Terrible Film


I understand many of you have background in some form of film appreciation. As do I. This movie has a number of intertextual referenes from Alice in Wonderland, to Oliver, to Neverwhere, to Pierrot Le Fou, to Trainspotting, to the writings of various Slam-Philosophers.

But it simply doesn't add up.

Again, we have a film that more or less glamorizes heroin addiction--not dealing with the reality of addiction, but looking at it through a tinted lens of self-serving neo-philospophy. As a former employee of a methadone clinic, let me assure you that the kind of scenario shown in this film is not hip, cool, trendy, or anything other than sad.

We have a character that sings into the camera, a technique I don't mind, as Guy Maddin's 'Saddest Music In The World' is one of my favorites. But in the context of this film, it feels like an empty gesture. Even the song in Wild At Heart seemed to arrive from the moment Lynch created. Here? 'When a Man Loves A Woman,' is an arbitrary moment. A 'doing for the sake of doing' moment that simply doesn't work.

Again, I'm not out to flame anyone who enjoyed it, some close friends of mine certainly did. But I just don't see anything in it that hasn't been done before, and better.

reply

If you look hard enough at any film today, you'll discover that every film is just using something from another film.

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates

reply

Intertextuality is something that is prevalent in today's filmmaking, and that's fine--after all, Quentin Tarantino needs a career. :)

However, that, in itself, doesn't automatically make the film worthwhile (I'm not suggesting, by the way, that you said it does...just to be clear).

There are only 7 storylines out there, it has been argued, and from that there are only multiple variations that turn each individual story into something original, even if it is derivative.

In this case, I didn't sense that. I felt like we were going over material that has gone over before, and better.

reply

A random musical moment & glorification of an undesirable lifestyle doesn't make a film terrible either.

reply

Yikes, blast from the past. :) I don't recall that being my main gripe with it...but honestly I haven't looked at it since I posted this here some years ago, so maybe it's time to take another look. I barely remember the film at this point. Maybe a fresh set of eyes, etc.

reply

Glorifying heroin addiction?

Sorry, I don't think so.

While this didn't make as strong a statement against heroin as did Trainspotting or Sid and Nancy, I'd hardly say it glorified it.

Maybe I need to watch it again, but it seemed to me that the main character rejected it at the end.....

reply

[deleted]


Gee, you should have kept me in your bio, gregg. Not only were you dead-on in your gloating about me coming back with a different name, I miss seeing you making yourself hysterical every other week with a new version:-D

I understand many of you have background in some form of film appreciation. As do I. This movie has a number of intertextual referenes from Alice in Wonderland, to Oliver, to Neverwhere, to Pierrot Le Fou, to Trainspotting, to the writings of various Slam-Philosophers.

But it simply doesn't add up.

Again, we have a film that more or less glamorizes heroin addiction--not dealing with the reality of addiction, but looking at it through a tinted lens of self-serving neo-philospophy. As a former employee of a methadone clinic, let me assure you that the kind of scenario shown in this film is not hip, cool, trendy, or anything other than sad.

We have a character that sings into the camera, a technique I don't mind, as Guy Maddin's 'Saddest Music In The World' is one of my favorites. But in the context of this film, it feels like an empty gesture. Even the song in Wild At Heart seemed to arrive from the moment Lynch created. Here? 'When a Man Loves A Woman,' is an arbitrary moment. A 'doing for the sake of doing' moment that simply doesn't work.

Again, I'm not out to flame anyone who enjoyed it, some close friends of mine certainly did. But I just don't see anything in it that hasn't been done before, and better.


*yawn*

1) You didn't watch this movie or you wouldn't have made the ghastly errors you did.

2) You plucked most of your review from other reviews. Real display of talent there, champ.

3) You're vomiting textbook glossary vocabulary in lieu of a proper critique.

4) Not only is your shallow, vapid and extremely poorly-written *review* pointless, it's just plain childish to have slapped it up because you threw a temper-tantrum, uh, Professor. I might run away crying like a little girl, but at least I don't tinkle in my pants:-)

Edit--oops, I forgot to sign off . . .

Yours truly, Pepperjack

(Are you going to put me back up in your bio, now?)

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]