Hey all. I just wanted to let you know that I've posted the new Behind the Screens. Volume 1, Issue 1 can be found in the reviews section on the bottom left sidebar. In the premiere of the new look, I chime in on the Michael Moore distribution issue, a new cable network and a couple of unusual products. I'll be back this weekend or early next week with more reviews.

I'm back just like I said I would be. Let's start the week off right with a nice long review for a mediocre at best movie. Later this week, I'll try to post my thoughts on Kill Bill Vol. 2 (I know, I was slow to see it) and Young Adam. Plus, if you're good, I'll even get around to posting my top ten of 2003 (talk about slow). Look for that and more in my Behind the Screens column. Check back often. I'll be waiting.



Troy
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

You all had to read it in High School (or will if you’re not there yet), but here it is in movie form. The Illiad, a classic epic poem written close to three thousand years ago by a man known only as Homer, tells the story of a great war. Back in 1193 B.C., Paris, a prince from the city of Troy, steals Helen, the queen of Sparta, away from her husband Menelaus. The king teams up with his power-hungry brother Agamemnon as well as virtually the entire country of Greece in order to raid Troy and get Helen back. The also enlist the best warrior around, the renegade Achilles, who agrees only so he can become a legend. Troy has always withstood intruders before, but can they fend off this incredible number?

As you can probably guess, the film isn’t completely faithful to the original text. The Gods are virtually non-existent and relationships and such things were changed around and manipulated to fit the purposes of a three-hour movie. I won’t berate the film based on its lack of historical or cultural integrity, because if they tried to get it all correct, it probably would have turned out to be a bigger mess than it was worth. Plus, the audience would have been confused or overwhelmed. This is what I meant in my “Return of the King” review when I said, “Just because something is true to the original source does not make it good. Some things work on paper much better than they do on film.” So, consolidating isn’t a big thing...as long as it does actually work. Here, it’s about half and half. The story flowed well, but of course is structured in typical Hollywood fashion. Keep in mind you’re there to watch a summer blockbuster-type flick and it’ll be easier to swallow.

With all the inaccuracies aside, the movie still isn’t all that good. It’s just a common war movie that happens to be set in a different time period and has an over abundance of soap opera moments and exaggerated reaction shots. The fights are of your standard quality. Move the camera so you can’t really make out what’s going on and add sound effects to give a clue. There’s very kinetic camera work for no apparent reason other than to show off computer graphics. Really, there’s nothing new here. Directory Wolfgang Petersen plays it safe. There are no real memorable moments. There’s nothing sensational that would make the audience react with awe. Just a bunch of fake people fighting other fake people from a camera position so far away they look like ants.

And it’s drawn out. The movie does run for about three hours, and it accomplishes this by repeating sequences with different characters. I don’t think we need to see the entire death process for everyone, do we? Was that in their contracts? If you really want to make an epic film, find and use the material that will keep it fresh. There’s plenty of it in there. Throw in some Gods. There’s your originality. There’s your hook. There’s your new material. There’s your epic. Nothing is bigger than the Gods.

To top it off, the music is horrible. It is cheesy, laughable, annoying and repetitive. If anything screams melodrama (in a bad way), it’s this music. Oh, and when the movie ends, please try to leave as fast as you can to avoid the vomit inducing song that plays over the credits. James Horner needs to stop or be stopped.

Really quick, I feel I should mention the actors. I enjoyed the casting. I thought the actors all did a fine job. They fit their respective parts quite well. Brad Pitt as Achilles looks fierce and stubborn. Sean Bean looks exactly as I would have imagined Odysseus to look (and I would like to see that story made into a series of movies). Everyone else, pretty much the same deal. I had a problem with Orlando Bloom. His facial reactions looked too childish and laughable at times. I couldn’t tell if he was trying to pull off the emotional content of the scene or if he was catering to the audience. Neither worked for me. I also had a problem with Diane Kruger as Helen. I’ve heard this criticism before, and I agree that I don’t think she’s pretty enough to play Helen. She’s not a bad actress, but it’s a high standard. However, in her defense, there would be critics voicing out against anyone cast in that part and Diane shouldn’t take any of it to heart. No one can live up to imagination.

Don’t expect to be able to use the film as a cheat sheet or study guide. It may help you keep track of the characters, but is essentially useless for school purposes. Don’t expect much entertainment value, either. A story of this stature and girth deserves better. Perhaps a mini-series would be better suited to house the myriad unused (and probably wanted) elements. You can expect to see Brad Pitt’s naked butt. For some of you, that may be reason enough to rush to theaters, but for the rest of us, stay home and read.

Here we go again. Another day, another review. I may be back later tonight with my thoughts on Troy. If not, I will see you all next week with some more reading material. Enjoy your weekend!



Seeing Other People
Review by Jon Waterman

***

Ed and Alice have it all. They’re deeply in love with steady careers and everyone they know is jealous of their romantic success. Yet, Alice isn’t happy. She feels she’s missed out on everything life has to offer. She’s not talking about skydiving or traveling the world. Alice wants sex; lots of hot, meaningless, casual sex. Ed is understandably apprehensive, but eventually they agree that until they get married in a couple months, they are allowed to sleep around but they must tell each other what they’re doing. Can this ever work?

Director Wallace Wolodarsky wrote the film along with Maya Forbes. They create an interesting story involving a small circle of friends. The humor is light, but not really light-hearted. This comedy doesn’t provide too many laugh-out-loud moments. There are funny people in here in Jay Mohr (Ed) and Andy Richter (as Ed’s good-natured buddy Carl). The rest of the main cast also has experience in well-received comedies. I didn’t really miss the lack of gut-busters. The flat jokes seemed to roll right away, because they contain something of substance that aided the film in another way. For instance, when Carl is talking to the young son about memorizing baseball stats to cope with divorce, he gives the punch line, “You know about the Federal League?” This line doesn’t get a laugh. Not even close. But it still shows the extent of what the kid is feeling and allows Carl to relate to the boy.

The movie is very well structured and doesn’t dwell (or include) any unnecessary moments or scenes. The progression of attitudes and emotions moves fluidly throughout. The film acts like a simulation of how events would transpire. The characters react the way most would expect. Not only does this agreement affect the engaged couple in myriad ways, but it also starts to ripple into their friends and family. The people involved feed off each other. Near the end, the whole thing gets a little too crazy and over-the-top and thus loses its believability. Up until that point, the movie handles the pact honestly and maturely. I particularly liked the montage of the two leaving the house to start their day increasingly becoming less romantic. It’s very telling of the relationship between them and the nature of their characters.

As far as the directing goes, it’s functional, but nothing more. He seems to be a better actor’s director, since he elicits fine, nuanced performances from a largely non-dramatic group. This may or may not be a good date movie. Some might find it encouraging and uplifting to know they aren’t like the people on the screen. Other people might take the opportunity to start an unwanted discussion. No matter who you see it with, “Seeing Other People” is an interesting and well-made film that lacks a little something on the fun/humor side.

Are you getting sick of me yet? The reviews just keep on comin'. Today, before I share my thoughts on more current movies, I thought I'd review The Laramie Project. With the recent fuss being made over gay marriage, I found it quite interesting that even after such highly publicized events such as Matthew Shepard's death, the country isn't growing all that fast. I guess it's ok to watch them on TV in virtually every show and in growing numbers in today's cinema, but it seems that most of America think real-life homosexuals pose a huge threat to society. I can't say I fully understand it. This isn't the proper forum for a political editorial, so I'll end there and invite you to see this very much still appropriate film.

The Laramie Project
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

The film chronicles the events leading up to and following the death of Matthew Shepard, a young gay man living in the small city of Laramie, Wyoming. For those unfamiliar with Matthew, he was kidnapped at a local bar, beaten and tied to a fence in the middle of nowhere – presumably just because these two young kidnappers knew he was gay and Matthew allegedly tried to hit on them. His nearly unconscious body was found and rushed to the hospital. During that stay, the story became national news as a hate crime. Thousands rallied and gathered in Wyoming in support of Matthew and his family. Matthew died in the hospital and the two young men involved were tried in court. If you want to know what happens to them, you’ll just have to watch the movie or do some research on your own. I never give away everything.

The story comes together through more than 200 interviews conducted by New York City’s Moisés Kaufman (who also directed the film) and his fellow Tectonic Theatre members. Originally a stage play, this film rounds up many easily recognizable actors to portray the interviewers and interviewees as well as recreate the events of the time. These recreations are the only parts that keep this film from needing to be a documentary. I can understand that many of the townspeople wouldn’t want to be captured on camera attaching a face to their opinions, but there would probably be enough people agreeing to make a substantially effective doc. However, adding these flashback scenes would require the consistent participation of the interviewed, which could get tricky and hokey. The film relies on these flashback sequences to enhance the emotional impact of this crime and to further persuade the audience in their direction.

I had some problems with the technical nature in which it was shot. Split screens are used for seemingly no purpose. They essentially only show up near the beginning. My guess is that is shows that the interviewing process is rolling along and occurring several places at once. Quicker cutting between interviewers along with already appropriate music would accomplish the same thing. The time I thought the split screen/layering technique worked was when the various images of media coverage overloaded the frame. The other problem I had was that sometimes the editing makes it look like the Tectonic crew was in town while the whole incident occurred, which to the best of my knowledge is false.

Otherwise, the film works very well. The music (by Peter Golub) kept everything flowing nicely and divided the movie into different sections. The natural beauty of the city and the landscape shows up nicely here. Wonderful landscapes and colorful backdrops are used to contrast the darkened mood of the city that resulted from the murder. I also appreciated that the film was not shot like a documentary. Tripods were used. Match action abounds with multiple set-ups that come together to get the most of the subject matter. Also the acting is very natural and smooth. Actors like Christina Ricci, Laura Linney, Joshua Jackson, Steve Buscemi, Janeane Garofalo, Jeremy Davies, Peter Fonda and others all keep the spur of the moment, conversational feel without modifying any of the interviewees original words (as far as I know).

This film has so much substance that I can’t possibly talk about the whole thing here. I’m sure many essays have and will be written regarding this time in history and about this film. It’s an incredibly poignant social study that may hold true for quite a while. No matter what your stance is on the subject, you should check out this movie. It may not change your opinion one way or another, but it just might learn something about yourself and your fellow man.

Back for the third day in a row. I'm seeing Troy later tonight, so I'll report back with that as well as my thoughts on the film Seeing Other People. Check back often.


Mean Girls
Review by Jon Waterman

***

After living in Africa and being home schooled all her life, Cady (pronounced Katie) is finally off to public school. Her first day of high school does not go well, as anyone could guess. Soon, she befriends a couple of outcasts and they teach her the ins and outs of the social system there. There are the nerds, the jocks, the stoners, the outcasts and the plastics. The plastics are the super-hotties that all the guys lust after and all the girls wish they could be. It makes the outcasts sick. Cady finds herself with an opportunity to join the plastics. The plan is to infiltrate their ranks and discover their secrets and dismantle them from the inside. So, which group is worse: The fakest, most insulting girls in school or the ones trying to destroy them?

“Saturday Night Live” head writer Tina Fey wrote the script based on the book “Queen Bees and Wannabes” by Rosalind Wiseman. What it sort of comes down to is “Heathers” without the killing in a way. I think there’s more of a message in this film. Before I get into that, let’s talk about the writing and the humor in general. It’s good. The jokes work to an extent. There are a couple of off-the-wall attempts, but the movie really gets its charm from the more subtle moments. You’ll probably find yourself smiling rather than laughing. Either way, there’s still a positive reaction, and that mood carries without. Fey does a great job of capturing the teenage language. The adults are separated from these girls in their speech patterns and the result is a much more natural acting job by most of the young girls.

This is a teen comedy targeted at girls. And I hope they see it. Rather than the humor, I think I more enjoyed the social commentary and the potential lessons that could and should be learned. It shows how similar these cliques can be. It shows the pointlessness and stupidity of high school gossiping. It shows how easy it can be to alienate yourself from your friends and how easy it is to get swept up in the high school hierarchy. And it does it all without coming off preachy. What I wish was handled a little bit more was how this budding slutty and catty attitude is influencing younger girls. It is there with the younger sister watching TV, dancing and lifting her shirt. But those quick moments could have been worked on more. I also enjoyed the influence of the Plastic mother, who encourages her daughter to act this way just so she can be popular.

Even though I haven’t been in high school for a while, this film still seems like an accurate portrayal of many aspects of teenage life in this country. It’s disheartening. I think kids should see this movie to understand that they’re not alone in their high school struggles. I think parents should see this movie to better understand the current culture of schools. I think people looking for a solid comedy should look someplace else.

I'm back for the second day in a row. This time with three reviews: Van Helsing, Ichi the Killer and Dawn of the Dead. I'll watch and review some good Japanese cinema later on this summer. Also, check below for my look at The Ladykillers as well as preview of stuff to come this summer from filmbrats.com! Spend your lazy days with us. Enjoy.



Van Helsing
Review by Jon Waterman

1/2 star

Dr. Gabriel Van Helsing hunts monsters for a living. A secret religious organization bent on riding the world of evil tells him that if he does their bidding, they’ll give Van Helsing his memory back. Not only does he have to hunt down Dracula and the Wolfman, but he must also keep this woman, Anna, alive so she can help overturn the curse of Dracula.

The film starts off great – for about 5 minutes. We have a black and white flashback to the time when Frankenstein created his monster. (The monster is in the movie as well, by the way.) It appears to be a shot-by-shot homage to the classic film. It borrows the same lighting and camera angles and the sets look mighty familiar. The windmill even comes into play. The similarities and references start to fade away when Dracula comes in and starts a dialogue with the good-intentioned doctor. The sequence is marred by the first wave of special effects (to be followed by many more). Afterwards, the film turns to color and never looks back. The flashback was from a whopping one year prior. If you ask me, that’s not enough time to warrant a black and white prologue, no matter what it was trying to do.

The rest of the movie falls farther and farther down hill. It takes from many different movies with the monster movies being more of the obvious. Also there’s a secret lab with gadgets very reminiscent to the Bond films. I saw (possibly read-into) a bit of Indiana Jones grappling work/problem solving. It mashed together several classic stories just like “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” There’s even a “Lion King” moment that you can’t miss. I half expected those pods Dracula keeps to contain either “Killer Klowns From Outer Space” or “Gremlins.”

I hated this thing. Whatever it was trying to be. It was hokey and dumb. The dialogue was cheesy and contrived. It furthered the plot, but at the cost of being natural and good. The acting was just as stupid. If you want overacting, this is the movie for you. Why can’t people realize that villains are more scary and effective when the evil is subdued? There’s a lot of screaming and maniacal behavior. Blah.

The special effects look stupid, too. I can’t wait for the next couple of decades to pass, so that I can see realistic looking special effects. I hate CGI and this movie is loaded with it. What else can I say?

If you liked the recent “Mummy” movies, then you have a better shot at liking this, because it’s done by the same guy: Stephen Sommers. I at least found “The Mummy” to be fun. “Van Helsing” is not. It’s over two-hours long and I just wanted it to end virtually right away. It’s a truly disappointing way to start off the summer season. This verges on one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Skip it.


++++++


Ichi the Killer
Review by Jon Waterman

1/2 star

A yakuza boss has disappeared along with 100 million yen. The gang thinks he was kidnapped. The other gangs think he stole the loot and ran. What none of them know is that a consummate killing machine named Ichi has killed him. What starts out as an attempt to spark a gang war turns into a hunt for the elusive assassin. Can the yakuza stop Ichi?

The movie is just too stylistic for its own good. It needs to pick and choose. The opening creates freeze frames on characters and puts on a huge video effects show. The rest of the thing is like an effect bonanza. It tries too hard to be hip and cool by being flashy and in your face. Ultimately, none of these post-production masturbations provide anything of substance beyond a headache. I guess they’re trying to compensate for the lack of interesting visuals and story.

The movie had potential. Take the razor-heeled suit and the blinding rage away from the killer and Ichi the human is a puppy dog eyed and mannered person. He’s very non-confrontational, but when he’s fed the right information (or lies) he snaps and becomes the extreme version of that quiet kid in your high school. That sounds relatively interesting, right? Throw in some good fight scenes a couple quick side-stories and you’re good to go.

Really, it’s very boring. The story gets cluttered quickly, but it doesn’t really matter who’s who anyway. The people are just there to kill time and get killed. The movie lasts over two hours. The fight scenes are few and very far apart. In fact, you’re more likely to see the aftermath than any action that causes the red-walled rooms. I felt cheated. The guy has the semi-cool futuristic racecar driver suit with the switchblade heels. Find an actor that can do the acrobatics required to effectively use that stuff and let us in on the action. That’s what everyone wants to see. Who cares who hates whom? There’s also a character that had his jaw line cut. If he takes the fasteners out, he could open up really wide and do some damage. It took a long time to see it in action and the visual effect of it looked horrible and (once again) disappointing.

Here’s a piece of Japanese cinema that should have stayed in comic book/manga form. Actually, I take that back. It should have been made into a movie, but a much better one. Either modify or forget the storyline. Add more visible action. Stop the visual effect overload. Make it much less annoying and much shorter. Then get back to me.


+++++++++


Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

The dead just keep on living. They’ve started to run amok across the nation and probably the world. They’re everywhere and they’re hungry for living tissue. The only option is to run, but pretty soon, no place will be safe. What do you do? Well, if you’re like the characters in the movie, you gather up as many survivors as possible and head to the mall. Seal it off and try to think of a game plan.

I have not yet seen the original (as of May 2004), so I can’t compare the two. Maybe not knowing what George A. Romero did with the 1978 version enhanced my enjoyment of this contemporary film.

The zombies look just about like you’d expect, which actually is saying a lot. Many zombie movies seem to half-ass the make-up, because they’ll be far away and not all that visible (right “House of the Dead?”). Here, the zombies look like the living dead, not the living pretending to be dead. There is a lot of conformity and templating involved with how they seem to have been designed. There aren’t really any standouts as far as decomposition or manner of dead is concerned. They all pretty much look the same. But they all look like zombies. And I couldn’t find a single computer generated person. Even in the wide group shots. Bravo.

That’s not to say they didn’t use computer effects. The large scale destruction shots near the beginning of the film make obvious use of the computer as people get run over and massive fires get started. It looks really hokey and fake and at the time, I assumed it was intentional. At this early point, I thought we could expect more of the same tongue-in-cheek humor as the movie pokes fun at the genre. Too many horror films seem to rely on that these days. I’m happy to announce that “Dawn of the Dead” does not.

In fact, the approach is far different from any of the recent horror movies I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t know if I should credit the original or this outing. The zombies move faster and are rather menacing. The suspense level is high when it needs to be with few false alarms, just delayed inevitable jumps and scares. The credits hooked me right away. They mix title cards with flashes of attacks, gore and hinting at the ensuing national chaos. The music choice mixed blatantly obvious hardcore fare with more intelligent satirical songs that still measure on the creepiness scale. What really stands out though, is the characterization.

Each person has a backstory. Each person has proper motivation. Each person has a personality and depth. And the acting is very natural and, dare I say, good. How often can you say that in this genre? The dialogue moves along smoothly and the entire plot and storyline goes off without a hitch. There are no laughable moments except for those intentionally placed. The film swiftly runs its course without sacrificing good storytelling. The only big thing is that zombies aren’t really explained, but it’s scarier that way and not really needed once you get into the movie (which shouldn’t take long). A lot of credit has to be given to director Zack Snyder, especially with this being his big-time debut. I look forward to seeing what he does next. Also, to the writer, James Gunn, whom I panned in my review of “Scooby-Doo” saying he should go back to Troma. I guess I should have he should go back to horror. He seems to have a knack for it.

It’s rare that a horror movie comes along that is actually satisfying. It may not scare the audience non-stop, but it proves that something good can come out of the genre. Let’s hope Hollywood starts making more like this one.

Well, summer is finally here. I've seen a couple of recent movies and I'll chime in with my thoughts on Van Helsing, Mean Girls and Seeing Other People later on. But first, I need to get caught up on a couple other reviews. But since it's summer, I should be writing a little more frequently. In addition to expecting a bunch of reviews, you can also look forward to new Behind the Screens articles which will be taking on a new feel. There I will criticize the motion picture and television industries (with a little bit of music in there as well). I'll still keep you informed on the latest in home video, but with a improved analytical touch. For now, catch my thoughts on a movie that has mostly left theaters, but is currently competeing in Cannes and will be hitting video shelves eventually, The Ladykillers. Check back often.



The Ladykillers (2004)
Review by Jon Waterman

*

Professor G.H. Dorr rounds up a gang of experts to pull off a large, complicated robbery. He has the inside man, the explosives man, etc. The only thing he’s lacking is the proper location. He finds such in the home of Marva Munson. Her basement is the perfect place for the underground work. However, to cover up the crime from the sweet old lady, they pretend to be a band of musicians. Can such a ploy ever work out? Will crime pay? If so, whom?

The trailers really made this one look like it’d be good. It looked quirky and fun with interesting characters. Plus, it was from the Coen brothers, who seemed to be getting back to their old selves and making incredibly good, modern classics. Well, the trailer worked and got me into the theater, but it failed to accurately represent what I was going to be watching. The movie was quirky and did have semi-interesting characters (and it was from the Coen brothers – writers/directors/producers Joel and Ethan), but fun doesn’t quite happen.

The quirkiness of the film comes from the characters rather than the rather basic robbery storyline. In fact, virtually the whole thing is predictable, which makes any caper film tough to pull off and usually boring. Only the characters could keep this thing afloat. We have the oddball professor who uses as many big words as he possibly can. He’s charming, yet creepy (especially with that hyperventilating laugh). We have Ms. Munson, the sweet old black, church-going widow who donates money to the severely right-wing Bob Jones University and looks to her dead husband’s portrait for guidance. We have the explosives expert who works in movies and TV and also happens to have explosive bowels. Other than that, the remaining people are ultra-stereotypical people that verge on insulting to their respective groups: The gangbangin’ black youth, the dumber than a post football player and the no-mercy, Asian former war general.

The writing isn’t very sharp and the weak dialogue moves slowly. In general, it’s not paced very well, because the audience rightly assumes what’s going to happen. Might as well show it sooner and move on to the next “surprise.” Most of the jokes fall flat on their faces. The tension isn’t tangible, even though we are shown over and over it does exist. There’s really just nothing let to stand on. And cutting to reaction shots of the painting of the husband was just plain awful.

The only decent thing was the acting by the three interesting characters. Tom Hanks as Professor Dorr plays it perfectly and provides the best chance of hooking any potentially interested audience member. Irma P. Hall as Munson actually adds depth to a potentially one-dimensional character and brings the warmth and the every-grandma feel to the screen. J.K. Simmons uses a gravel voice and deadpan style with an undertone of emotions that come out in body language rather than in vocal qualities. His catch phrase “Easiest thing in the world” would quickly become tiresome were it not for Simmons’ delivery. This guy is quickly becoming one of my favorite character actors.

Maybe next time the Coen brothers will create another masterpiece. We all know they are fully capable of it. They’ve raised the bar pretty high for themselves and way undershot it with this movie. Maybe the 1955 original would be better. At least expectations wouldn’t be as high. Either way, skip this one.

Tarnation (***1/2)
review by Joe Swanberg

I saw Tarnation at Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival. The film hasn't opened theatrically yet, and hasn't had a chance to be overlooked, but maybe Roger can predict the film's future.

Tarnation is a personal documentary by a filmmaker named Jonathan Caouette. He pulls together years of home video footage and still photographs to tell the story of his mother, his grandparents, and himself. Since the birth of the camcorder, parents have been videotaping away while their children open presents and play soccer, but Caouette shot most of the footage in the film himself, starting at a pretty young age. We are treated to some amazing footage of a pre-teen Caouette in drag, reenacting a character from a daytime talk show, and many early films that Caouette made with his friends.

With most home video footage gathering dust in a cabinet somewhere, it's refreshing to see a filmmaker use this footage to tell a personal story. I can see this as the first of a whole genre of filmmaking that uses old family video footage. Why shoot new footage when there is so much documentation ready to be edited together?

Tarnation is also of interest for it's lack of a voice-over. Caouette chooses to elaborate on the story with text on the screen, rather than his voice. I respect this choice, because film is a visual medium, and this is an interesting way to visually tell the story. There are many other experimental visual techniques used. Some work quite well, and some are a little on the cheesy side, but Caouette made the entire film using the Macintosh software, "iMovie," so you get what you get. It's a nice experiment in limitations.

I was left feeling drained, and also invigorated after seeing Tarnation. I feel like a got a little glimpse into the near future of digital filmmaking, and I'm excited about the possibilities. Tarnation was made for $218. With a budget like that, it's hard for the film to be anything but a success. Of course, in the long run it will cost much more to secure rights to the music in the film and strike prints, but there's incentive for filmmakers to start digging through those old home movies looking for interesting stories and nice visuals.

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.