that creates substance, and doesn't deserve to be ignored.

Best Picture - Clash of the Titans (and some other guys)

(One of hopefully many Oscar posts. They'll be accompanied with pictures like these: the gold star means I think it'll win and the smiley means it was my favorite!)

2007 has been a pretty splendid year for film. Sure, the first nine months of it were inundated with some of the most heinous horse-shit ever to be shoveled into theaters (with a few precious exceptions like Breach or Zodiac), but this final quarter has proven to be more than generous. It almost seems unfair that with so many fantastic movies, only five could be honored this year.

Whether or not these five are the right selections remains to be determined. I don't get a lot of access to limited releases, being a) poor and b) 45 minutes away from the artier cinemas of Sacramento, but I made it a point to at least see all the Best Picture nominees this year. Having done so, I dwelt briefly on my feelings about them; the first impact they made, how they endured in my psyche and the things that bugged me about them. And while the category may be a little loaded, all the movies in it are pretty damn good.

Let's work our way up the list, starting with the sad old nags doomed for the glue factory and finishing with the thoroughbreds:



5) Michael Clayton

Michael Clayton's one advantage, a scant one at best, is that its screenplay is by far the most literate and accomplished one in the field, adapted or otherwise. Like all of its other nominations, however, it's doomed to lose out simply by dint of bad timing. Though it may have a fighting chance in some of its fields, Best Picture is absolutely a lost cause. To be honest, the nomination really just smells of "let's revive the adult legal drama and honor George Clooney at the same time!", and while I did like the movie a lot, it sticks out pretty sorely in this category (not as badly as Juno, at least).

This movie's presence in the 2007 race strongly recalls The Insider, another dark, like-minded law thriller that scored a handful of nominations but didn't pick up any. This genre simply doesn't resonate emotionally with critics enough to gain any sort of traction; they can appreciate the technical approaches, thus leading to nominations, but come ballot time it fades from memory.

- Does it deserve it?: Sure, in a weaker year. But if they were going to honor a mystery movie, Zodiac - easily a more ambitious, accomplished, polished film - got screwed the pooch. Then again, it would have made this an Oscar race filled with deeply depressing and angry movies, which I think would have unsettled people. Clayton's not exactly sunshine and roses, but at least it's not serial killers.
- What are its chances?: None. It's the fifth wheel on the Oscar wagon. It's good to see that the movie even got the honor, but anyone who thinks it has any sort of chance is kind of fooling themselves.
- What about the other nominations?: Original Screenplay, like I said before, is its best shot, but Juno's racketeering will be difficult to overcome. Tilda Swinton gives an unbelievable performance but it's not baity enough for AMPAS and Cate Blanchett has Supporting Actress on lockdown. Tom Wilkinson will get trounced by big bad Bardem. George Clooney didn't deserve the nod.
- My personal rating: 8/10, 4th favorite



4) Juno

Widely regarded as the tiny indie crowd-pleaser this year, as per Little Miss Sunshine in 2006 and Sideways the year before, Juno got an assload of valuable critical support right out of the gate. In addition, the campaigning effort has been tireless; Fox Searchlight really gets behind their movies in times like this. And finally, it's just a damn good comedy. Endearing, tight and wickedly clever, there's not much the movie can't do. On the surface, it seems like the kind of film that no one can bring themselves to hate.

...Or so you'd think. For whatever reason, Juno's harmless quirk has managed to garner some of the ugliest, most hysterical backlash I've ever seen directed at a movie. People fancy themselves that much smarter than the movie simply because they can point out the fact that it's directed with a stilt to a certain audience and the characters talk with an above-average cleverness. OH WELL HOLY SHIT BURN IT AT THE STAKE. No one complained when Fight Club, THE movie for stroking intelligent yet insecure male egos, came out.

In the parts I venture (aka the Internet), males from 15 to 22 are the most vocal demographic and their disdain for the film is overwhelming simply because it trafficks mainly with women. They were cool with Knocked Up because Katherine Heigl was tertiary to Seth Rogen's dumbassery and the tired, unrewarding Paul Rudd-Leslie Mann subplot. Not to say I didn't like Knocked Up, but I think Juno exposes some of the flaws in it, most notably because it's a half hour shorter and still has more emotional pull. It is sad that a movie as innocent as Juno gets crucified with the intensity that it does - any Oscar gold that might fall its way will be decried. But Best Picture is out of its reach.

- Does it deserve it: It really depends on how you posture this. As the comedy selection of the race, definitely. Hot Fuzz was the funniest movie of the year pound for pound, but it didn't really have the emotional hook that Oscar needs in its comedies. Knocked Up was too long and too difficult to take seriously, and Superbad was inconsistent (though generally pretty damn good). But amongst the other four nominees, it's like the emperor has no clothes.
- What are its chances?: Almost none. The critics could all simultaneously experience mid-life crises and vote for it in a shameless bid to seem cool, but it's AMPAS - they're probably all twenty years past a mid-life crisis anyway.
- What about the other nominations?: Ellen Page is the only potential threat to the Cotillard-Christie brawl, and even then she's still a hell of a long shot. Screenplay probably has this in the bag; Diablo Cody's personal circumstances are too irresistible to pass up. The script is overwritten, but also shows hallmarks of profound talent, so the Academy will probably throw it to her as encouragement. Jason Reitman has no chance for Director and I have to say that his nomination was kind of a travesty.
- My personal rating: 8/10, 5th favorite



3) Atonement

Atonement was the initial golden child of the 2007 race, before most people had even seen it. It was a winning pedigree - an adaptation of a widely-loved Ian McEwan book, directed by uprising period piece auteur Joe Wright, and starring the dazzling combination of Keira Knightley and James McAvoy. People were predicting Oscar-wide sweeps of every category, three nominations in Supporting Actress, shit like that. The film's popularity crested right before the Golden Globes, but that didn't stop it from taking home Best Drama. A lot of people were surprised to see that it still had the power to pull down any Oscar nominations, let alone seven of them.

To be fair to the movie, it is very good, but not a powerhouse. I liked it just a little more than Michael Clayton just in terms of scale - the best way for me to phrase it was that Atonement engaged me a little more. Michael Clayton was fun and involving but detached, and a lot of people thought Atonement was more frigid than a "romance" movie had the right to be, anyway. I think the movie works on a deeper level than basic romance, in light of the turbulent ending and a plot wracked with despair, which is one of the things I most admire about it.

If Atonement does have any chance at all, it's that it contains the largest aggregate of star power, in the forms of Keira Knightley, Vanessa Redgrave and James McAvoy. George Clooney can sell a movie, but Knightley has more crossover appeal (even though she is fatally dull in her work as Cecilia); Redgrave corners the older market; McAvoy covers the drooly fangirls.

- Does it deserve it?: No. There were stronger entries in the "general drama" category this year. Once would have been a fun substitute, but it is far too small for the Academy to even consider honoring. I never saw Into the Wild, and to be honest I didn't much want to, but a lot of people consider it a snub and I wonder how things would have stacked up with it in the race.
- What are its chances?: Slim, but not discountable. Best Picture at the Golden Globes sure didn't hurt it. The Academy pussying out and failing to honor either of the Big Two, on account of being very dark movies, is a distinctly real possibility. Heads will roll if Atonement picks up Picture, more so than Michael Clayton and maybe even Juno. It'd mean that the Academy was willing to honor a drama, but one as proportionately weak as Atonement. It might be worth it just for the spectacle of intellectuals shitting both themselves and all over the Oscars.
- What about its other nominations?: Adapted screenplay is cornered pretty intensely by the Big Two, though it has an outside chance if they want to honor it SOMEHOW. Everyone loves Saoirse Ronan, which I think is because her name is so cool, but she's not going to get the Oscar. Music (with pesky There Will Be Blood out of the way), costumes (the green dress!) and art direction (tracking shot) are probably locks.
My personal rating: 8/10, 3rd favorite



2) There Will Be Blood

For my money, There Will Be Blood is the strongest movie of the year, a truly sensational parable about greed and hatred. I was absolutely hypnotized by the movie, a sentiment that 90% of critics share - it is more divisive than No Country for Old Men, which is ultimately its downfall, but what love it gets from the big men is that much more fierce for it. I really like No Country, but I think it's going to be relegated to a status like that of Fargo: a widely-loved movie that exists in everyone's peripherals, versus a film that is regarded as a true classic.

But the classics don't always get Oscars, and like I said, this movie is just a smidgen more alienating than No Country was. Paul Thomas Anderson got no awards for Magnolia and Boogie Nights in arguably weaker years than this, so what's saying that he's automatically entitled to a few now? Besides his awesome movie, of course. This also picked up more nods than those two combined, so maybe this is his year. Time will tell.

- Does it deserve it?: Absolutely. It's the movie event of the year. I would have been upset if it hadn't been nominated.
- What are its chances?: Strong, but right now it's trying to claw its way to an echelon that No Country for Old Men has securely established for itself. In the long run, it's harder for me to envision AMPAS honoring this before the Coen Brothers, so I'm going with my gut feeling here.
- What about its other nominations?: Daniel Day-Lewis is a lock for Best Actor. Cinematography is likely as well, threatened once again by No Country. Screenplay has a fair shot, moreso than No Country. They might honor Paul Thomas Anderson with Director if he doesn't win Picture, but I think that's the Coen Brothers' game to lose as well.
My personal rating: 10/10, favorite movie of 2007



1) No Country for Old Men

No Country for Old Men is the movie to beat thus far. Loved by nearly every critic and many intelligent film-goers, despite an ending that left several scratching their heads, it is the Coen Brothers's much-lauded return to form. There's very little to properly fault here and the movie's only real weakness is its darkness. The Academy has historically been hesitant to honor movies such as this one, and even if they don't it's unlikely that it'll trickle past There Will Be Blood down to Atonement. More on this later.

- Does it deserve it?: Yes. Even if this was an appeasement nod for the Coen Brothers's dawdling filmography, it's still definitely the right film to give it to.
- What are its chances?: As I've said, it's the most likely of the bunch to pick up the award.
- What about its other nominations?: The sound Oscars are inevitable; this movie uses sound effects and ambience noise to flawless effect. Cinematography is very likely as well, and even if Roger Deakins doesn't get it for this, he probably will for Jesse James. Directing is very likely - again, this is flagbearer Coen material and the Academy will certainly welcome them back somehow. Screenplay is highly likely as well. Finally, Javier Bardem is a distinct threat to win Best Supporting Actor for his truly chilling portrayal of Anton Chigurh.
My personal rating: 9/10, 2nd favorite

I died!

Well, not really. But this has been a busy time in my life, and sadly, the blog has fallen by the wayside. No longer, however! I shall rejuvenate it with - what else? - late-ass Oscar predictions. Perhaps I'll gussy these up later to make them more appealing, but here's the bare-bones of it all:

Picture
No Country For Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Diving Bell and Butterfly
Atonement
Michael Clayton

Director
Coens (No Country for Old Men)
PTA (There Will Be Blood)
Schnabel (Diving Bell and Butterfly)
Gilroy (Michael Clayton)
Penn (Into The Wild)

Actor
Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)
George Clooney (Michael Clayton)
Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises)
Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild)
Johnny Depp (Sweeney Todd)

Actress
Julie Christie (Away from Her)
Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose)
Ellen Page (Juno)
Angelina Jolie (A Mighty Heart)
Laura Linney (The Savages)

Supp. Actor
Javier Bardem (No Country)
Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton)
Hal Holbrook (Into the Wild)
Casey Affleck (Assassination)
Philip Seymour Hoffman (Charlie Wilson's War)

Supp. Actress
Cate Blanchett (I'm Not There)
Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone)
Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton)
Saoirse Ronan (Atonement)
Kelly MacDonald (No Country. We're all allowed our longshots :x)

Original Screenplay
Juno
Ratatouille
Eastern Promises
The Savages
Michael Clayton

Adapted Screenplay
No Country for Old Men
Diving Bell and Butterfly
There Will Be Blood
Into the Wild
Atonement

Animated
Ratatouille
Persepolis
The Simpsons Movie

Foreign (I haven't seen any of these, I don't know what I'm doing)
12 (Russia)
Beaufort (Israel)
The Year My Parents Went on Vacation (Brazil)
The Counterfeiters (Austria)
The Unknown (Italy)

Documentary (See above)
Taxi to the Dark Side
Autism: The Musical
Lake of Fire
No End In Sight
Sicko

Cinematography
No Country For Old Men
Diving Bell and Butterfly
There Will Be Blood
Assassination of Jesse James
Atonement

Editing
No Country For Old Men
Into The Wild
There Will Be Blood
Bourne Ultimatum
Michael Clayton

Original Score (R.I.P. There Will Be Blood)
Atonement
Assassination...
Ratatouille
3:10 To Yuma
Lust, Caution

Visual Effects
Transformers
The Golden Compass
POTC 3

Some of the tech categories are missing but who really gives a shit about Best Makeup?

Oregon Trail 2 taught me the word "miscellany"

- Today I received a call from sub services.

Sub services lady: Yes, would you like to fill in at this school? You'll be subbing for a Mrs. Fields.
Drew: I'm sorry, what was her name again?
Sub services lady: Fields. Like...Strawberry Fields Forever.
Drew: ...

I think it's fucking great that she said that, but I'm not really sure why. Subtle appreciation of The Beatles? Bizarre cultural reference? The world may never know.

- I advanced to the quarterfinal round of Slamdance's annual Horror Screenplay Competition! Kickass. Now...to triumph over the remaining 99 scripts and claim victory! Wahahaha!

- H.P. Lovecraft is awesome and when winter break starts I am making a resolution to read his complete body of work once and for all. You should too! We can do it...together.

Cover me!

Call me shallow and everything, but a first impression can mean a lot, and generally it's a pretty accurate reflection of what you're going to get - at least in the entertainment world. I didn't actually have this theme planned when I started writing the post, but I realized that I was posting the covers of everything I wanted to talk about, and ran with it. You can call me shallow, but at least call me resourceful too.



First: I just love the DVD cover for David Cronenberg's oft-forgotten 1996 vehicular erotica, Crash. Namely, that quote by Janet Maslin. "Sex and car crashes." I don't think the point of a movie has been so succinctly addressed in any DVD cover quote. It would be like if you put a quote that said "Zombies" on the front of Dawn of the Dead, "Racism" on the other Crash, or "Suburban dysfunction" on any drama that's been made after American Beauty.

I wish my passion for this brilliant work of advertising had transferred to the movie itself; I thought it was incredible that Cronenberg could take a great premise like people who do the sexy time after automotive issues and make it so utterly boring and repetitive. You can give it a philosophical/fetishistic read, but ol' Mr. Body Horror won't allow you a leg to stand on there. (That was a totally unintentional pun that I caught only after a reread. Damn my subconscious.) You can view it as a critique of pornography, but if that's the case then I think it failed in the way Funny Games failed as a critique on stylized violence. The movie stubbornly refuses to expound on its fascinating foundations and that is its undoing. But you do get to see Holly Hunter's tits, and watch James Spader have sex with a leg wound and another man, so I'm not totally discounting it yet.



Moving on to significantly gayer things, check out this herpetic Lisa Frank explosion of a CD. It is the debut effort of American Idol 6 runner-up Blake Lewis and it is awful. My problems with Audio Daydream are innumerable, but there are a few big ones that any idiot (read: not Blake's fans) could pick up. The boy wears his influences on his sleeve: if you've been listening to the radio this last year, you'll notice that his vocal stylings are basically Justin Timberlake and Adam Levine's retarded crack baby. This also moves us to his professed 80s obsession, which apparently crept into the album. "Crept into" is not the right phrase to use, so much as "burst in with a hatchet and shat all over"; Lewis lacks the knowledge of what made 80s music work, which is nothing in my equally unfounded opinion, and it shows. No one wants to remember what they listened to when they were tripping balls two decades ago.

And the final complaint, which is most glaring and least subjective, is that the boy couldn't write a lyric to save his life (or his album, apparently). "Hot and sexy is the definition of her"? Well, it isn't the definition of syntax! If grammar determines how hot and sexy you are, then Lewis's command of the English language seems perfectly appropriate for his gnomish stature.

To be perfectly fair to Blake, I did like "How Many Words". I don't know why it caught my ear amidst all the other swampy ballads and abysmal synthesized abortions on A.D.D., but I think it's pretty much the high point of the album. Now you guys can stone me for actually enjoying something on this. I die without shame.



A few days ago, I made a pledge to myself to start reading for pleasure again; 999 was the first book I picked up to begin this odyssey. Granted, I'm only a few stories in, but it has proven itself to be a consistent and excellently-written collection of horror short stories. "Amerikanski Dead at the Moscow Morgue," the lead-in by Kim Newman, is a darkly satirical tale about post-apocalyptic Russia. It happens to be plagued by zombies, who are all for some reason American tourists. Wacky things ensue.

Less goofy works include my personal favorite entry so far, "The Ruins of Contracoeur", by prolific author Joyce Carol Oates. Ruins is a tale of a politically disgraced family biding their time in a relic of a house, owned and disowned by their grandfather; Oates guides us through their eventual breakdown with stark isolationist horror. She does an incredible job of capturing this melancholy, windswept atmosphere in the pages. At one point she describes two characters as being blurry, like "poorly realized watercolors", and I couldn't help but feel much the same way about the story. It is enigmatic and dizzyingly sad.

The book also includes entries by William Peter Blatty, Neil Gaiman and - who else? - Stephen King, and if it can keep being as awesome in the next 20 or so stories as it has been so far, I'm excited to read the rest.

I beg to differ.

(Do note that this post, as per the movie, contains a bit of graphic content, such as stabbings, flesh being ripped from the body and Lindsay Lohan. I know I was too late to save you from the above, but you've seen worse.)

Meet Aubrey Fleming. She is one half of the brassy, orange-colored harlot protagonist in the best movie of 2007, I Know Who Killed Me. And as we can see, she is a confused lass. But wouldn't you be too? I know I was as I crawled through this movie, not once, but twice. The first viewing was online because I was intent on not spending any money; the second, a rental party with two good friends on the day it came out.

Since I doubt anyone else has watched this movie, this post will be a brief summary of the movie, in both pictures and text. What better way is there to expose the incredulity of this movie but to use...well, the movie itself?



Point proven.

Anyway, the story begins with some incredibly inane stripping sequences. I didn't bother to cap them because believe it or not, LiLo does the least erotic striptease to ever be committed to celluloid. She doesn't even get naked. No weather-beaten orange tatas for you!

Of course, this is Evil Twin LiLo, who we don't see for about another half hour. In the meantime, we get to hang out with Aubrey. She's a sweet girl who likes blue roses, playing the piano, and getting fingered in Biology class.



This is her boyfriend. Conveniently, he found a blue rose. If you aren't familiar with this movie's incredibly subtle and expressive color symbolism, prepare to become so. Uh...that's a classy way of saying that you'll be seeing either blue or red in every single shot of the movie. Immediately after the shot above, for instance...



That idiot pricks herself on a thorn. Blue to red! You could interpret this as beautiful things having deadly secrets, or violence leading to pain, or a talentless film director shoehorning metaphors into his script to make his movie seem deep. I think you know where my dollar's placed.

Anyway, despite warnings of a serial killer prowling the neighborhood, Aubrey wanders off by herself after a football game and manages to get kidnapped. Cue ominous blue fade from this shot:



to this one:



Yep, ol' LiLo's stumbled into some torture porn! I actually kind of feel bad for her; she must have legitimately thought this would have been her big jump into a more mature film career. "Mature film" meaning something different than what it sounds like, of course, though porn only seems like the next logical step after this and her rehab stints.

So obviously, one person is having fun in this scene. It's not Aubrey, and it's definitely not the viewer, because we get treated to images like this.



Classy, right? This is the stuff adult dramas are made of. I, for one, loved the fingernail torture sequence in Remains of the Day, but that's just me.

Aubrey wakes up in the hospital and treats us to what must be the single most hilarious shot of the movie. I don't know what that says about me as a human being, but I laughed for about five minutes the first time I watched this.



We soon discover, however, that she is not only missing limbs but also her identity! Aubrey now calls herself "Dakota Moss," a hardened stripper/crack fiend, completely removed of the virginal if not still slutty-looking Aubrey. What's really great about her sudden transformation is that Lindsay Lohan plays both characters EXACTLY the same, right down to the mannerism. Her voice is a little harsher and that's it. The only difference between these two is Dakota says "fuck" a lot, which is clearly the key to being taken seriously as an actress.

This has little plot relevance, but I like that the police show a horrified amputation victim pictures of the last girl her assailant murdered.




See that look of anguish? That's Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. FBI, FTW!

Once Aubrey Dakota is well enough to leave her bed, the police interrogate her about her whereabouts and identity. I don't know where she lives - Callous Law Enforcement Town? It's almost as if the screenwriter was trying really hard to advance the plot forward...and sacrificed all credibility in the process. Nah, couldn't be! It was also during this scene that I noticed that LiLo's severed limb looks like either a hot dog or a penis.



Basically, Dakota regales the police with her hidden past. Her mother kept her a secret from the world, so she doesn't have any birth records, but that didn't stop her from becoming a stripper at the age of 4 or however old she is.



Hey, does she remind you at all of another recently melted-down celebrity? This shot is an eerie portent of the future Miss Spears, which is perhaps its only cultural worth. Hairless Testicle Cat notwithstanding.

Basically, Dakota's mom died and she has nowhere else to go, so "Aubrey's" mom benevolently decides to "adopt" her. But not before she gets fitted with some sweet cyborg limbs!



That is some straight-up Star Wars shit right there. I waited very expectantly for the scene where Aubrey's father goes "Dakota, I am your father" and Dakota says "No you're not! You stole me from the dead crackwhore down the hall and sent my sister off to New Zealand where you're paying her with monthly child support. I KNOW WHO KILLED ME!" Oh wait, that ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENED. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Dakota Aubrey Dakota comes back home to find her boyfriend expectantly waiting for his chaste Aubrey. What he finds is something completely different, though no less hot.



You know what it's time for? Cripple sex!



I kind of wish I had screencapped this more. It's really great because the sex scene is intercut with shots of Aubrey's mom scrubbing things with immense frustration, trying to drown out the sounds of her daughter's gimpy orgasming. The sex itself is incredibly boring and poorly-filmed, but that hardly seems to matter.

Now the movie cuts to a flashback. Confused yet? Hang on! Dakota's finger falls off in the shower, and she is immediately reminded of a similar experience she had at the strip club, where - I kid you not - her finger falls off during her routine. Most fucked-up strip club everrrr. Anyway, Dakota manages to avoid suspicion by telling her boss that she "cut herself with a beer bottle" and didn't need to go to the hospital because "they're for rich people." Yeah.

On the bus back to...wherever she's going, she encounters this ridiculously irrelevant Jesus figure.




And no, that second picture isn't pre-coitus - it's part of a twisted dream sequence that involves tattoos coming to life - but it wouldn't have surprised me because Dakota's a whore. This enigmatic Asian tells her "people get cut. That's life" and never appears again.

Back to the present. It is at this point that Dakota Aubrey Dakota becomes convinced somehow that her sudden injuries are of some importance (OMG REALLY???) Tapping into the unlimited power of the internets, she makes this excellent Ask.com search:



They're not just bleeding, but they're UNEXPLAINED too. Just like this movie. This incredibly useful search actually manages to take her to exactly the page she needs, an informative video about the stigmata. Look at this picture and try to tell me that this movie is taking itself seriously. I dare you.



He informs her that bleeding wounds unexplained can occur in identical twins, which automatically leads her to conjecture that she is a twin and her father sent her sister to New Zealand where he is paying her monthly child support. Now we knew that Dakota wasn't exactly a deductive mind to rival Holmes, but seriously, this is just ridiculous. Her mom whips out the sonogram of her pregnancy that she conveniently kept but NO science deters Dakota Moss!



At this point a lot of boring shit that I didn't feel like capping happens. What it leads up to is that Dakota wanders to the grave of the first girl that the serial killer murdered. There, she discovers this illegible ribbon.



This incredibly important discovery leads her to believe that it was the piano teacher who was behind it all along! SHE KNOWS WHO KILLED HER! But God knows how. Dakota/Audrey's brain kind of works in its own bizarre little world, where logical gaps make perfect sense.

Also, a dual-color split screen with your Saran-wrapped and buried twin-not-twin is something that every movie should have.



Aubrey, determined to stop her assailant at all costs, goes to the piano teacher's house armed with absolutely nothing but her battery-powered leg. I guess you can't really be "armed" with a leg, though. Fuck you I thought it was funny.

Also, her dad died.



But there's no time for grief! (as if we gave a fuuuuuck) The piano teacher finds her prowling around in his basement garden of body parts, and after a brief struggle, he - I kid you not - beats her unconscious with her own cyborg arm. If I could make GIFs, I would, and you would see it everywhere, because this scene is just too perfect. I think it's an accurate representation of Aubrey's struggles thus far; no matter what she tries to do, something incredibly stupid just beats the shit out of her. I KNOW WHO KILLED ME AND IT'S MYSELF!

Dakota or Aubrey or who-the-fuck-ever wakes to find herself tied to something. It takes her about six seconds to break free, however, and with the aid of a conveniently-placed sharp object she stabs her assailant in the neck.

You know, if I were making my on-screen debut as a twisted, limb-chopping psychopath, I would not want my final image to look like this.



He knows who killed him and it's really surprising!

Dramatic obstacle resolved, Dakota Aubrey Dakota Lindsay Lohan stumbles back to the graveyard and digs up a random grave, where she finds...herself, looking like a fucked-up 1800s schoolteacher. She curls up next to this matronly version of herself and falls asleep as the moon shines silently upon these inexplicable proceedings.



End movie.

If you haven't been able to discern it by now, I Know Who Killed Me is an immeasurable disaster. Though it is too obscure to slay the careers of those involved, I can name at least one director and two screenwriters who will never be working in Hollywood again. And this certainly isn't an auspicious omen for several of the actors involved, not the least of which is poor Lindsay Lohan. It really is sad that this is what her star-studded cinematic path has led to; it will take boatloads of good will to get herself in a project half as good as this in the future.

People who do not make it out of this movie with their dignity intact:



Julia Ormond



Neal McDonough



Crab Man

I would have said LiLo herself, but really...did she have any dignity left when she signed on to this?

Happy (three hour late) Thanksgiving!

Wanna know what I'm thankful for this year?



No Country for Old Men, for easily being the best movie of 2007 so far (and probably for the rest of the year)



Amy Winehouse, for making fantastic music AND supplying the world with plenty of crazy tabloid fodder



and SaGa Frontier, a 10-year-old Playstation game that just bewitches me for absolutely no reason at all.

I could have said friends and family and health and all that but fuuuuck it. This is how I roll.