Change Your Image
Hashimuri
Reviews
Peaches Does Herself (2012)
Exactly what a Peaches fan will expect
I just saw this film at London Sundance, on the day following its UK premiere. I expected it to be in turns outlandish, outrageous, nonsensical and fun. Does it deliver? Yes.
To those not familiar with Peaches' irreverent, catchy and utterly ridiculous musical output (usually described as 'electro-clash' - punk-rock-influenced synth-driven pop with both sung and rapped vocals), the film may be a bit baffling. Indeed, there were three walk-outs at the screening I attended.
But to those already fans of Peaches' music, the film is a culmination of all the elements she embodies, musically and stylistically. It consists of a series of surreal musical vignettes woven together by only the loosest of narratives: it is 1999 and Peaches is experimenting in her bedroom with a mic and a synth, letting her imagination run amok. At one point her bed becomes a giant vagina from which a series of horny dancers spill forth. Suddenly a washed-up stripper (Sandy Kane, aka The Naked Cowgirl) appears and urges her to take to the stage and share her musical creations. During one show a hitherto frenetic Peaches halts to a stop, becoming entranced with a beautiful, creature-like transsexual (Danni Daniels).
There is never any dialogue, just musical numbers performed in glam-rock-inspired costumes and accompanied by crude but compelling choreography from a team of back-up dancers. It is one big theatrical production edited to flow like a dream sequence. Several hits ("Boys Wanna Be Her", "Mommy Complex", "Lose You", "I Feel Cream", "Set It Off" and yes, "Fuck the Pain Away") get re-works so there's something familiar even for those who like her sound but are not die-hard fans.
Peaches actually showed up at the end of the screening I attended to thank the audience. She came across as very humble, almost shy, a sharp contrast to her onstage persona. She explained her intent to craft a visual narrative around her songs in the tradition of the "jukebox musical" or rock opera. She wanted the music to take centre-stage over the narrative, and she wanted that narrative to be quite self-reflexive (she remarked that We Will Rock You would be an amazing musical if only it channelled the dreams and vision of a young Freddie Mercury - I totally agree).
To conclude, Peaches Does Herself appears to borrow from films as varied as Singin' in the Rain and other classic MGM musicals, Prince's Purple Rain, the David Bowie homage Velvet Goldmine, 80s underground art films Cafe Flesh and Liquid Sky, and the gender-bending cult favourite Hedwig & the Angry Inch. But the film does not actually rip off these precursors - it is very much Peaches' own creation and a fine addition to her oeuvre.
Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)
Stupid is right - and also sexist, boring and disingenuous
This film reminded me a lot of Little Miss Sunshine, a "dysfunctional family" comedy I also hated. Things that are actually way creepy and/or disturbing are played for laughs, for example:
- a 13-year-old boy stalking and harrasing his 17-year-old babysitter. He is relentless: tells her upfront that he masturbates while thinking about her, embarrasses her with public declarations, texts her nonstop, cycles to her house in the middle of the night to leave a bundle of flowers at her door (long after she's begged him to stop)... If he's old enough to feel an attraction for someone, then he's old enough to understand the concept of backing off when it is made clear that the attraction is not mutual (not just that-- the girl tells him repeatedly that he makes her feel "uncomfortable"-- ignoring someone's feelings is a trademark mainly of guys who veer on, or actually are, abusive
- a 17-year-old girl obsessing over a 44-year-old dad (Carrell), to the extent that she overtly disrespects his wife (Moore), who employs her as a babysitter. Her obsession reaches new lows when she snaps naked pictures of herself with the intent of seducing Carrell. There was no logic to why this character would cheapen herself so absurdly just to win the affections of a nice, but by no means charming or exceptional, family man. Not to mention, if she hates Moore for breaking up the marriage, why is she so keen to further sabotage it by throwing herself at Carrell?
- a 44-year-old dad controlling his 27-year-old daughter's love life, to the point that he disowns her for having a boyfriend whose past sexual behaviour he disapproves of, even though he himself has recently indulged in that exact type of behaviour. What is it with male characters in films being so patronising and protective of female characters? Are women in audience meant to find this manly and flattering? Is this the 1950s, where sexual hypocrisy reigns supreme? So it seems in the film.
- a 40-something woman (Tomei) who goes to bars on her own to get laid is totally upset when a random dude she goes home with (Carrell) doesn't ever call her. Really? Are we meant to believe the sex was that good? Why must the film depict an older woman seeking sex with a stranger be so pathetically? Oh, I know-- because only a pathetic woman would still be single at that age and go to bars seeking no-strings-attached sex. Again-- are we stuck in Pleasantville or what?
Other old-fashioned clichés forced upon the viewer include having an indiscriminate playboy (Gosling) fall for a near-virginal girl (Stone), whose purity of heart and earnest innocence no doubt compel him to abandon his reckless, emotionally stunted, promiscuous ways. To add insult to injury, the near-virginal girl initially fawns over a douchebag in a suit (i.e. the financially secure but boring guy), and is heartbroken when he doesn't propose (girls just always want a ring on their finger, don't ya know).
Amidst these pathetic story lines (compounded by some really pathetic dialogue), the only saving grace were a few well-timed and refreshingly funny jokes, plus Gosling's barely-concealed smirk for having carte blanche to do absolutely no real acting whatsoever. He merely prances around in flashy suits and flaunts his pecs.
My final quip: for a film about sexual conquests and awakenings, where was the chemistry between any of the characters, the steamy innuendos, the sensual vibes, or the actual sex? I would've killed for random scenes between Gosling and any of the two dozen women he picks up throughout the film-- or between him and Stone's quirky friend (also the token ethnic minority, who conveniently disappears the minute Stone and Gosling sink into a trite state of happily-ever-after-ness).
Or how about a scene with Moore and Bacon, who were far cuter together than Moore and Carrell? There's just not even anything in this film that could be considered a payoff. In this sense, it really reminded me of that most disingenuous of romcoms that also has "love" in the title but completely denigrates the concept-- yes, the perplexingly much-loved turd, Love Actually. Well, Crazy, Stupid Love has joined the ranks, congrats!
Beginners (2010)
Nothing can redeem this indie turd
I normally give indie cinema a chance. But this one truly takes the biscuit as the worst indie film I've ever seen. Think of all the various elements that can make indie films great and you end up with a list of everything that this film lacks: witty dialogue, dark or quirky humor, poignant observations about human relationships, a character's angst or melancholia presented in an evocative or cathartic way, a nostalgic or simply cool soundtrack, etc.
It's a real shame because the blurb makes the film sound really promising. The main shortcoming is how little insight you get into the principal characters, despite loads of background info and dialogue exchanges. I felt emotionless throughout. I've never seen Ewan McGregor play such an insipid, self-pitying character. And Christopher Plummer, what a waste! As for the son and father's respective love interests, their appeal remains a mystery throughout. One is a privileged but tormented (and frankly boring) French actress, the other an overbearingly defensive, infantile floppy-haired buffoon.
The film uses little gimmicks, like voice-overs and flashbacks of historical events, to cover up the fact that the narrative has no momentum. There are indie films I've hated (the disingenuous Little Miss Sunshine, for example, or the contrived Garden State) that were still 1000 times more watchable and entertaining than this tripe.
I rejoiced when this film ended; my friends and I promptly hit a bar to order to a drink and blank it from our minds. But blank it entirely I could not, such was the colossal dislike it provoked in me.
Avoid at all costs.
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
An insult to anyone with a shred of intelligence
I won't repeat everything that all the negative reviews have already said.
I will say this, though: those claiming that to slate this film is to miss the point of dark humor, etc., let me point you in the direction of one of my favorite films, Welcome To the Dollhouse.
Welcome To the Dollhouse is everything LMS purports to be but isn't. Irony, irreverence, hyperbole and humor are actually used to good effect, to deliver an actual message. LMS gets its tone all wrong: it's slapstick meets sentimental with corny and crude thrown in. The overall outcome is a plot so obvious in its desired effect, so contrived, so dumbed down and so painfully executed, I still can't believe people defend it.
Toni Collette is one of the actresses I respect the most, so to see her talent eclipsed by bad dialogue and faux-emotion is very depressing indeed.
If this film has something to say about family dysfunction or the hypocrisy of child beauty pageants, it fails miserably. Much, much more is achieved in, say, an average "intelligent" sitcom episode.
One final point is that the characters are utterly unlikable. Most films, even if relying on caricature, make their characters sympathetic, nuanced or three-dimensional on some level. LMS does neither.
I can't stress how awful this film truly is.
My So-Called Life (1994)
Really captures the subtleties of life - not just adolescence
It used to bother me that the show was cancelled and that the story lines were left unresolved... But that's part of its mythic status - it never had the chance to go downhill.
I own the DVDs and it is one of the few television box sets worth having. I can rewatch the same episodes and still feel moved - whether by laughter, tears, or just a sense of "Hell yeah, that is SO true!" This show is for all ages, but above all it's for openminded people who actually like to think while they're entertained, people who appreciate the nuances in individuals. The characters are amazingly well-crafted and the actors do the scripts justice, for once. No one is a cut-out, even if on some level they are all "types" (and aren't we all, especially in the eyes of others? It is one of the things the show seeks to challenge).
The greatest achievement of this show is the way it presents life situations in MORALLY RELATIVE ways - for once, no moralizing. There is no black and white, no good guys, no bad guys. Sex is neither good or bad; drugs and alcohol are neither good or bad; parents are neither good or bad. Everybody has their reasons and their intentions, and of course conflicts arise, and there is no big make-up session at the end of it, but the characters interact and connect in many different ways. The show does a superb job in depicting situations and events from multiple sides, and capturing the way relationships between people are always in flux.
Angela's voice-over achieves the perfect balance of being introspective and philosophical without crossing the line into overbearing and intrusive. She is the protagonist, but not the focal point of every story line. This is a model to follow! I would say, in fact, that a lot of TV and films indirectly owe a lot to this show. For example, Rayanne and Rickie (the quirky friend and gay sidekick) are prototypes for the characters of Janis and Damian in the film Mean Girls. I could find lots of examples.
To conclude, MSCL is above and beyond the vast majority of television dramas - I loved it when it aired in 1995 (I was 12) and I love it now that I'm 24 and technically "grown up"! It isn't just the nostalgia it triggers, it's the overall production quality and the grip it has over viewers, like a good novel. There's no parallel in today's TV.
Sugar Rush (2005)
Awful stuff, really
A quick sum-up: This show has no depth and no subtlety. The editing and cinematography make you feel like you're watching MTV. It's a bit insulting to assume young adult viewers lack attention spans and need to be bombarded by fast cuts, loud music, over-the-top humour and non-realistic dialogue. Considering the premise for the show holds infinite potential, there is no excuse for doing such a lousy job!
To expand: Too many people defend this show simply for addressing the issue of a teenage girl's homosexual feelings, finally bringing such a "taboo" theme to mainstream TV. Well, that's hardly a feat when, as another reviewer posted, the show makes a mockery of sexuality. Okay, I'll give it 2 stars for not having a moralistic spin, but the way it portrays sexuality and just life itself, is hardly realistic or even intelligent (I mean, genres like satire or comedy can definitely be deep and captivating without being realistic, so long as they're intelligent!). This show treats the process of coming to terms with sexuality in such a facetious way - there is no development. I think it can be portrayed positively and yet with depth. I'm not saying that just because Kim is gay she has to agonise over it, or get depressed - it's great that she's embracing of it and just really, really wants to get laid. Great! You'd think the stage would be set for a witty, fun, no-frills drama. WRONG. Not even "fun" is handled well in this show - all the situations are so contrived, just aiming to "shock" viewers. Plus too much time is spent on Kim's parents and their sex life, which doesn't advance the storyline that people actually care about, so it's a bit WTF?! all around.
P.S.: And has nobody else actually noticed that Kim and Sugar have NO CHEMISTRY? It's hard to build a lesbian-themed show around two characters when their on screen interaction is so hollow and unconvincing. I won't blame the actresses, I'll blame the script and the show's creators.
Sex: The Annabel Chong Story (1999)
Sad? Shocking? No, just pointless
Aside from the fact that this documentary displays little technical skill, it also seems to possess no real artistic or narrative INTENT. This is supposed to be Grace Quek's chance to tell the REAL story of her alter-ego, porn starlet Annabel Chong. Naturally you expect some in-depth analysis of Quek's unconventional trajectory, with adequate psychological insight and complex discussion. However, you get none.
This is an exploitative and disjointed sleazefest - but Quek herself is largely part of the problem. Instead of making sense of her dubious and scandalous career choices, she flounders, displaying faux-confidence and nonchalance at times, emotional instability and fragility at others. Quek is one of those privileged and intelligent people who orchestrate their lives in order to precisely undermine their privilege and intelligence. It is this unrepressed, egocentric, ungrateful display of self-indulgence that makes such people unable to garner sympathy or respect from anybody. Such happens here, and it is rather pointless to have the subject of a documentary be so contemptible.
Quek grew up as the only child of well-meaning, middle-class parents in one of the world's wealthiest nations, where she attended some of the top schools before being granted the means to attend university in the UK. Yet amidst this oasis of privilege and opportunity, she was oh so overwhelmed by her existential lack of purpose and identity that she headed for L.A., where she nosedived into the underworld of drugs and pornography.
Meanwhile, she rationalizes her choices by claiming there is some sort of higher philosophical quest embedded in what is otherwise blatantly self-destructive behavior. Although it is clear Quek has unresolved issues, and most probably longstanding clinical depression, there is a catch: she is, and always has been, in a position to DEAL and SEEK HELP. That she CHOOSES to destruct beyond repair and delude herself about her motives is the real travesty here, and not all the nonsense some people keep pointing out about the porn industry being sleazy and exploitative and devoid of morals.
Most women who get into porn come from working-class, if not downright desolate backgrounds. Their childhoods and adolescenes are best quantified by LACK rather than excess. Many have a history of child abuse, sexual abuse, violence, and early drug and alcohol addiction. That Quek would choose such an exploitative industry as the medium to carry out some of sort of "intellectual exercise" to, in her words, "subvert Western ideals of masculinity" only exposes the fact that her choice had NO SUCH INTENT. Partaking in the infamous "gangbang" was merely indulgence in a high form of self-destruction - hey, with an audience to boot (Quek seems is undeniably a narcissistic sort of masochist). The fact that she doesn't care about never having been paid a cent also compounds this. Name a single porn actress who would work for free!
The sad this is, her intent in making this documentary is one and the same as her intent in doing porn: more self-indulgence, more self-absorption and more self-destruction. I am only sorry that she consented to getting her parents involved in it - watching the scenes of her mom is heart-breaking. Many kids fail their parents, but for a kid to be so ungrateful as to FLAUNT their failure, is just unnecessary.
Thirteen (2003)
There's loads of sex and drugs in this film? No way, you're kidding!
Come on people, let's be honest: these issues have been tackled before. And this film doesn't even tackle them WELL. It is just a big jarbled up attempt at being hip and cool and taboo-breaking. How shocking! No way! The acting may have depth (kudos to the cast, for real, I was very impressed) but the characters do not. As someone else mentions in their review, it is one montage after another and you know what that spells out in my book? E-x-p-l-o-i-t-a-t-i-o-n. Let's take this story of a troubled 13-year-old girl that gets led astray by an evil popular girl and let's exploit the s*** out of it! Don't you get it? This film's just bait for viewers who think they're in for an "intellectual indie". But it's just a facade. The film just wants you to get off on these two girls being "bad". And oh, admit it, we all do. Let's rewind and watch the bit where they kiss again...
Don't pretend this film raises awareness or something. It's merely exploitative wannabe porn masquerading as cinematic realism! Of the same ilk as KIDS and BULLY, films which I loathe.
I have two recommendations that put this film to shame. First, SHOW ME LOVE (aka F***** AMAL), a subtle portrayal of an adolescent girl's struggles in smalltown Sweden (though it could very well be anywhere else). The characters are sympathetic even in their low moments and depictions of sex and alcohol abuse are treated with, lo behold, normality. Second, WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, a black comedy that for all its caricaturesque characters and over-the-top plot lines has a lot more soul and conveys a lot more truth than THIRTEEN.
Just my two cents.
Irréversible (2002)
cruel and unusual
If the editing in this film actually ordered the scenes sequentially as opposed to adopting the Memento-style the-end-as-beginning approach, I would advise anyone renting the DVD to pause the movie two-thirds through (up to when Alex tells Marcus that she's leaving the party and says good-bye to Pierre), before carefully considering the cost of continuing: i.e. are you willing to subject yourself to the visually and psychologically gruelling and nauseating disintegration of what has otherwise been a subtly engaging, flawlessly-acted story? (And when I say disintegration, I mean in terms of narrative, dialogue, character development, cinematography, camerawork, the whole shebang - annihilation would be a more accurate term.) But because of the Memento-style chronology, you are subjected to this final third first, and I can assure you it's not very pleasant. You pray for it to get better. It does, of course, but it subsequently renders what you've already witnessed all the more horrendous. Director Gaspar Noé is gratuitously and excessively cruel, to both his characters and the audience. The theme seems to be the force of impulse-driven revenge, among other things - but what a painful execution it is! Furthermore, I took issue with the portrayal of homosexual males in this film, for it was very one-dimensional if not outright demeaning.
I will admit that once you've actually sat through it, an intrinsic but irrational curiosity will beg you to rewatch the final third of the story (which is to say, the movie's beginning) in order to place the events within a larger context. I still have not satisfied this curiosity, because like I say, my gut feeling tells me it's completely irrational and I will very much regret it afterwards.
Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)
Manipulative Sentimental Hollywoodesque Crap
I am sorry, this movie is made with every conscious effort to make the audience sympathize and feeeel for the little girls. Yeah, they've got it tough, no kidding! So why treat the audience as if we're stupid? The bad guys - Kenneth Branagh's character in particular - are demonized blatantly and one-sidedly while the girls get very little dialogue but oh so many shots of their angelic terrorized faces. The movie has no depth. It does not delve into exploring the complex issues of racism and colonialism in Australia, instead it is another generic triumph-over-adversity tale which we have seen depicted onscreen 534,466 times before - true story or not. Yes, the cinematography is beautiful, blah blah blah, the story is still utter crap.