Reviews

Despite some fine performances and great source material, this movie doesn't stand up as well as I'd hoped it would. It's either too dark and serious for the comedy it hopes to be or it's too gauzy for the serious look at modern teenagers in Britain that it hopes to be.

Still, it's interesting to see Dexter "did you know I was in Bugsy Malone AND Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrells" Fletcher, Ione "wow, am I really this naked in this movie" Skye, Jonathon "why aren't I working more often?" Pryce and James "didn't I play this same character only with more lines in Pretty in Pink" Spader in a movie that hardly any American has ever heard of...

This has its clever moments, its funny moments, its heartbreaking moments and a few moments that are meant to be (and are) disturbing... It's not as clever as its American cousin, or as funny...but it does have a bit more depth...and Ione Skye is REALLY naked in it.

That's worth a rental, isn't it?

Torture. Sheer torture. Don't get me wrong, it was beautifully filmed (although poorly edited)--Malick certainly has an eye...but he can't tell a story. I know what you're saying--he wasn't trying to tell a story, he was trying to convey a mood... Well, he certainly put ME in a mood. I was so tempted to stand up in the theatre, while some anonymous voice-over is saying something flowery and oblique about the nature of man and shout "OK, we get it! War is bad, people are messed up and can't we all get along...can we go home now?" Instead, I just checked my watch and realized I still had over an hour to go... There are some great moments and some memorable scenes, but by the end I was so bludgeoned and uninvolved that those moments and scenes didn't make up for the time spent. Nolte is good--although his inner dialogue (which is interchangable with every other inner dialogue in the film) is laughable. Penn is...well, Penn... No one else makes an impression (unless you count Travolta's poor cameo.) It's criminal that Malick chose to change Elias Koteas' character from being Jewish to being Greek. You could tell there was a sub-plot straining to burst free from Malick's dreamlike imagery--something that might have maintained my interest for the interminable length of this film...but Malick successfully undercuts the dramatic impact offered in the book.

Overall...this is as flawed of a movie as "Dune" was... And some people loved "Dune"--so many will love "The Thin Red Line."

Not me, though.

Biases admitted first. I'm not a big Araki fan... His ever-so-bleak approach to nearly everything wins him big fans in those circles who haven't gotten out of that "everything sucks = that's cool" phase--and for one who personally spent that phase watching "Brazil" and "Blue Velvet," I think his films are a distinct step down in both quality and underlying themes. So, I hadn't planned on watching "The Doom Generation" but I stumbled across it late at night and found myself mesmerized...wondering how far he'd go.

He went pretty far.

This movie is neither as funny nor as deep as it seems to think that it is... I will admit that, watching this late at night and alone, I was left breathless during the climactic "strobe light" scene--the "no spoiler" rule certainly blocks any discussion of what goes on there...but it definitely affected me... At the same time, it created a violent repulsion that erased almost all of whatever positively quirky moments I'd noticed in the first 2/3rds of the movie. And then, the non-ending left me with a completely empty feeling about the movie... That may have been Araki's point, but that doesn't mean I LIKED it...and I'm not going to complement him on his lack of subtlety...

Now, there's something to be said about a movie that puts a Keanu Reeves look-a-like into a three-way sexual sandwich--although, I'm not certain what that "something" would be... And, I'd be less than honest if one of major motivations for watching the movie all the way through wasn't Rose MacGowan--and for the reviewer who thought she was ugly...errrr...no...(although the less said about Marilyn Manson the better...)

If you want a bizarre, mildly funny movie that reminds you of a low budget Natural Born Killers with a pan-sexual twist...and don't mind a little childish nihilistic pandering to the very people he's making fun of (what's the expected reaction--"Ha ha...we're so lame"????)--then go ahead and give this a shot.

Warning--don't bother with the "R" rated edit. It's a hack job--and if you're concerned about extreme sex and violence...what the heck are you thinking about watching this movie for??? Rent the unrated version...and if you live through it...you're just sooooo cool, aren't you? :)

I understand why teenage girls would like this movie--the thrilling rush of new found deep friendship tied together with nascent sexuality and all that comes with it...the defying of the confines of the world around them...the incredible power of unfettered creativity and self-delusional belief...

What's amazing is that a jaded thirty-something man like myself would consider it to be his favorite film of all time. Peter Jackson shows a deftness in handling interpersonal characterizations and blending in amazing special effects in a way that seems so natural...so fluid...that you while you're awed by what you see, you're not so aware of the process that you're distracted. The oh-so-1993 effect of "morphing" is used better here than any other film (save, perhaps, Terminator 2--but in that movie, the morphing WAS the film...when here, it is merely one element.)

The direction is exemplary. The cinematography is awe inspiring. The script is sharp. The acting...down the line...is superb. Melanie Lynskey delivers a brave performance--giddy, childish, frightening, sexual, clouded... She's everything Christina Ricci pretends to be. Kate Winslet--hyper-bright and wonderful...her performance here reminds you that her "Titanic" performance was "sunk" (sorry!) by the extremely poor dialogue she was given. Her character's overly cheerful demeanor is a mask that covers her disappointment in her parents--but it's extended so far that it no longer seems like a mask...it seems to be a force of nature that drags Lynskey's Pauline along for a dangerous ride...a ride that Winslet's Juliet is in no position to control. There are crisp performances from all of the supporting cast as well.

Jackson should be listed with Gilliam and even Lynch when it comes to directors who can achieve a glorious, if dark, vision. The fact that Jackson's movies (save for "Meet the Feebles") are mainstream accessible--in ways that Lynch, especially, could barely consider (although "The Frighteners" was painfully overlooked by the US market)--makes me wish that he'd try his hand at more mainstream material.

Imagine what a Peter Jackson "Titanic" would have been like...and compare that to what a James Cameron "Heavenly Creatures" would have been like and you get my point.

I have seen many bad films. Some of them are so bad they're funny. Some of them are so bad, it's sad. Some of them are just bad enough to be a waste of time. However, in all of my years of watching movies, this film is the undefeated and undisputed WORST film of all time--because it isn't bad enough to be funny...I don't feel sad about how bad it was...and worse than being a waste of time, the fact that this movie has robbed me of any other experience in my life is as close to evil as this reviewer wants to get.

Bad script, bad acting, bad camera work, bad, bad, bad... ...what makes it worse is that, like a horrific car accident, I've felt compelled to stare, mouth agape, at this as it plays on premium cable...so I am intricately aware of how horrible this movie is... I don't know what it is--do I imagine that somehow they'll have pulled a George Lucas and re-worked sections that make it merely a pathetically bad movie instead of the champion bad movie? (No luck yet...and thankfully, no premium channel has dared challenge their viewers enough to run this in years... Ahhhh...bliss!)

Someday, a challenger will come...but for now...The Lonely Lady rules as the worst film of all time.