I've always thought Donnie Darko was overrated, but the good bits outweighed the bad. What the film did show, however, was that writer/director Richard Kelley was bursting with ideas and perhaps needed a little more time to develop and think about them. There were too many ideas in Donnie Darko, with the result that there were some interesting avenues that weren't properly and completely developed because they were competing for screen time with too many little things that Kelley wanted to throw in there. However, the film succeeded - mostly because at its heart was an interesting and different take on your standard "teen angst" drama.
Sadly this film suggests that Donnie Darko was a bit of serendipity and Kelley is likely never to be given as much creative control over a major film project for a long, long time.
Southland Tales is Kelley unbound - and like Tarantino unbound it is probably something you either love or you hate. For me, this film missed every target because it was bloated and poorly executed.
It's very hard to give much of an idea of story. The film opens with an excruciatingly long voice-over exposition where we are introduced to many characters in quick succession, and given a back story for them all. Maybe it would make a lot more sense if you've read the introductory graphic novels but for me, the fact that the film doesn't stand on its own is a big negative. Here's just a taste: It's LA 2008. After terrorist nuclear attacks in Texas in 2005, America is in a heightened state of panic. Boxer Santaro (The Rock), a popular action actor, mysteriously goes missing, then turns up in Los Angeles with amnesia, where he hooks up with ambitious porn star Krysta Now (Sarah Michelle Gellar). Krysta's plans for global marketing domination involve a reality show, a chat show, an album, a soft drink, and a far-out screenplay she has written with Boxer about a massive sci-fi conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, a bunch of neo-Marxists enlist an unaware Boxer, along with policeman Roland Taverner (Sean William Scott) in an elaborate plot to destabilise the government. Add a massive offshore power station that runs on wave energy, a new fuel/drug called Liquid Karma, an arms dealer in an ice cream van (Christopher Lambert), a drug-dealing ex-serviceman who sits atop Santa Monica pier in a gun turret providing a deadpan Greek Chorus narration (Justin Timberlake), and a David Lynch-type support cast of dwarfs, outrageously costumed extras and assorted freaks, and you have about half of the setup of this film.
As the above indicates, the film is packed with concepts and over-the-top characters and has many potential elements that would be the makings of a good satire. In the hands of someone skillful, it might come off - if they perhaps threw out 2/3 of the characters and ideas. (I'm thinking you would end up with something like the delightful Repo Man.) But clearly Kelley doesn't have the skill and we are left with a massive story that, for all its detail, is surprisingly slowmoving and unengaging.
The story is not completely incoherent but doesn't really go anywhere and the potential for some serious social satire about American paranoia post-9/11 is lost as Kelley piles on the in-jokes and cultural references. This film is chock full of them, but there are just way too many which come and go too quickly to make any impact. And they only serve to distract from any central themes and dull their point.
As for the acting - I really don't know what to say. A glimpse at the cast mentioned above shows that Kelley has gone for gimmick casting on a massive scale and the film is full of cultural icons who play characters who are massive stereotypes. For the most part, they play them extremely badly and many of the more dramatic scenes are over-the-top melodrama cranked to the max hammed up by the characters. I think this was intentional - but for me it doesn't work as satire because satire needs more than just pointing out the weaknesses of something that is weak. Lameness magnified is not ultra-clever, it's ultra-lame. And Kelley doesn't have anything particularly clever to say about the stereotypes he is attempting to send up. There are too many characters, and none of them has any depth or generates much interest.
Perhaps the greatest problem is that Kelley shows no ability to use the fundamental tools of cinema to take us on a journey. That's a shame because Donnie Darko suggested that, with maturity and guidance, Kelley might turn into a very smart director. But here Kelley uses certain tricks, effects and techniques just "because he can". He can't build suspense, he can't build excitement, he can't make us feel anything for his characters. Potentially beautiful steadicam work is wasted because Kelley has no underlying point to it. No doubt his defenders will say that because he's satirising crap movies he wanted to make this film in a way that was all style and no substance, and that's what's so clever about it - but I say, why put so much time effort and talent into sculpting something that appears totally crap when there are enough untalented people who can give you the same result much cheaper and quicker.
At the end all I could think was "What a pity". There were many good concepts and ideas here but by cramming them all together and not giving any of them enough breathing space, none really come out on top.
Some of the film's defenders make comments along the lines of "If you don't like it, it's because you don't understand it properly and your puny mind can't comprehend how brilliant it is." My take - I think I understand what the film is trying to do. I just think it did it really, really poorly.
Sadly this film suggests that Donnie Darko was a bit of serendipity and Kelley is likely never to be given as much creative control over a major film project for a long, long time.
Southland Tales is Kelley unbound - and like Tarantino unbound it is probably something you either love or you hate. For me, this film missed every target because it was bloated and poorly executed.
It's very hard to give much of an idea of story. The film opens with an excruciatingly long voice-over exposition where we are introduced to many characters in quick succession, and given a back story for them all. Maybe it would make a lot more sense if you've read the introductory graphic novels but for me, the fact that the film doesn't stand on its own is a big negative. Here's just a taste: It's LA 2008. After terrorist nuclear attacks in Texas in 2005, America is in a heightened state of panic. Boxer Santaro (The Rock), a popular action actor, mysteriously goes missing, then turns up in Los Angeles with amnesia, where he hooks up with ambitious porn star Krysta Now (Sarah Michelle Gellar). Krysta's plans for global marketing domination involve a reality show, a chat show, an album, a soft drink, and a far-out screenplay she has written with Boxer about a massive sci-fi conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, a bunch of neo-Marxists enlist an unaware Boxer, along with policeman Roland Taverner (Sean William Scott) in an elaborate plot to destabilise the government. Add a massive offshore power station that runs on wave energy, a new fuel/drug called Liquid Karma, an arms dealer in an ice cream van (Christopher Lambert), a drug-dealing ex-serviceman who sits atop Santa Monica pier in a gun turret providing a deadpan Greek Chorus narration (Justin Timberlake), and a David Lynch-type support cast of dwarfs, outrageously costumed extras and assorted freaks, and you have about half of the setup of this film.
As the above indicates, the film is packed with concepts and over-the-top characters and has many potential elements that would be the makings of a good satire. In the hands of someone skillful, it might come off - if they perhaps threw out 2/3 of the characters and ideas. (I'm thinking you would end up with something like the delightful Repo Man.) But clearly Kelley doesn't have the skill and we are left with a massive story that, for all its detail, is surprisingly slowmoving and unengaging.
The story is not completely incoherent but doesn't really go anywhere and the potential for some serious social satire about American paranoia post-9/11 is lost as Kelley piles on the in-jokes and cultural references. This film is chock full of them, but there are just way too many which come and go too quickly to make any impact. And they only serve to distract from any central themes and dull their point.
As for the acting - I really don't know what to say. A glimpse at the cast mentioned above shows that Kelley has gone for gimmick casting on a massive scale and the film is full of cultural icons who play characters who are massive stereotypes. For the most part, they play them extremely badly and many of the more dramatic scenes are over-the-top melodrama cranked to the max hammed up by the characters. I think this was intentional - but for me it doesn't work as satire because satire needs more than just pointing out the weaknesses of something that is weak. Lameness magnified is not ultra-clever, it's ultra-lame. And Kelley doesn't have anything particularly clever to say about the stereotypes he is attempting to send up. There are too many characters, and none of them has any depth or generates much interest.
Perhaps the greatest problem is that Kelley shows no ability to use the fundamental tools of cinema to take us on a journey. That's a shame because Donnie Darko suggested that, with maturity and guidance, Kelley might turn into a very smart director. But here Kelley uses certain tricks, effects and techniques just "because he can". He can't build suspense, he can't build excitement, he can't make us feel anything for his characters. Potentially beautiful steadicam work is wasted because Kelley has no underlying point to it. No doubt his defenders will say that because he's satirising crap movies he wanted to make this film in a way that was all style and no substance, and that's what's so clever about it - but I say, why put so much time effort and talent into sculpting something that appears totally crap when there are enough untalented people who can give you the same result much cheaper and quicker.
At the end all I could think was "What a pity". There were many good concepts and ideas here but by cramming them all together and not giving any of them enough breathing space, none really come out on top.
Some of the film's defenders make comments along the lines of "If you don't like it, it's because you don't understand it properly and your puny mind can't comprehend how brilliant it is." My take - I think I understand what the film is trying to do. I just think it did it really, really poorly.
Tell Your Friends