Joe! It's good to see you back up on the hotline there. I can't wait to see your thoughts on EbertFest.
I'm back after a long break with one slightly long review. Don't be surprised if I'm gone for a couple weeks. You never know what the end of the school semester will bring. But soon, summer will be upon us. That means more time to write reviews. I'll try to even out the crappy blockbuster fare with some worthwhile home video picks and some (hopefully) decent art house films. So, stay with us. We're going to be coming at you with full force to knock your socks off.
Party Monster
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
James St. James is a Club Kid. He supports himself by partying. Back in the late 1980s, many people made a living through being paid to show up in elaborate costumes and project their elitist image on various parties. Michael Alig had heard of this and wanted in. James squared took him under his wing and showed Michael just how it is done. Soon, Michael was getting to be bigger than the larger than life St. James. His dark and unique party themes and costumes and promotional techniques were a huge success. As his fame grew, so did his drug habit. Would he be able to balance the two?
I’ll tell you right now, no. Normally, I don’t give plot away, so if you’re really bent on not knowing about movies before you see them, then maybe you should stop reading. However, this little bit of info I’m about to give is told in the first few minutes. Here it goes.
I really am beginning to despise the whole flashback as a storytelling device. Postmodernism isn’t hip anymore. The movie essentially starts off with James and Alig on the bed doing drugs and talking (sometimes to each other, other times directly into the camera and thus to the audience acknowledging fully that they are in a movie). Alig reveals he has killed Angel. From this moment, we go back in time showing the events that lead us to the current state. It’s pointless. The whole thing would have been much more effective and shocking to those who don’t know the story if the movie played out in chronological order. Nothing the film did warranted the flashback technique and in fact, that whole processed helped ruin the story and the movie.
Writer/directors Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato (who also did the surprisingly good “The Eyes of Tammy Faye”) had previously done a documentary on Alig’s story also called “Party Monster.” Since they’ve interviewed many people involved and had made another film on the subject, one would think this fictionalized narrative effort would be more interesting. There’s obviously a huge story to be told here, and the audience gets cheated. Many things could have been explored in more detail. The personalities of some of the “lesser” characters, the subculture of the Club Kids although explained, could be exploited and showed more. Even the main characters were not fully realized, in my opinion. Alig’s decent, especially after the murder, should have been shown in full. Everything seemed to be pushed along the timeline so quickly that development took a back seat to chronological events told within the time limit.
The acting was abysmal, too. Seth Green (James St. James) and Macaulay Culkin (Michael Alig) both attempt to portray their real life counterparts in a realistic manner. The mannerisms and speech patterns are probably accurate, however the acting is far from natural. Maybe the characters are too flamboyant to come off as real, but if you watch the movie you’ll easily see that’s not the only problem with the performances.
Probably the only thing I did enjoy throughout the movie (I refuse to say “film” for a flick shot – badly – on digital video) was the costumes. They were very extravagant and inventive. Richie Rich from Heatherette and Michael Wilkinson worked well to create some fantastic, out-of-this-world clothing. The screen was sometimes filled with tens of eye-popping creations. The fashion was the most intriguing thing in there.
I probably don’t need a concluding paragraph here. It’s pretty apparent that I found the movie dull and lifeless (except the wardrobe) and just overall bad. The directors have made a good documentary, so I bet the non-fiction version of this story is much more compelling and worthwhile. Skip this one. There are better parties out there.
I'm back after a long break with one slightly long review. Don't be surprised if I'm gone for a couple weeks. You never know what the end of the school semester will bring. But soon, summer will be upon us. That means more time to write reviews. I'll try to even out the crappy blockbuster fare with some worthwhile home video picks and some (hopefully) decent art house films. So, stay with us. We're going to be coming at you with full force to knock your socks off.
Party Monster
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
James St. James is a Club Kid. He supports himself by partying. Back in the late 1980s, many people made a living through being paid to show up in elaborate costumes and project their elitist image on various parties. Michael Alig had heard of this and wanted in. James squared took him under his wing and showed Michael just how it is done. Soon, Michael was getting to be bigger than the larger than life St. James. His dark and unique party themes and costumes and promotional techniques were a huge success. As his fame grew, so did his drug habit. Would he be able to balance the two?
I’ll tell you right now, no. Normally, I don’t give plot away, so if you’re really bent on not knowing about movies before you see them, then maybe you should stop reading. However, this little bit of info I’m about to give is told in the first few minutes. Here it goes.
I really am beginning to despise the whole flashback as a storytelling device. Postmodernism isn’t hip anymore. The movie essentially starts off with James and Alig on the bed doing drugs and talking (sometimes to each other, other times directly into the camera and thus to the audience acknowledging fully that they are in a movie). Alig reveals he has killed Angel. From this moment, we go back in time showing the events that lead us to the current state. It’s pointless. The whole thing would have been much more effective and shocking to those who don’t know the story if the movie played out in chronological order. Nothing the film did warranted the flashback technique and in fact, that whole processed helped ruin the story and the movie.
Writer/directors Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato (who also did the surprisingly good “The Eyes of Tammy Faye”) had previously done a documentary on Alig’s story also called “Party Monster.” Since they’ve interviewed many people involved and had made another film on the subject, one would think this fictionalized narrative effort would be more interesting. There’s obviously a huge story to be told here, and the audience gets cheated. Many things could have been explored in more detail. The personalities of some of the “lesser” characters, the subculture of the Club Kids although explained, could be exploited and showed more. Even the main characters were not fully realized, in my opinion. Alig’s decent, especially after the murder, should have been shown in full. Everything seemed to be pushed along the timeline so quickly that development took a back seat to chronological events told within the time limit.
The acting was abysmal, too. Seth Green (James St. James) and Macaulay Culkin (Michael Alig) both attempt to portray their real life counterparts in a realistic manner. The mannerisms and speech patterns are probably accurate, however the acting is far from natural. Maybe the characters are too flamboyant to come off as real, but if you watch the movie you’ll easily see that’s not the only problem with the performances.
Probably the only thing I did enjoy throughout the movie (I refuse to say “film” for a flick shot – badly – on digital video) was the costumes. They were very extravagant and inventive. Richie Rich from Heatherette and Michael Wilkinson worked well to create some fantastic, out-of-this-world clothing. The screen was sometimes filled with tens of eye-popping creations. The fashion was the most intriguing thing in there.
I probably don’t need a concluding paragraph here. It’s pretty apparent that I found the movie dull and lifeless (except the wardrobe) and just overall bad. The directors have made a good documentary, so I bet the non-fiction version of this story is much more compelling and worthwhile. Skip this one. There are better parties out there.
<< Home