Poo Puff Push

Home » 9x9x9

Category Archives: 9x9x9

9x9x9: The Dark Knight–If you’re good at something, never do it for free.

The first two times I saw this movie, I had a high level of disdain for it (chronicled here and here).

But the last dozen times I’ve seen it in toto or in pieces, I’ve come to realize that I was kind of dead wrong on all accounts except for the first half of my first review.

Because what I failed to realize then is something that I touched on in my Billy Madison article: it’s a genre film and it only has to deliver along genre lines to be good. That is, it’s an super hero/action film so it really only has to deliver shit blowing up and our hero saving the day to be any good.

But this film enters the echelon of great–and I realize, now, that it is great–because it does everything necessary to make it good with perfection. And then it lays on that “shallow philosophizing,” to paraphrase myself from two years ago, and does that to perfection as well.

Before, I was holding it to the standards of being, like, an emotion heavy film that comments on life with shit blowing up. But that’s backwards.

This movie’s standards are blow shit up then comment on life. Shoot first, ask questions later, etcetera.

So I was wrong on that part.

The one part that has remained great, though, are the action sequences and the overall photographic mood of the film. Every scene is lit and captured perfectly. There is an emotional timbre throughout the film, and it’s rationed out at just the right pace for viewer-ennui to never set in.

This took me nine times and a bottle of Jack to realize.[1]

It’s been said many times over that this film is basically a remake of Heat with superheroes. It makes sense. Both have ambiguous heroes and villains that cause just as much destruction to society as to themselves and their closest companions.

That’s great for a giant-ass summer picture like this.

The other thing that really helped me like this movie was seeing X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which was completely antithetical to this film.

Wolverine realized it was a genre movie and that it only had to deliver so much in order to be successful.[2] This might’ve been 20th Century Fox’s fault. I’ve heard that they like to deliver as little as possible to get as much money as possible. This is why I’m afraid of what’ll happen to the Aronofsky helmed sequel to Origins.

But, so, okay. Wolverine was made and released because people wanted more scenes of Wolverine fucking shit up. So they delivered that.

With Batman as a character though, his cinema ties are a lot deeper and we’ve been watching him fuck shit up for years. The difference, now, is that we’ve already explored an entire universe for the Batman superhero. We’ve experienced the camp and the kook. With Nolan at the helm, it seems like he wanted to turn all that on its ear beginning with Batman Begins, just to see what would happen.

As opposed to the 60’s Batman and the late-90’s Batman, our hero isn’t making jokes and he doesn’t have Robin there as comic relief (Chris O’Donnell should never be allowed on set of any future Batman movies. Just saying). The Dark Knight offers no relief—and it does this because the movie is a reflection of its setting. Right now, with the Joker making a mess of both above- and underground society, there is no relief to living in any part of the city. So the movie doesn’t back down from handling the material in such a way that everything clicks. It makes sense that it’s dark because everything in Gotham has gone dark. So, then, you begin to connect with residents of Gotham and what the authorities have to deal with.

The other major thing that I failed to realize was this: when was the last time a major motion picture killed off its main love interest that was a well established character? That whole sequence came as a total shock to me because movies with budgets this big are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And the LCD usually doesn’t like it when people you’ve liked since the first movie die. So it was really brave of them to pull that card as well as making Bruce Wayne choose between the good of himself and the good of society by choosing Harvey Dent. It’s like that age old question of “Would you rather get killed or have 1,000 people killed instead.”

Christopher Nolan (right) working with Gary Oldman and Heath Ledger

Batman makes the tough choice, and ostensibly the right one.

Until that right choice loses his own faith in humanity and turns into the problem. Oh shit. Now what.

So this movie is on a totally different emotional plane than most other movies in its genre for that very reason. Most just build a character and kill it off to make you care about the lily-white protagonist. This movie builds and kills off just to ask more questions and make the viewer panic even more and have them ask, “when is this going to end?’

At the point you begin to ask that question is the exact moment where you’ve made the emotional connection with Batman—fucking Batman. Holy rusted metal Batman. You made an emotional connection with his psychoemotional struggles.

Let’s see Wolverine do that.

In conclusion: I was wrong two years ago and I finally have a stage to retract my comments. I was wrong. This movie’s awesome. It makes you feel something which is more than you could ever ask from a movie where a semi truck goes ass over tea kettle, which is awesome enough in its own right.


[1] More like watching it while drinking beer mixed with tequila and lime juice. I call it the Optimus Prime. It’s delicious.

[2] I’ll be the first to admit that using this film is a strange antithesis just because they tried the same strategy of bringing in an indie-film darling to direct a major motion picture (Gavin Hood, who did Tsotsi).

9x9x9: Billy Madison–you gotta get your ass out there and find that fucking dog.

I was in 3rd grade when this film came out and my mom took me to see it in theaters.

It was PG-13, it was Adam Sandler, it seemed acceptable. A few others in my classroom saw it, too, and we were the lucky ones. The upper echelon of cool to third graders.

Since then, this movie became another family classic like Blazing Saddles–one that I’ve seen an innumerable amount of times, that I can quote with regularity, that’s a mainstay for sick days.

But it’s not until now that I begin to consider it critically.

Let’s put it out there, it’s in no way a high-art all time greatest film. But it’s fucking hilarious. And that’s all it needed to be for it to be rendered a success.

Comedy is a genre that can get by with its laughs. Horror gets by with its thrill. Action with its explosions. They are films built for for a purpose and a set reaction. If you can illicit the promised reaction–irregardless of whether or not it comments on some facet of life–then it has accomplished what it promised. The Slasher films or grossout comedies that both deliver on their promise and make some comment on life are the high echelon–Punch Drunk Love, Heat, Cache, etc.

Billy Madison isn’t one those films. But it’s goddamn good at doing what it came to do. Like an excellent carpenter who says he’s gonna build you the best fucking cabinet you’ve ever seen, this movie says it’s gonna deliver gut busting laughs. It does.

This is Adam Sandler at the top of his game in the first film of his late-90’s dominance as the box office king of comedy. He would develop better characters later (Robbie in the Wedding Singer) but this is him just developing his arrested-development character that he’s used throughout his film career.

There is a very interesting element to it, structure-wise.  It’s built as a kid’s film. Like, there’s the requisite life lesson about believing in yourself, and clear cut lines vis a vis the characters. There’s the princess to rescue, the flawed hero, the single-dimensioned villain, the villain’s good-hearted assistant who got hired by the wrong team. There’s even a musical number.

The only real difference between this film and a marketed-as-a-kids movie is that the adult jokes that are subtle in something by Pixar or Dreamworks is overt in this film.

I'll turn this goddamn bus around. Then there'll be no goddamn field trip.

 

It’s interesting to consider, then, that as a child, you didn’t understand those jokes. And, seeing this film, kids don’t understand those jokes–and most everything else that Chris Farley says. They may be far more pronounced/cheeky, but they still remain lost on the child’s limited range of understanding.

When I was in third grade, the only thing that really stuck with me was the fact they said “fuck.” This was the first instance of ever hearing that in a PG-13 film, so it was exciting to experience an “R-Rated” element or whatever I would conceptualize it as as a third grader.

But, then again, any child will get it when Billy makes out with a picture of Veronica and tweaks her imaginary nipples. That didn’t go unnoticed by me, and as a result, I had to close my eyes.

This film, then, is simply a kids movie for adults. One that can be enjoyed by adults and kids alike without the stigma of “seeing a kids movie” even though that’s ostensibly what it is.

Poorly Planned Timing.

Turns out I’m going on a sort of vacation tomorrow so instead of just holding off on the last of the 9x9x9, I’m gonna hold off on the last two, then maybe just post them together. Oversaturate and shit.

After that, I’ve got a film shoot to attend to. So expect output to drop from the current rate. But there will be output.

Also on the docket:

A couple more director profiles.

Reviews of new and old movies–maybe Jackass 3D at some point in the next week if I decide it’s worth it to see it in theaters. I love those guys but I’ll be goddamned if I’m sure they’re worth the 3D upcharge. Probably Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I started it the other night, but got too drunk to finish it. You know how that is.

Follow the twitter, I’ll probably post shit on there.

9x9x9: Star Trek 2009–wictor wictor 9,2 (access denied)

I had no previous affiliations with Star Trek before this movie. To be honest, my mental image of the show and the movies was that it was stodgy and overly thoughtful vis a vis trying to be a cultural voice of reason over a sci-fi show.

And that’s fine. M*A*S*H* worked great like that, too. It was a show of my parents’ age and, since my parents never watched it, I never watched it.

I only saw this reboot because shit blew up in space. At least, the first time.

I saw a second time because I was blown away by how well paced, well acted, well scored, well directed, and well put together the movie is.

I saw it a third time because I had the chance to see it in IMAX. Simple as that.

But I wouldn’t have seen it subsequent times if it weren’t a great movie, and one that made me actually start watching Trek in syndication on late night television.

Let’s start with the first ten minutes of the film–when George Kirk only hears his son’s first breathes as he flies into the ship to save 800 lives. This movie starts off with a powerful setpiece that packs a lot of emotion and kickass visuals into a small amount of space.

To the untrained eye, this is just something that’s really cool. But to the trekker, this is the first indication that this is a different Star Trek, on a different timeline. Spock Prime mentions this later in the film when he tells Kirk that he knew his father, and that that was the reason he went into Starfleet.

In this universe, his dad dies about 30 seconds after his birth.

And James T. Kirk as a small boy is a rebellious little Iowan. The first scene we see of him is after he’s stolen his dad’s incredibly vintage car, goes out for a joyride, and then drives it off a cliff.

Cut to Vulcan where young Spock is terrorized by full blooded Vulcans because he has a human mother. Then he beats the shit out of their ringleader. And bleeds green.

These first three portions of the film are fucking awesome. They’re paced quickly, and throw you headlong into this universe by giving you a glimpse of them as children.

The rest of the movie is just as badass, I promise.

 

JJ Abrams works with his cast on the bridge.

 

The biggest thing for me about this movie is one I didn’t find out about until I got the special edition DVD and watched some of the behind the scenes featurettes. It turns out that director JJ Abrams wanted to use as much practical effects and real locations as possible–this is why they filmed the scenes on the engineering deck of the Enterprise in a brewery instead of building a set (though when Kirk gets marooned on an ice planet, that part was shot in a parking lot. You do what you can).

The other thing they showed was that Abrams would slap the camera body during scenes to get the shaky effect of being on an starship in battle. This is something that’s really easy to do in post–Final Cut calls it the “Earthquake” (or Short Cuts [spoiler alert link]?)–but looks so much more authentic when the actual apparatus doing the filming is shaking.

It didn’t stop there, either. The VFX guys decided to enhance some of their footage by putting a motion capture device on a desk, slapping the desk, and adding the movement to the “camera” of the CGI. I thought that was pretty wicked that they continued this idea to its endth instead of trying to make it look completely perfect and thereby inorganic/completely different from the shakiness of the onboard shots.

As these last 300 words can attest to, this is a movie that allows nerds to completely go balls deep about. There’s so many little intricacies and fun things about the production to discover. To someone like me, the discovery heightened the viewing experience.

Even if you aren’t a nerd or a geek or a Trekker or whatever, there’s still a lot to appreciate about this movie.

The cinematography is fantastic for a modern day action film. I have no qualms about Baycam, it’s shakiness, or it’s lack of geographic continuity for the viewer, but this film is done in a completely different style that actually shows you a wide angle on what’s occurring as well as shaky closeups. Watch an action scene from Transformers then watch, say, those opening ten minutes. Completely different, right?

And I like that about this movie. It’s completely different  by its eschewing both modern action aesthetics and it’s actual, y’know, storyline.

Christopher Nolan’s Batman films started this whole rash of thoughtful, compelling, tentpole films that focus on story as well as kickass visuals.

Sure, Spiderman and Spiderman 2 did this, but there was no darkside to it. And that’s the major difference–tentpoles are free to play, now, with the whole psyche of a character. It’s almost becoming expected.

When it doesn’t occur–cf, X-Men Origins: Wolverine–it’s even more disappointing than it used to be because of great big beautiful films like the Dark Night and Star Trek and Watchmen. At least it’s disappointing to me. I like story. I like shit blowing up. I like set pieces. I like shakycam. Make me care about what’s going on and you’ll guarantee my ass will be in the seat again.

This movie makes me care about what’s going on. It builds characters deep enough to care about and intriguing enough to keep your attention. I love that Spock flares up with rage from time to time. I love that Capt. Kirk is arrogant and confident.

I’m pretty sure I’ve gone on record and stated that Michael Giacchino is my favorite composer right now. His score in this film is probably some of his best work. The problem, though, is that I haven’t really figured out how to articulate how well a score works for me. So we’ll leave it at that.

This movie’s sequel is due in 2012. I hope the world doesn’t end before I get to see it in IMAX.

9x9x9: Lost Highway–Dick Laurent is Dead

 

Robert Blake plays the devil. Then his murder trial delayed the DVD release. Coincidence? Not fuckin' likely.

 

I don’t remember what sparked my desire to see this movie–it might’ve been that it was Richard Pryor’s final appear in a film though he’s only in it for about 30 seconds.

I do remember that it was really hard to find because of Robert Blake and his murder trial. At least that’s what I had heard was delaying the DVD release.

The first time I saw it, it was on a bootleg dvd from Europe (don’t worry, I bought the DVD once it came out, and destroyed that copy. Or sold it in Santee Alley. You’ll never know.)

This was also the first true mindfuck movie I’d ever seen. So it absolutely blew my mind as the movie turned in on itself at about the halfway point, then turned around at the end of it and started all over.

Essentially, this movie is an ouroboros[1]. Or a Mobius Strip[2]. It starts at one place and ends at the same place, but on the other side of the wall.

The main part of the film that fucks with everyone’s mind is when the perverse world of Bill Pullman the avant garde saxophonist who’s married to Patricia Arquette gets arrested then becomes Balthazar Getty in prison, gets released, and then becomes intertwined with another version of Patricia Arquette. Then turns back into Bill Pullman, naked in the desert. Then back to the Hollywood Hills.

I don’t know if there’s such a thing as a spoiler with this film because there’s no true beginning or ending to it. The snake eats its tail.

Let’s try an interpretation, though, for fun.

What I’m figuring is that all of this is taking place in the mind of Bill Pullman[3] while he sits in prison. The tapes are his memories he’s trying to erase. The murder he chooses not to remember. But, eventually, it all boils down to reminding himself that Dick Laurent is dead. Ah shit.

The Balthazar Getty half is basically Pullman going back in time to remember when he first met Patricia Arquette. The problem here is that everyone wants to know what happened to him in prison—assuming they’re talking about when he got released in this timeline. It could also be that Getty, dressed and acting like a badass, was already in prison and, let’s say, gets sodomized. That’s something else you wouldn’t want to talk about.

But it’s played as if they’re talking about this release from prison. So it makes everything real fucking weird. Especially when blonde Arquette is seen pictured next to redheaded Arquette. Maybe they were twin sisters or something. Who knows.

The biggest clue/key to this is that, when Pullman is asked by police whether or not he has a video camera, he states, “I like to remember things my own way.” The cop is confused, so he claries, “How I remembered. Not necessarily how they happened.”

So, then, the picture of the dual Arquettes could represent his mental interpretation of her going from being an innocent blonde with a batshit/powerful father to the being the adulterous, lecherous, redhead that fucks around while he’s playing gigs.

Look, this movie is real fuckin’ weird and there’s basically no one way to interpret it, or make sense of it. Unless you’re David Lynch, and he never gives anything away overtly. His movies are some that run the risk of being overanalyzed because every line of dialog, every shot, or every prop could be that clue. The ashtray; zooming towards the flowing red curtain and the ringing phone; quotes like this one from Robert Blake: “In the East, the Far East, when a person is sentenced to death, they’re sent to a place where they can’t escape, never knowing when an executioner may step up behind them, and fire a bullet into the back of their head.” It all might mean something and be that final piece to the puzzle that makes you go “Aha!” and then show it to your friends just to watch their reactions when the President during an alien invasion turns into Balthazar Getty, otherwise known for being kind of familiar because he was on some show you watched once.

I accept the Mobius Strip concept—that this is a movie that turns and folds into itself and then restarts at the exact same spot, with all important parts of a life covered along the journey without touching the end.

 

Patricia Arquette in full on tart mode.

 

I think the biggest problem I have with Lynch films like this is that once you’ve settled on an explanation, or that you’ve figured it out like Mulholland Drive, the film itself becomes a lot less exciting.

This isn’t to say that I absolutely won’t ever watch it again. Quite the contrary. Not only is the movie really weird, it’s also an incredibly terrifying experience. A lot of this is thanks to Lynch’s signature low bass rumble as well as some beautifully done acting that makes even the sex scene not very sexy. Watch the pain in Pullman’s face while he’s copulating and tell me he’s a happy man. You can’t.

No one in this movie is happy. No one ever will be. Because they’re in an inescapable place, never knowing when that bullet is going to tear apart their cerebellum.


[1] The snake that ate itself:

[2] Here’s the link to the Wikipedia article. It’s hypermathetical, and way over my head.

[3] It’s interesting what an actor is able to pull off. In this film, he plays a murderer with some serious mental issues. The year prior, he played the fucking president in Independence Day.

9x9x9: Wall-E–WALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL-E

Original Review

Some of these spots played during the NBA playoffs of 2008. Just from them, I knew I had to see the movie.

So I was there the Sunday evening of opening weekend. And then again the next night. And then again a month later. Because I had to.

 

Even if she shuts down, Wall-doesn't give up. Does this count as date rape?

 

From the opening moments, this film sparked an emotional reaction in me. I can’t explain it, but that first half hour is perfection to me. I’ve never laughed that hard before at something that’s basically an anthropomorphic Roomba. And terrible show tunes from Hello Dolly (which I still haven’t seen by itself, though it may make an interesting double feature one day), which turns out to be the last movie on earth. Thank God we work so hard to make perfection, right?

Once the movie goes into outer space and onto the Axiom, it experiences a From Dusk til Dawn-like transition. From sci-fi slapstick comedy to sci-fi action comedy. While two of the three words are the same, the change is nonetheless jarring as the quietude of Earth erupts into the cacophany of Thomas Newman’s weird-ass score and inane chatter of the whales. This makes the movie feel slightly uneven as the back half of it so completely different from the first half.

Both are necessary to this story. As awkward a transition as it may be, the first half hour is simply the first act. Had it stayed there for 90 minutes, it would’ve been a completely different film–like a short film dragged beyond its limits (if you’ve ever seen the movie Aaltra, it’d be like that).

Without that last hour of the film, on the Axiom, we also wouldn’t have had as many angry people. Wall-E is cute when he’s roaming the lonesome, trashed, Earth, wooing Eve, but the sociopolitical commentary doesn’t kick into high gear until Wall-E reaches the humans .

Turns out, after seven hundred years in space, people become Orca whales, stuck in their computer screens and completely unaware of the world beyond it. When the computer says “Blue is the new Red,” everyone’s suit changes color. When the computer switches from afternoon to morning, people accept it and restart their day as if it never happened. Everything they eat is liquid. It’s kind of awesome because it’s our current plugged-in culture taken to its logical extreme. We’ll all get fat and sedated. We won’t even know there’s a pool onboard. Or how to swim. Or how to function.

In my original review, I talked a lot about the cinematography–and this is something that still holds up for me. This is some of the best animation in the sense photographic realism. Roger Deakins does some amazing work in live action films, and his consultation on this film is no different to the work he’d previously done. Except that blocking was done with animators and computers versus people and masking tape.

There’s one major thing I’ve uncovered that has heightened my enjoyment of this movie. In a lot of the commercials they use the theme song from the movie “Brazil,” which, sure, yea, was written in 1939 but it’s also something the filmmakers were most likely aware of.

This gives the ads a different context, as well as the movie itself. They’ve basically given homage to what seems to be one of their major influences. The ineptitude of the captain, and the takeover of the government by a corporation basically mirrors all the red-tape clusterfuckery of Brazil.

And I like that they were aiming for the Axiom essentially being the fallout of a totalitarian/corporate regime 700 years into the future that also happens to be shaped like Africa.

This film is about as leftist as Avatar, and just as overt. Turn off the screens, and get in touch with the Earth.

But the funniest thing is that one of my professors at Humboldt State took her four year old daughter to see the movie. When they got home, her daughter immediately began putting on all her clothes because she wanted to look like one of the people on the Axiom.

She didn’t want to plant a tree or recycle, she wanted to look like a whale with thumbs.

I thought that was interesting because people think this movie teaches these kids all these terrible things, but I sincerely doubt any of it. When I was a kid, I never noticed half the jokes let alone the thematic subtext.

The fact that this movie even has a thematic subtext says something about this film. Pixar is willing to make films for all ages, that just happen to ostensibly be kids movies. When I realized this, I decided to go back and watch the rest of their films to see if any of them were political.

Monsters, Inc. is just as political. It’s an indictment of the electrical industry and how fear mongering isn’t as powerful as making someone laugh.

Cars is about the loss of road culture and the destruction of towns.

Those seem to be the only other two that had politics intertwined with their story. Most of them are about coming of age and finding out who you truly
are–either as a toy or a fish or a rat or a half-Japanese Wilderness Explorer.

But this movie. This one remains their crowning achievement. Not to mention the preceding short film, Presto. One of their best ever. I absolutely love that this is a tradition that Pixar is upholding. 

9x9x9 day 4: The Fountain–what if you could live forever?

I don’t remember when I saw the trailer for the first time. I know what theater I was at: Edwards 22 Ontario (California, not Canada). I remember blown away and excited.

I then remember when the second trailer came and it had been downgraded to a PG-13 to an R[1]. I immediately though, “Oh no, the Man has destroyed Aronofsky’s vision” which, after Requiem for a dream I thought was impossible. That was an unflinching film that dealt with drug addiction.

Now he was flinching on what seemed unflinchable topics: love and death.

Plus, Wolverine was the male lead. So that didn’t sit well with me either.

The final nail that made me more leery than excited was that the movie was only 90 minutes long. Why was this? Because this is a movie where Aronofsky has stuffed everything about life, across 1000 years, and that alone seems like more subject matter than 90 minutes can handle.

Needless to say, and luckily, I was completely blown away. This is a movie that uses its running time in fascinating ways.

This story is spaced across 1,000 years, and posited as parallel love stories in 1500, 2000, and 2500, all with the same characters played by the same actors.

In 1500, Hugh Jackman is a conquistador and Rachel Weisz is the Queen of Spain. In 2000, she’s dying of cancer, and he’s trying to find the cure. In 2500, she’s… a tree and a disembodied voice, and I think he’s a Buddhist flying through space in a bubble trying to reach the Mayan afterlife.

You could interpret this film a lot of different ways, but, for me, this is how it works:

1500 is the book that Weisz is writing. It represents her way of understanding why present day Hugh Jackman is spending so much time at the lab trying to find a cure. He’s scaling the earth, trying to find a cure for cancer. The cancer in this story is both death and the Inquisition.

2000 is the anchor of the story that everything swirls around.

2500 is the final chapter of the book after Weisz commands Jackman to “Finish It.” See, this is him basically writing her a eulogy, telling her that this is how far he would go to find a cure. He would take the tree and his memories to Xibalba to be with her again. He would do whatever it takes to be with her forever. But, at the same time, the tree that will grow and his memories will remain forever, even after she is gone.

The future is the hardest one to parse together, symbolically. See, the biggest key to me that it’s fake is that Jackman has his wedding ring back that had gone missing earlier in the film.

But then there’s the fact that he may’ve just discovered both the tree of life and the cure for dying thereby hypothetically enabling him to live long enough to get him to Xibalba. So, it’s open for interpretation.

Cohering these three stories are both the two lead actors who play a part in each one as well as amazing parallel cinematography by Matthew Libatique, who has worked with Aronofsky all all his films to date (and Iron Man 2!). There is this amazing shot that you see in the trailers of things passing under the camera, starting right side up and ending upside down. This shot is used with Jackman on Horseback, Jackman in a car, and Jackman in a bubble. These are his ways of getting to and from her. There are the shots of the hair on the Rachel Weisz’s neck billowing as Jackman speaks close to her skin, then doing the same when she is a tree, with the follicles on the bark standing on end, signifying her life.

This movie divides a great number of people along lines of “it’s bloated, pretentious, and terrible,” and “It’s insightful, beautiful, and heart-wrenching.”

I understand the former group’s lament. The film can seem pretentious, but most films that attempt to stuff everything a young filmmaker knows can come off that way. Just be glad it’s only 90 minutes long.

This line, though, seems to be created around a lot of great films, though–with few exceptions: like Godfather and Citizen Kane[2]. But then there are films that are considered genius to selected groups. Movies like Brazil that are fascinating but also a base-level clusterfuck; or movies like Blue Velvet that disgust far too many people to ever garner unilateral acclaim.[3] This movie, hopefully, will fall into the category of divisive classics.

Every time I’ve seen this movie, I’ve cried. This is a film that builds up your hopes, then tears them apart, then gets really fucking weird.

I like that.

 


 

[1] Look, I understand that the MPAA is an organization built arbitrariness, but this usually means something when it’s downgraded like this. Like, there was one little thing and they thought it was better to take out the “smoking pole” joke and make more money over going with the “smoking pole” joke. Or violence, or whatever whatever. Downwards means more than upwards is what I’m getting at.
[2]You could say Casablanca, though I won’t because I’m the one person in the world who didn’t like it. Blame the Mormon girl that broke my heart in High School.

[3] Something that worries me, while we’re on the subject: That Crash and Slumdog Millionaire, two of the worst I’ve films I’ve seen in a long time, will fall into this category. Those movies are goddamned terrible and I really hope that future critics don’t retroject a unilateral acclaim in these films just because they won the most overrated award in history. Give me a fucking break.