Change Your Image
BumSteer
Reviews
The Magnificent Ambersons (2002)
Nothing could suck this bad without the intent of sucking this bad
A classic novel by Tarkington. A classic (albeit incomplete) film by Welles. If these happened to fall in the lap of your average tax accountant, said accountant could easily direct a better version of "Ambersons" than the mega turd I just witnessed.
Anyone who's seen this atrocity knows how bad it is. We know it was filmed in video on a cheap back lot somewhere. We know it looks less realistic than the average Lifetime issue-of-the-week movie. We know that the little letter-writing interludes where the actors face the camera don't so much resemble cinematic art as they do an Allstate commercial.
And most obviously, we know that the acting is universally putrescent. The performances aren't just stagy. They're middle-school-production-of-Death-of-a-Salesman stagy. That's some pretty bad stagy, if you ask me. I pity all of the actors involved, but especially young Mr. Rhys-Myers. I know he can and has turned in a decent performance. However, I say in all solemnity that his portrayal of George made me want to find a time machine, travel back to the 2003 Oscars, join the voting committee, and convince my colleagues to bequeath the Best Actor statuette to Hayden Christensen for Star Wars: Episode II. As bad as that performance was, it far exceeds Rhys-Myers' George in every dimension. I never thought I'd live to see acting this bad.
And I've seen some stinkers, dammit.
All of this, we know. But the question still burning in my mind is, HOW THE HELL DID THIS HAPPEN? My only explanation is one I cribbed from Ebert, of all people, in his review of some other celluloid disaster. According to the Fat One (and I for once agree with him): Bad filmmakers can only go so low. When a bad director makes "I Spit on Your Grave Pt. IV", you know it's gonna be bad, and it's a kind of bad that you've seen a zillion times. But when a well-respected auteur makes a bad film, it somehow manages to plunge into depths of badness never before reached or even thought of. Thus, when you team a good director like Arau ("Like Water for Chocolate") with a dependably professional cast featuring Stowe, Rhys-Myers, Mol, and Cromwell for heaven's sake, it oughta be good. But they managed to create a new level of bad. So I guess the best thing you can say about this "Ambersons" is that it's unique. I certainly didn't see it coming.
Fight Club (1999)
Can be read many ways.
It's Summer 2002 and I just saw this film a few days ago.
I understand that quite a few heated exchanges have taken place over this film, so I'll take advantage of the fact that the initial strong breezes have finally blown over.
I'll tell you what I like most about "Fight Club": it can be read in more than one way. That makes "Fight Club" rare, but not as unique as some of its more devout followers may claim. But for a couple hours, I enjoyed being able to draw my own conclusions, comparing what I saw on the screen to my own existing opinions. I can't say that my opinions have changed much since, but the fact that I was forced to examine them felt good. And I didn't feel insulted at all by the filmmakers' take on the novel. A less-talented director, such as David Lynch, might turn this project into a hateful, monotone soapbox movie that hammers you over the head with its cliched anti-establishment message (I know many of you may be Lynch fans. People, listen: David Lynch is not a genius. He is a subpar director. He is the liberal version of Michael Bay -- an ego-driven jerk. Don't encourage either of them). David Fincher and Company know better, and they treat the viewer as a human being. After all is said and done, this film really is about Humanity and the worth of a Person. Don't trust me? Watch Tyler Durden's dehumanizing rhetoric get slowly dissected and exposed for what it is. Follow the evolution of Marla, from unwanted whore to desired love interest. Despite all the postmodern MTV-style direction, there's a credible warmth to this movie that Lynch (or Bay) could never muster.
If we can step back from all the dust kicked up by "Fight Club", we eventually notice, "Hey!!! This is a MODERATE film!!!" I know that many people don't WANT this to be a moderate film. They want something to justify their anger and hatred. "Fight Club" is about what happens when hatred and hostility overcome people at the extremes. It's a Warning Against Extremism.
We know from the beginning that "Jack's" life as a worker bee in a hostile Capitalist world is not something to be admired. Extreme Capitalism is what happens when Love of Money replaces Love of Humanity. The result is Enron and WorldCom: Evil men conspiring to rob decent people. It's understandable that Jack hates his boss -- the guy's a hateful, condescending jerk. We all know people like that, but some of the more ignorant viewers of "Fight Club" will use such examples as evidence that "Capitalism has failed!" while on their way to Capitalist Best Buy to purchase the Capitalist Special Edition DVD of this movie distributed by Capitalist (and Conservative) 20th Century Fox with their Capitalist money so they can watch it on their Capitalist home theatre system that their Capitalist Daddy bought for them. Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites. There's a special place in hell for you. For such people, "Fight Club" will never be more than an escapist fantasy, where they can feel like rebels while being the exact opposite. Do I think Capitalism is a 100% success? No. But is Capitalism the Great Satan? Not hardly. Capitalism is just one way of doing things, and it has worked better than its critics want to admit.
The other Extreme is Communism, which is what Durden's aim turns out to be. I don't think Communism is all bad either, at least in principle (everyone of equal worth, etc.), but anyone who says Communism is a perfect antidote to our few problems is obviously someone who has smoked a lotta weed and not paid attention in history class. I hope and pray that there are not too many impressionable young twits out there giving serious thought to Tyler-Durdenism. If I take issue with anything in "Fight Club", it's that it goes too far in glorifying Durden's hateful rhetoric, and spends too little time countering it with the real message. Durden is no better than Jack's Boss. Both of them are misogynistic jerks who reduce their followers to non-humans. They step on the shoulders of their "lessers" -- in the Boss's case, to maintain a higher-level position. But Tyler's case is ten times as hypocritical and destructive: He wants to become a "rebel" superstar while he brainwashes his minions into skinhead nothings who exist to do his "dirty work". His manifesto does not give men their manhood, it takes it AWAY and makes them less than they were. "We are God's unwanted children," he says, not sincerely including himself. "Durdenism" robs men of their agency.
"Fight Club" is a cautionary tale about what happens when men hate each other. It's about the hostility that extremists breed. The worst disasters happen when extremists refuse to compromise or allow others' opinions to exist. You have to understand, "Fight Club" could never get made in an extremist environment. Right-wing Nazis would gas you for it, and Left-wing Stalinists would make you "disappear". You could read "Fight Club" as an extremist piece of filmmaking, but I believe its ultimate message is that we need to respect one another's agency and humanity, and not try to belittle each other, either through punch-cards at the office or punches thrown in the ring.