Henry

Art House Asshole : Spa Night

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Spa Night.

—

This is probably a prime example of a film you have never heard of. I can figure this out because I had never heard of this film before and if I haven’t heard of a film, you know it’s obscure. The reasoning behind watching and in part reviewing this film is because I have recently been obsessed with the Independent Spirit Awards. Which I can describe most accurately as the Oscars cousin that almost everyone says “hello” to at the family reunion but no one really hangs out with because the Independent Spirit Awards are off doing their own thing, typically doing things that no one else is really comfortable with to the point of most people thinking “Woah! Independent Spirit Awards! Cool it with all of the weird sex stuff!” But then the Independent Spirit Awards are like “Oh you don’t like all of the weird sex stuff? What about fascism and more sex? Are you okay with fascism and more sex?” And then everyone at the reunion is like “You see! This is why no one watches you Independent Spirit Awards! It’s either Fascism or Sex with you!”

Spa Night is an independent film taking place in Koreatown in Los Angeles. Spa Night follows a young second generation Korean man who attempts to raise his grades so he can attend a good college, while also balancing his new found experimentation with homosexuality as he begins working at a Korean Mens Spa. The reason why I choose this film is because it was nominated for the John Cassavettes Award at the Independent Spirt Awards, meaning best film made for under 500 thousand dollars.

With a small budget, I won’t make any complaints about the film with that regard. I understand that making a movie is extremely expensive and is almost impossible to get funding for. So I won’t be like “They should have done more!” Which isn’t a full complaint with the film. It is a thought, but it won’t be the sole focus of the review as that wouldn’t be fair. But before you go into this film, understand that this is a very low budget film. So you are not going to get any big stunts or set pieces or anything that will cost money. Also, understand that shouldn’t be a requirement for a film.

I’ll start with the acting, which is fine. There really isn’t anything worth noting in the film in regards to the acting. I’m sure the actor are fairly unexperienced or at least haven’t done much on this large of a scale. The main actor is fine, but at the same time, he doesn’t do much. He is quiet almost the entire film and doesn’t do much in terms of facial expression. Which becomes a problem because most of the film is the character of David reacting to seeing things, such as male genitals which there is an abundance of in this film. So when I’d say half of the film is David looking and being intrigued or shocked by something, maybe have a bit more of an expression than “Oh, neat.” Most of the younger actors are pretty mediocre. But the two who place David’s parents are pretty good. They aren’t anything spectacular, but they are better than most of the actors around them.

The true problem the film has is that the film is paced god awfully. And what makes this worse is that the marketing and big selling points of this film, being the exploration of sexuality within a men’s spa, are the most boring parts of the entire film. It feels similar to watching Fifty Shades of Grey, which sounds like an extreme but it isn’t as bad. When watching Fifty Shades of Grey, the only thing worth really watching is the stupid and awful dialogue, the sex scenes are really just fluff that is more boring than you would imagine. A similar problem happens here but to a lesser extent. First of all, the spa scenes don’t happen until around the forty-five-minute mark. For the first half of the film, as well as being a major part of the second half, the focus is pretty solely on David trying to get into a good college. And where the problem rises is the fact that the pacing for the schooling scenes and the pacing for the spa scenes are extremely different. The schooling scenes are paced fast and you feel the stress that David is feeling. The spa scenes, however, are shot like poetry with colors blending throughout and the scene is calm and relaxing. Which sounds great. You could argue that is what makes this film good, the contrast to where David is uncomfortable and where he is comfortable. The problem is that they are so contrasting that it becomes jarring and just poorly done. To the point where I was really into the film in the first half and could barely stay awake the second half.

Where I respect what Spa Night is trying to do, it never does anything to separate itself from every other film in the year. In this point of time, a film about a man discovering his sexuality is an extremely common subject. When you do that kind of subject, you have to find something to separate yourself to the point where you are telling your own story. Not the standard story. And Spa Night just never does that. It feels like something I’ve seen before and the one angle that it had, I never felt like it worked with that hard enough to make it interesting.

Art House Asshole : Pariah

—

So the other day, Moonlight won Best Picture at the Oscars. Now if you have followed the podcast, you would know that I am a fan of this decision. I was talking with a couple of my friends about this and one of them mentioned this film. Specifically, they said, “If you liked Moonlight, then you will love Pariah!” And that is the reasoning behind my decision to finally watch this film, even though I had heard of it ever since it’s release.

So let’s start this review by saying that this is no Moonlight. Or maybe it would be for some, but it certainly isn’t a Moonlight for me. Pariah follows a high school girl in Brooklyn as she has her first love with a girl and proceeds to eventually come out to her parents. So one thing I will say off the bat is that I am automatically going to connect with Moonlight more solely because I am a man. If I was a woman I might connect with Pariah more. I honestly don’t know. So I will attempt to review it less on connection and more of the physical, is this film good or not.

Let’s start with the cinematography because that was one of the main points of praise for the film. When the film premiered at Sundance, it was awarded the Excellence in Cinematography. I’ve heard people complain in the past about the various awards given out at Sundance and how meaningless and nonsensical they can be. But there is something in the cinematography in this film. The cinematography is done by Bradford Young, who is an up-and-coming cinematographer with works like Selma and Arrival under his belt with this being his first film. And you can tell that he has talent, even if it is unfocused. The color palette alone in the film is very beautiful. I often find films dealing with actors of color going to a color palette of greens or blues, as a way to compliment the skin in a way that doesn’t white actors. This film is an example of this done well, another comparison to Moonlight being that the color palettes are very similar. The issue I have with the cinematography is more that the entire film is done handheld. And every time I complain about an indie film did handheld, I get the same response. That being, “Well you are supposed to feel like you are in the room with them like a POV!” Yeah, but when my friends fight in front of me, I don’t start breakdancing. So the POV is kind of stupid. It just makes the film harder to watch because I am focusing too hard on figuring out what I’m looking at.

The acting in the film is great. Despite this film coming out in 2011, the actors have really not done anything else since this film. And the acting, where it isn’t revolutionary, is pretty good. I would especially like to point to the father character played by Charles Parnell. He was my favorite out of all the performances because his character is layered in a way that I rarely ever see in a film. Throughout the film, you can tell that his character is dealing with something that is frustrating and tiresome but has nothing to do with the main character. That frustration that the character is dealing with is never fully explored, and you could view this as a bad thing. You could argue that this is poor character development. But when it plays out on screen, to me at least, it feels more like realism. The character is living in the real world. Not in a world where everything revolves around the main character. He has his own struggles that we don’t see, just like how everyone has struggles that we don’t see. So you might see that as a complaint, but I see it as a positive. At least in this instance.

But yeah, it’s not Moonlight, to me anyways. But it is still a good time. If you wanted something like Moonlight to fill some kind of void or whatever, maybe check this one out. It is very much an LGBT film, so if you are someone who doesn’t enjoy those stories, I would recommend skipping it. But if you want something different, yet the same, check out Pariah.

—

Pariah is currently available on Netflix.

Art House Asshole : The Club

—

Huh. I don’t really get it. I would call myself a pretty big fan of Pablo Larraín. I place his earlier film No in my best films of the 2010s. I was also a pretty big fan of Jackie last year, particularly his director of the film. And in all honesty, I was attempting to see his newest film, Neruda, this week instead of this film. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get around to it, so I decided to see this film instead. And people really like this film. It was nominated for best foreign film at the Golden Globes in its year. But I really don’t get it.

The Club is a Chilean film about the house where these priests go to be punished for their sins. While they are there, they are interrogated about all of their sins. The film is really just that. It is a bunch of talking scenes between two people where each priest explains the horrible thing they did. I’m not against this kind of film. I think dialogue driven films can work and I think single location films can work. I think they can even work together. But the dialogue in this film just isn’t strong enough to carry an entire film. When you do a dialogue based film, you need to have a writer that is really good at writing dialogue. A prime example of this being Aaron Sorkin who write pretty much only dialogue. And I think that Pablo Larraín is a great director. Emphasis on the word director.

Usually, I am a fan of the aesthetic of Pablo Larraín’s filmography, the little that I have seen at least. The filming of No using cameras from the era and mixing in footage from the actual event is a genius idea and I loved the color palette and aspect ratio of the film. He does pretty much the same thing with Jackie but to a lesser noticeable extent. And maybe that’s the problem. Maybe Larraín is just really good at matching a style of a period. Because the aesthetic of this film is just poor.

The color of the film is excessively blue. Like, film school just learning how to color correct level of blue. I tried to find out what camera the film was shot on, but I couldn’t find it. It has a very digital look to it, though, so it wouldn’t surprise me if it was shot digitally. I will also say that I am not opposed to digital filmmaking, in fact, I am more for that than keeping dead and inferior methods. But along with the gross color of the film, it feels like almost none of the film is in focus. Most of the time when I watch a film that was shot digitally, it has a very crisp look to it. Which some are against, some are for. This film just looks hazy and is hard to look at. Some critics have stated that is the point. It is supposed to look unclear because that it what the priests are saying, it’s unclear and hazy. And if that is what they are going for, that’s what they achieve. But, it is still unpleasant and like I said before, the dialogue in the film isn’t strong enough to link the two together.

I don’t have a lot of words for this film. It is just overall a disappointment. I still consider Larraín to be a fantastic director. And the ending to this film is actually pretty good, mainly because that is when some action actual starts to happen. But I don’t know. I walk away from this film thinking I wasted my time with it. The movie states that molesting children is bad. It’s a bold statement, but only because of the subject matter. And a bold subject matter doesn’t make for a bold movie. It just makes for a film that is trying far too hard to be important.

Art House Asshole : The Salesman

—

Asghar Farhadi is singlehandedly putting Iranian Cinema on the map. My film history teacher, who is one of the most knowledgeable film historians I’ve ever met, if not the most knowledgeable, told me that there is currently a film movement in Iran that is going to rival the French New Wave and will be studied as such once we get past it. I haven’t seen much Iranian Cinema, but of the two I’ve seen, I am very much willing to continue with this movement. The two Iranian films I’ve seen are this film, The Salesman, and Asghar Farhadi’s other well-known film A Separation. I can’t think of another Iranian Filmmaker, but my god, I will say that in due time Farhadi will be associated with Iran in the same way Jean-Luc Godard is associated with France, Federico Fellini is associated with Italy, and Andre Tarkovsky is associated with Russia. That is how far I think Farhadi is capable of achieving.

The Salesman follows a couple who after their previous apartment complex risks collapsing, quickly moves into a new apartment. The Salesman follows a similar first act as A Separation in the fact that the description of the film only really covers the first act, then the first act ends with this horrible situation that becomes the rest of the film. You might be thinking “But wait, isn’t that how first acts are supposed to work?” and I agree, that is kind of the definition of a first act. But I’m talking about how any description you read about the film will hold this plot device almost as if it’s a plot twist.

I will say that where I loved The Salesman, I think the first two acts of this film pale in comparison to A Separation. The first two acts of A Separation are completely beautiful because where it is a painful film to watch due to the situation, the acting and writing are done in such a way that it is so believable and shocking how realistic the dialogue is. In comparison, The Salesman’s first two acts are such a downer that it borders almost on Misery Porn. Don’t get me wrong, what happens at the end of the first act of The Salesman is horrible and would cause misery for the people involved. But The Salesman is missing that spectacular performances and writing that A Separation had.

That isn’t to discredit the writing and acting in The Salesman. Iran is producing some absolutely fantastic actors. Including Taraneh Alidoosti, in this film as wife and victim. Alidoosti gives one of the best female performances of the entire year and it is so subtle how she portrays this victim. The shock and recovery that the character goes through are done so well and so realistically. It never feels like a push or a performance. It just feels real. Shahab Hosseini, who won Best Actor at Cannes in 2016, was also fantastic as the husband. My only real gripe with Hosseini is that his performance might be so subtle that I didn’t really notice how good he was until the final act of the film.

And this is where The Salesman surpasses A Separation. Though the first two acts aren’t spectacular, the third act of this film is probably the best third act I’ve seen in cinema this year. Up until a certain character is introduced, I was thinking “Okay, let’s get on with it.” But once this character is introduced, it becomes almost a thriller. The third act of this film is so perfect that it completely makes up for any lackluster parts from earlier in the film. I loved it and just wanted every part of it to continue.

I honestly don’t know which I like better The Salesman or A Separation. Both are fantastic and worthy of being seen, especially if you want to jump into this new Iranian Film Movement, or just want to see Iranian Cinema. It’s a beautiful film that I can’t recommend enough. And Asghar Farhadi is one of the biggest names to watch right now if you aren’t watching him already.

Art House Asshole : Lore

—

There are a lot of World War II films out there. There are a lot of Holocaust films out there. There is rarely ever anything guaranteed in cinema. It isn’t a guarantee that Star Wars will always succeed. It isn’t a guarantee that Sci-Fi will never win best picture at the Oscars. But if you want something that is guaranteed to happen in cinema, it’s that there will always be at least one World War II or Holocaust film coming out in a given year. I’m not saying this is bad, there are many critics and movie lovers out there that think we have made enough films on World War II and that we should move on. “We get it, the Holocaust happened and it was bad”. I’m not in that boat. If a filmmaker is passionate about a story taking place during World War II, they should go for it. It becomes a problem eventually because there are so many of them to compare to. This film has a twist to it, that I haven’t seen in a film before and is on a topic that I never considered before. This film should have worked much better than it did.

Lore is a technically Australian film, set in Germany right after the death of Adolf Hitler. Lore follows a group of Aryan Siblings as they move from place to place trying to survive in a war-torn and chaotic country. From the get-go, this film has an original idea to it. It’s rare that you see a film from the German’s perspective during World War II. It is almost non-existent for a film to show the common family in Germany at the time. And the film presents some great ideas! There is a scene where the eldest daughter named “Lore”, sees pictures of Jews who have been killed as well as pictures of the concentration camps. The film is really an exploration of this idea of the fact that these kids have been raised with Nazi Propaganda to fear and hate Jews. The interesting part of the film comes from the fact that you see this conflict of what is the truth when everything in your life has been a lie. On paper, this film is completely incredible. In execution, it doesn’t work as well.

The big issue I had with the film is the editing. The film is weirdly cut in a way that feels very jagged and choppy. It gives an uncomfortable feeling. As I write this I can tell that someone could argue that is the point. This is a holocaust film, after all, it shouldn’t be a comfortable watch. Fine. I can accept this point of view, it isn’t the one I have because the film doesn’t have any problems with tone. The tone is fairly consistent the entire time. The other big reason that I will say the editing is pretty bad is because the time lining of the film is god-awful. It seems like one second they are playing in a field and the next second they are building a fire in the dead of night. It feels this way because that is literally what happens at a point. There is no transition. There is no rhyme or reason for this. Just suddenly, boom, it’s nighttime. Better build a fire. Then a night will go by in what seems like thirty seconds. Two characters will be talking and it will be dead of night, then it’s morning by the time the conversation is halfway through. It rips you out of the experience and leaves you thinking “What just happened?”

On a more positive side, the film is shot absolutely beautifully. The color palette of the film is gorgeous and the cinematography is out of this world. The cinematography for the film is done by Adam Arkapaw, who if you aren’t aware of who this man is, I recommend looking into his work immediately because he is one of the best young cinematographers out there today. Recently you might have seen his work in Macbeth and The Light Between Oceans. Every film I have seen with cinematography by him, regardless of the subject matter or how good the rest of the film is, his cinematography is always top notch. Keep an eye out for him, because this film is no exception.

This is a film that I wanted to like much more than I actually did. This is another one of those films that I’ve known about for years and I’ve always heard good things. So I decided to check it out and there was a lot of good to it. There was also a lot of what I don’t want to call bad but poorly done filmmaking. I think the film is worth checking out if the subject matter interests you. If you are like the crowd I mentioned above and think that you’ve had enough World War II and Holocaust films, I get it. Don’t check this film out. But I think there is some good to this film that isn’t worth being ignored. Even if it isn’t even close to being perfect.

Art House Asshole : Dark Night

—

Before starting the review, we should talk briefly about the bias in the room. I am from Denver originally. The Aurora shooting happened, and where I wasn’t present in the theater, I am close friends with multiple people who were. I have seen how the incident has changed and hurt people. The Reel Nerds have talked in depth about this event in the past. But it would not be fair to review this film without mentioning this before hand. This review will try to focus on the film, rather than the incident. And I will try to review it with as little bias as possible. But there are certain things I can not look past.

I don’t really know where to begin with this film. I have a lot of thoughts about this film. Most not being good. But before I jump into that, there are things about this film that aren’t bad that I should mention to the film’s credit. If you are unaware, Dark Night is a fictional film with heavy influence and essential re-creation of the Aurora Century 16 Theater Shooting. Dark Night follows various people as they go about their day before the incident. I think it is important to give credit where credit is due and we will start with the good in the film.

The cinematography is good. The color palette is fine, even if it is uninspired and at this point slowly becoming a cliché.

That’s the good. Now the bad.

I really don’t understand the film. It is so clearly a reenactment of the Century 16 Shooting, but at the same time, it is it’s own thing and even early on in the film they make a slight reference to the Century 16 Shooting as it’s own thing that also happened in this universe. Why not just go all out with Century 16? Why dance around the subject matter and make it a fictional story? And if you are going to dance around the subject matter, why would you ever think it’s a good idea to reference the actual tragedy? It would be like if halfway through watching Gus Van Sant’s Elephant a couple of the students say “Isn’t it crazy that the same thing happened at Columbine?” There is a reason why that line doesn’t appear in Elephant. And there is a reason why this line does exist in Dark Night.

A lot of critics have compared this film with Elephant significantly. Which makes sense. A lot of people have said this film has a very Harmony Korine feel to it, but I would say it has a much stronger Gus Van Sant feel to it. But the reason why everyone is comparing Dark Night with Elephant is because Dark Night is attempting to what Elephant did, the only problem is that it seems like the filmmakers of Dark Night don’t understand why Elephant works.

Another film that I want to draw a comparison to is Peter Berg’s recent film Patriots Day. The three films, Dark Night, Elephant, and Patriots Day all have the same theme of taking a recent tragedy and making it into a film. Off the bat, I will say that Elephant is, in my opinion, Gus Van Sant’s best film, not my favorite (Good Will Hunting), but his best film. Patriots Day is also a pretty good film. It’s a film I have problems with, but it is a well-made film. The thing that Elephant and Patriots Day do that make them good is how they handle the tragedy. We have three horrible tragedies that will forever be part of American History, The Columbine Massacre, The Boston Marathon Bombing, and Century 16. With a subject matter this dark and this serious, you have to walk a thin line. You have to realize how horrible these events are. Elephant follows multiple characters leading up to the massacre. But it never says anything judgmental about them. It just tells you who the characters are, whether they be good or bad. When the massacre happens, some of them die. It’s a bullet point. It’s a tragedy. But above all else, it never pretends to be anything other than human. Elephant doesn’t really have a message. The only message really being “This is humanity. This is a tragedy.” Elephant focuses on the people. It focuses on the humanity in the horror. You feel for everyone involved. In Elephant, it was clear that Gus Van Sant cared about the source material. It was clear that he knew how this hurt people. He knew his line, and he knew not to cross it. In Patriots Day, the reality of the situation is bent to fit the storyline. But it isn’t bent to fit the message. Though it isn’t really even close to being as good or as subtle as Elephant, Patriots Day is very much an ode to the victims and celebrating the overcoming of the horror. Like Elephant, it presents it. It doesn’t paint it, Berg might show it from a certain angle, but he doesn’t paint it to be anything else than what it already is. Dark Night takes the tragedy and paints over it to show you an agenda.

Dark Night isn’t about characters. If it was, the characters would be better developed and would mean something. It would be better if they meant nothing as that would give a message to the tragedy, but instead, they are just present they are mannequins that the filmmaker put in front of a camera. Dark Night isn’t about a story. If it was, there would be some kind of meaning behind all of this. Instead, we are given a plot line that has been used hundreds of times with close to no originality to it. Dark Night isn’t about anything that would make this film timeless. Dark Night is about giving you a message about Gun Violence, and Gun Control.

Bias Check. When it comes to gun control in the United States of America, I don’t have a strong opinion. I’ve fired guns in the past. I don’t hold a gun to me, and I probably never will. If the government takes away all guns, fine by me. If the government doesn’t take away all guns, it really doesn’t make much of a difference to me. I do think there are quite a few incidents where a mass shooting has happened because the wrong person had a gun. I do believe there should be some kind of restrictions in place to stop gun violence, but I really don’t know all of the facts to have a strong opinion where I know my stance. So keep that in mind as I proceed.

A message in a film is fine. A message that I disagree with is fine. I lean more liberal, but I can sit through a conservative based film and critique it on more than just the message. I like American Sniper for reasons beyond its message. Breitbart (I’m not starting anything, I’m just using it for now) has a list of the 25 best conservative films ever made, and I enjoy a lot of them. (I will also say that of those films I think Breitbart missed the message and satire in at least half of them but that isn’t important to the point). So if a filmmaker wants to make a film with a strong conservative message or a strong liberal message, that is perfectly fine. What bothers me is more of the handling of the source material.

You can’t really say the cause of the Aurora Shooting. You can say that the cause is gun violence, you can say the cause is mental health, you can say the cause is security, you can say the cause is media. The tragedy is complex and sinister. And it is partly why a film about it shouldn’t really be made this early. Unlike Elephant and Patriots Day it really isn’t over. There is still doubt. So when you have an agenda as strong as this one and you present it packaged with this real event, it isn’t healing. It isn’t presented with care. Dark Night has the attitude of “I told you so” throughout. This isn’t flowers on a grave, this is a bag of crap lit on fire on your front door.

Part of me agrees with what the film is trying to say. It’s ham-fisted, but I can go along with it. And I probably would have considered this a better film if one of two things happened. Either they make it it’s own thing, make a film about a mass shooting with the same characters and have the same message but don’t have it be so obviously Aurora. Or, go all out with Aurora. If you go hard with the tragedy it could work. I think it would be better if you do a documentary, the film tries to present itself like a documentary at points so it could work, but if you do a narrative film I can go along with that too. But you can’t do both. You can have your cake and eat it too. You need to decide what you are going to do, then you can do it. Exploiting a horrific event because you want to give your personal viewpoint isn’t acceptable. And don’t forget that word. This is a modern day Exploitation Film. This film would not exist if it wasn’t exploiting the tragedy as well as the audience.

There is the question of why now? Why make this film so soon after the incident? And I don’t know. There is never an answer given. This film doesn’t make the tragedy special. The only thing I can think is that the filmmaker chose to make this film because he knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to stir a pot. And if that is what his intention was, he succeeded. Because I sit here today writing the longest review I’ve ever written. So congratulations Tim Sutton. You took one of the biggest tragedies in film loving, and you made a horror film. You took an event that still leaves people traumatized and struggles to move past, and you made it about you and your opinion about society. Congratulations Tim Sutton. You win.

If you want to support the victims of Aurora, here is the link to Aurora Rise, a non-profit trying to help the victims of the tragedy. Take the money you would have spent seeing this film and give it to them. It will mean more.

https://www.facebook.com/AuroraRiseColorado/

Art House Asshole : Amélie

—

I needed a good palette cleanser after January’s reviews. Between Trash Humpers, Aaaaaaaah!, and Live by Night, I was pretty ready for a feel goody kind of film to enjoy. And that is exactly what I got with this film! Good job me! You choose the right film to watch this week! For once you didn’t choose a film that you watch knowing that no one would ever care about that film except for you! Your family loves you! This was one of the reasons why I watched this film, the other being that this has always been on my list of shame for films that I know I need to see at some point in my life. And then in my editing class this week, we had to cross films off of a list that we have seen to show our knowledge of what films we have already watched. And, this has happened to me multiple times, by the way, I was shamed for not seeing this film. So screw it! I write a weekly review series where I review Art House films, I’ll use that as an excuse to finally watch this film. You’re welcome me and the rest of the world!

Amélie is just delightful. I know I am probably the last person to ever recommend this film to you. I mean this is kind of the go-to film for anyone who wants to get into French Cinema but has never dipped their toes in it. But I won’t be the asshole this week and say “Oh it’s bullshit and overrated.” Not this week. Cough. Cough. La La Land. Cough.

Amélie follows a very innocent woman in France who grows up under wacky circumstances and now as an adult, she is dedicating to being a matchmaker and generally helping people around her. There is practically no conflict in this entire damn film. Which I am kind of okay with. It’s charming. Kind of in a Wes Anderson kind of way. The film, in general, has a very kid-like look to everything. Throughout the film, I wanted to call the film either surrealist or absurdist, but at the same time, the tone of the film really doesn’t fit either of those. A more accurate way to describe the film is that it is just silly. “Silly” is a word that I will rarely use to describe something because usually there are better words to describe art and using the word “Silly” make me sound like a child. But with a film with such a child-like wonder as much as this film, that is really the best way to describe the film.

The transitions in the film are silly. The writing in the film is silly. The acting in the film is silly. The film feels like it crawled right out of a child’s daydream. Which gives kind of a strange juxtaposition when there is kind of a large amount of sex in the film. Not a lot by any means. It isn’t like this film is a kid reimagined Blue is the Warmest Color or anything. But there is some loud and in your face kind of sex in this film. And when you jump from Audrey Tautou being adorable and smiling at the camera, to the moans of these two kind of unattractive (subjective) people, you get a strange seeing your parents naked kind of feeling. That is present, though it didn’t destroy the film for me by any means.

With everything that I have said thus far, you might be thinking “Then why isn’t this a five out of five-star film?” And the fact of the matter is that besides what I just mentioned, I really don’t have any issue with this film. It isn’t only well made but has a distinct style, something that will always give a film bonus points in my book. Besides the fact that it feels kind of vignette-like with the various tasks Amélie does throughout the film, I wouldn’t say I ever got bored. The film just never fully connected with me to absolutely adore the film.

But hold the phone.

This happens with me with really every feel good movie. I watch it and afterward I’m like “Yeah! I love that! That makes me happy! Go screw yourself Society that makes me sad!” but I am never like “You have to go see this film!” Because in all honesty, depressing and sad films I have an easier time recommending. Maybe that says something about me. It probably does say something about me. But we are moving past that. What always happens with feel good movies is that it takes me around three weeks after watching the film to realize how good it is. Then I rewatch it when I want a feel good movie and I bump it up almost always. This has happened with Cinderella, The Jungle Book, Chef, Sing Street. And it will probably happen with this film. But for now, it will remain where it is. It’s a good film and I’m glad I saw it. Now that we are in the cold and depressing season, check this film out if you want to feel all nice and fuzzy. Because there is a reason why even non-art house assholes still watch this French film from the early 2000s.

Art House Asshole : Trash Humpers

—

Look. I get it. I mean I don’t get it. But I get it. Some people really like Harmony Korine. There are quite a few people in my film class that genuinely love his filmography. To the point where we started watching Julien Donkey-Boy in my film history class. So I understand that some people see something in Korine’s filmography. So when I talk about this film, understand that I’m not saying my opinion is correct. Your opinion isn’t correct either. But don’t be insulted by this.

This film certainly isn’t for everyone. Trash Humpers follows these four people who go around and shout and attempt to have sex with trash and other inanimate objects. This film also follows the Dogme 95 “Vows of Chastity”. I have my own opinions on Dogme 95, that aren’t particularly positive, but it needs to be said before someone watches this film. And I will fully admit that I have not seen all of the “licensed” Dogme 95 films. I’m sure there are a few that I would enjoy. But between this and Julien Donkey-Boy, I can’t help but strongly dislike a majority Korine’s filmography.

I did some investigation into what I was supposed to take away from this film. It took me a while to find one solid answer, but I did find it. The film is about parenthood, according to the source that I found. It has a similarly understated plot line similar to Lynch’s Eraserhead. I will say that I kind of see that. Or at least I can go along with it. The problem is that, like Lynch, Korine refuses to say what the film actually is. Unlike Lynch, Korine refuses to confirm if anything is true. The one article I read said the fatherhood angle, which in all honesty seems like is the actual smart interpretation of the film. But when the journalist asked Korine about it, he said that he wouldn’t ever say. Which whenever I hear that I assume the director actually doesn’t know what his or her film means. Maybe that isn’t the case here, maybe it is. Either way, it’s bullshit.

Dogme 95’s philosophy that if they take realism to the extreme, they will achieve some kind of connection with the audience for a higher form of story and character. If they sacrifice the general necessary ingredients for a film, they will achieve this connection with the audience. Unfortunately for Trash Humpers, they sacrifice all of this for a film with a minimalistic story and undeveloped characters. Where Dogme 95 can be great if you have a fantastic story or wonderful characters. Something that, where I am not a fan of it, Julien Donkey-Boy has something close to this. But in this film, the stripping of the fantastical elements of a film just exposes how weak and lazy the storytelling and character development is. You have four characters that are almost identical and only one of them actually changes in the film, and you could argue that she doesn’t change at all.

The film is very reminiscent of Jackass, which I accidentally watched as well this week. Throughout the film, you see the four trash humpers do these stupid things, and the camera work around these activities is very Jackass-like. The difference here is that the four trash humpers have zero likability nor do they have anything interesting to keep viewers entertained. The Jackasses at least are likable to the point where you can have fun, almost like you are friends with them. And maybe that’s the point of this film in a weird roundabout way. But it doesn’t matter as Korine would never confirm this.

This film is the worst I’ve seen from Korine. I’m not a big fan of his work, but I don’t hate his work. Clearly, he has an audience that enjoys his work, even if they follow him blindly. And I do very much enjoy Spring Breakers. But there is so little to this work that it doesn’t warrant you sitting through it, even at its brisk 77 minutes. I’m going to continue to watch Korine’s work, and every time I will attempt to figure out what I’m missing. But at this point, I’m getting close to wondering if there is anything there worth looking for.

Art House Asshole : Live by Night

—

By the way, I know that I announced that I would be reviewing Dogtooth today. But between getting sick and getting slammed with school, I just couldn’t fit it into my schedule. So I’m reviewing this film this week. Sorry. I’ll review Dogtooth some other time.

—

I did the math and I’ve spent 4,260 hours of my life watching movies. That is half of a year. Total, I have spent two percent of my life watching movies. I am currently twenty years old as of writing this review. But when I left the theater from watching this film, I was shocked that I hadn’t aged three years while watching this film. It is that poorly paced. My god.

Live by Night is a two-hour long film, and Ben Affleck’s fourth directorial film. I will say that I am a pretty big Affleck fan. I have loved to adored his three previous films, as a matter of fact, I rewatched The Town earlier this week and absolutely adored it. After Argo, I thought I would be on board for anything Affleck directed next. And when I found out that he was directing a gangster film (one of my favorite sub-genres) I was immediately excited. Then the trailer came out. And I didn’t know what it was about. All I knew was that Ben Affleck played a gangster of some kind and it took place in the Prohibition era (an era of gangster films I’m kind of against). But I didn’t care that I couldn’t figure out what it was about, it was Ben Affleck and Gangsters! What could go wrong! After seeing the film, I still couldn’t tell you what this film is about. So yeah. That went wrong.

Live by Night, the four and a half-hour-long film follows the Irish son of Police Captain in Boston as he descends into the life of a gangster. There really isn’t much else beyond that. It seems silly to call it this, but Live by Night, the six hours and ten-minute long film, might be best described as a slice of life gangster film. At first, you think that it will be a revenge film, which I was super on board for! Ben Affleck going against the Irish mob for leaving him to die in prison! Yeah! Badass! Let’s do it! But then Ben Affleck goes to jail, gets sad, then moves to Florida. And he doesn’t really give a crap about the guys that tried to kill him. But whatever. Live by Night, the twelve-hour long film feels a lot like the Mafia video game series. You follow this one Mafia/Mob member as he goes from mission to mission and does the daily work of a mob member. But without one big overall story.

The two things that continuously bugged me about Live by Night, the 25-hour long film, were the sound mixing and Ben Affleck’s accent. Both are all over the place or nonexistent. There is a narration throughout the film that I hated because although it was all exposition, I still had trouble following what was happening. And because in the beginning I just couldn’t hear it. Some scenes I could hear the narration, some scenes I had to listen real close to figure out what he was saying. By the end of Live by Night, the 36-hour long film, I stopped paying attention to the narration because I honestly just didn’t care anymore. Ben Affleck, who plays the son of an Irish man, and it appears that his whole family is Irish and that everyone around him is Irish, and all of these people have Irish accents, yet Ben Affleck doesn’t have an Irish accent. Except he does in some scene and/or words. I honestly couldn’t tell if Ben Affleck was Irish or not. But again, I really don’t care.

With this being based on a novel, one that I have no read, I imagine things were cut from the film. And with that, there are part of Live by Night, the 47-hour long film, that I see no purpose for, but I imagine played a much larger role in the novel. For example, Elle Fanning and Chris Cooper’s characters. I know why they were in the film, and they are a plot point. But that’s all they ever felt like. They just served as a way to get from Point A to Point B. They didn’t feel like characters. They didn’t feel like people. They felt like plot points.

You could argue that you might ignore all of these problems in Live by Night, the 68-hour long film. Maybe you just want some mindless action and gangster violence on screen. There is typically one gangster film a year and you need your fix. I get it. But don’t get it here. The thing with action films that you don’t get with this film is the sense of why it is happening. None of the characters are developed enough for you to really care when a shoot out is happening. Theoretically, you should care where there is a shoot out because you want Person A to be killed and Person B to survive. But in Live by Night, the 139-hour long film, not only did I not care who was shooting at who, but I also didn’t know who they were. In the final shootout of the film, some of the choreography was nice, but I only knew the Ben Affleck character. I knew of the other characters, but I couldn’t tell which character was which and there were points where I didn’t know who died when I’m pretty sure I was supposed to.

I’m willing to give Ben Affleck the benefit of the doubt on this one. I’ve read there were significant cuts to the film. To the point where entire characters were cut, such as Ben Affleck’s character’s brother, who was played by Scott Eastwood. So maybe there was some studio meddling. If 2016 will go down as anything, it will be the year we learned that Warner Brothers likes to mess around with a directors vision, so I won’t completely eliminate the possibility.

But Live by Night, the seven-year long film, is still pretty bad. And I have actively told people that they shouldn’t waste their time with it. Go watch The Town. Go watch Gone Baby Gone. Go watch Argo. Those films are some of the best stories and films made in the 2000s. This will not join the ranks, but that doesn’t discredit Ben Affleck’s accomplishments as a director. He’s still good, but he had to release something to keep him in check.

Art House Asshole : Aaaaaaaah!

—

I’m pretty sure I haven’t reviewed an experimental film on here yet. But that record is out the window! Sorry, films with a narrative plot structure and character development! Y’all are going to have to take a back seat to this stupid ass film! Eat your heart out David Fincher! Take a breather Charlie Kaufman! There is a new director in town! And his name is Steve Oram! Now lets mercilessly tear this film apart.

There have been a lot of films in the past couple years that take an interesting concept and run with it. Most of the time, they run too far. A couple examples of this are The Love Witch, Shangri-la Suite, and Victoria. Every time I read the description of the film or watch the trailer for the film and think “Wow! That sounds interesting!” And then I see the film and realize that those films are exactly that. They are great concepts. That doesn’t mean they succeed at pulling these concepts into completion.

Aaaaaaaah! is about the fact that we are all animals deep down. Asking the question of are we truly more evolved than the rest of the animal species. The answer is yes. Obviously. Evidence that we are the only species that have created a movie about if we are truly more evolved than other species.

The film is just under 80 minutes, which is the perfect time length for something like this. It is still feature length while also not being too long. Whereas something like The Love Witch over stays its welcome at almost two hours long, this doesn’t get too long, except in at minute seven. That doesn’t make sense. Well here is the thing, this film is a slice of life for a world where we never evolved to talk. We only talk in grunts. There is no dialogue in the film, just a bunch of people talking like animals and going about their daily lives.

In the first five minutes of the film I was thinking “Oh, I get it”. Then at the sixth minute, I was like “Yeah. I get it, let’s move on”. Then I completely lost my mind. I don’t know if it was the film or if it was the fact that I watched this film at three in the morning. But once I got used to what this movie was doing, I immediately couldn’t stop laughing. In a good way. Not in a bad White Girl way. This film is a comedy and my god is it hilarious. I lost my mind along with the film and it was one of the biggest laughs I’ve had with a film in a while. Should I have laughed that hard? Probably not. Any sane person would have turned the film off.

But I didn’t.

I’m insanely not smart. Which is why I sat through the entire thing and had an amazing time. Will you have a good time? No. You probably won’t. Unless you are extremely tired, on drugs, or are just into weird things.

I don’t have much else to say about this film. It clearly didn’t have a lot of funding for it. It shouldn’t have much more than it got. And you can see that. I have explained what this film is exactly. Normally this is something that would normally be called “pretentious”, but in execution, this is far too stupid to be called pretentious.

Weekly Episodes

Classic Episodes

Filmsplosion

Live Shows

Commentaries

The Shamley Silhouette

Reel Gamers

Denver FanExpo

Denver Comic-Con

More

Other

Articles

Reviews

Author: Henry