Fuck Spider-Man 3.  It's the worst movie ever and I will never forgive anyone involved.  

Inquiry Closed

MODIGLIANI

I watched V/H/S and thought it was pretty good. Then I notice this little project called The ABCs of Death—this time, instead of five films, Magnet is packing 26 horror films into a monstrous compilation. I also see that V/H/S2 is on the horizon. 

*Sigh*

I've already grown tired of the pack-as-much-of-the-latest-horror-talent-into-one-film gimmick, and I've only watched two of these films. So instead of dissecting each film individually, I've decided to put as much effort into my analysis as Magnet puts into these gimmicks...by creating a gimmick of my own. 

Limerick style.


The Players:
The 27(!) directors: Kaare Andrews, Angela Bettis, Adrián García Bogliano, Bruno Forzani, Hélène Cattet, Ernesto Díaz Espinoza, Jason Eisener, Xavier Gens, Jorge Michel Grau, Lee Hardcastle, Noboru Iguchi, Thomas Cappelen Malling, Anders Morgenthaler, Yoshihiro Nishimura, Banjong Pisanthanakun, Simon Rumley, Marcel Sarmiento, Jon Schnepp, Srdjan Spasojevic, Timo Tjahjanto, Andrew Traucki, Nacho Vigalondo, Jake West, Ti West, Ben Wheatley, Adam Wingard, Yudai Yamaguchi
People who are tortured/overdose on heroin/eaten by toilets/die by farts: Christ, just check out IMDB


What It's Good For:
-a fun movie night movie
-a somewhat neat package for today's best horror talent
-26 different ways to die
-giving hope to some that horror hasn't died yet


Potential Pitfalls:
-the gimmick overshadows what makes horror so great
-unfocused themes, unlike V/H/S
-a somewhat neat package for today's most mediocre horror talent
-maybe you don't want to watch 26 exciting ways people can die
-you don't like animated toilets killing people
-animal cruelty

My Assessment/Limerick:
All because of horror's decrepit state
And because it receives such irrational hate
Here we go again
A horror compilation
Dissecting a genre Magnet wishes to collate

Because horror is synonymous with gimmickry
And most directors' vision involves mimicry
They pull the gimmick lever
Forcing ideas that aren't clever
Recycling tired tropes like a dizzying Grand Prix

Cue the mobs, the pitchforks, the masses
The cries, the moans, unleash the tear gases
We all call it lame
They expect acclaim
A back-and-forth as interesting as dripping molasses

Drudging through each letter of the alphabet
Because a genre director's palate must be kept whet
It's easy to dismiss
Jerking off such as this
As interesting as the history of tagamet

Even though the hate in this case is justified
And some films make me wish long ago the genre died
These gatherings of death
Own a more humane breadth
Than we allow ourselves to believe is supplied

For while V/H/S sort of performed the same trick
Disguising its intentions with an eye-rolling schtick
Each film warrants more thought
Than the vitriol they've got
From "reviews" that own the charisma of a limp dick

Glenn McQuaid's portion was a glorious example
Of the theme V/H/S attempted to sample
Found footage is dismissed
"As useful as a cyst"
Despite the hip genre's insightful thoughts being ample

Hence Tuesday the 17th was part of an anthology
That captured our shared addiction to technology
Post-traumatic stress
Allows the film to express
The heart of the found footage genre's psychology

If the camera is a vessel through which we depict
The psychological pain we often self-inflict
Found footage's potential
Soon becomes essential
In displaying the unsophisticated life of a YouTube addict

Just because a film's subjects and themes are superficial
Doesn't suddenly make its intentions artificial
So what do we make
Of Magnet's latest take
On a genre that rarely lives up to its full potential?

Knowing very well that its elements are clichéd
Embracing those tropes allows innate fear to be displayed
Terror always hides
And familiarly resides
Whether through phones, toilets, or gluttony—true horror is homemade

Let's say there's indeed a familiar connection
Much like V/H/S's technological confection
Fear's roots must be persistant
In remaining consistent
In order to create an even, well-rounded complexion

Miscarriage's intentions aren't exactly grandeur
But once again Ti West finds fear in the obscure
A woman on the verge
An itching need to purge
The unidentifiable creature within

Noboru Iguchi displays horror's comedic heart
Even if it means coming in the form of a Fart
Trivial traits we grasp
Never releasing the clasp
On empty infatuation doomed from the start

Or Libido's apt attention to what's truly gory
Which stems from what is truly masturbatory
Our thirst for bloody death
Like addiction to meth
We mutely desire these people to become quarry

Perhaps from these three glimpses into the genre's state
Criticizing horror may be the best way to collate
For 27 directors
There are few vectors
That can connect this idea and lend the commentary some weight

Quack's attempt to be meta is admirable
But at best the execution is fallible
Less fun than WTF
Despite owning a duck
Jon Schneep diffuses horror with an ending that's affable

Remember when Robert Rodriguez made hellish highways fun?
And how Speed milked his clichés until the clever wheels spun?
Black leather is hot
Poignant this is not
Pronouncing drug addiction with a cut that's only meant to stun

Simon Rumley's Pressure puts both of these films to shame
Where affecting horror isn't lost in an effort to maim
We are not smitten
By the squish of a kitten
It will assuredly be met with vitriol meant to defame

Taken out of context this act may seem disgraceful
But to the horror genre this segment is most faithful
The kitten a symbol
Serving as tragic kindel
The lengths a mother goes for her children are often painful

Unearthed was a clever use of first-person view
But it also displays what V/H/S was able to do
An inherit bind
All of which confined
To a single form that allowed it themes to break through

Viewing Pressure and Unearthed together—what can we say?
Where do they connect? What themes do their separate forms relay?
Both Toilet and Klutz
Show animated guts
But toilet terror can't simply be connected as child's play

Where does that leave Fart and Libido's collective intention?
To criticize and call horror's gimmickry into question?
Like Ingrown's fake empathy?
Or Bigfoot's misogyny?
These genre comments become ironic in their deception

XXL's vision is both arresting and beautiful
But the heart is lost in such gimmickry and mutable
Drowned out by crap
That goes *fap fap fap*
26 shorts attract attention—business as usual

*Yawwwwwn* I go as Magnet announces V/H/S2
All the while searching for old ideas to burn through
Perhaps Death to Shakespeare?
Or Paris doit mourir?
Do you think these guys will ever attempt something new?

Zippity-do-da! Just look at this time-wasting thread!
Do you realize what I did? Do know what you just read?
A giant limerick
For a giant gimmick
And not once did I need to transition with the color red

Did I Like It:
Nah. I thought V/H/S was severely misinterpreted by the many who saw it. Sure, it went horribly awry with most of its feminist intentions, but I thought Ti West did a fantastic job (as usual). I've found that many disagree with me on that, so if you really want to start that debate (I've had it about a half dozen times now), hit me up in the comments section.

Anyway, V/H/S handled the found footage concept really well, to the point where the camera itself became an existential form of expressing fear (seriously: especially in Ti West's segment). The ABCs of Death doesn't have much of a focus, other than the everyday surroundings bringing about our inner-most fears. But even that's a stretch in attempting to reward Magnet's latest gimmick—after all, you could say that about most (or all) horror movies. 

I've also found that people really really really hated the Pressure segment. I understand animal cruelty is a big NO-NO for many moviegoers, and I don't feel the need to argue about it whether or not it's OK to even hint at animal abuse. Just like any human death, an animal death can be earned, and I thought it was incredibly poignant in the Pressure segment. So if you want to actually debate on whether or not it was necessary (please don't preach at me--nobody condones animal torture), find me down below.

I don't think these movies need to keep being made. I understand why they exist—many consider horror to be a dead genre (for good reasons), thus horror filmmakers and fans alike feel a sense of camaraderie with these projects. Sort of like, "Yeah, we're still here, and we're still making shit you won't like." Which is awesome, because there's some great talent on display here. And if these movies help somebody land a big movie deal, that's pretty awesome. But if we really want horror movies to improve as opposed to merely being noticed, I think gimmicks aren't exactly the best path to choose.

INQUIRY CLOSED

MORTIMER GRANVILLE

When Marvel announced "The director of Lethal Weapon" would be directing Iron Man 3, the general opinion was:  great!  Especially with Shane Black's Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang being such a cult hit.  This was a guy who understood action, dialogue and Robert Downey Jr.  

Comments on the Deadline story where Black got the official "He's directing!":

I don't know if Shane Black was intimidated by the pressure, or what?  But.  Rather than utilizing the characters and potentialities of the Iron Man universe to create an original plot, it seems Black reverted to the plot that made him famous.  


People:
Director:  Shane Black
Writers:  Shane Black; Drew Pearce
They didn't bother changing his facial hair from the flashback to the present:  Robert Downey Jr
Ad libbed every scene?:  Gwyneth Paltrow
Rox:  Don Cheadle
Great work!:  Guy Pearce
Looked a shit ton like Black Widow:  Rebecca Hall
WAY TOO SELF-AWARE AND CHEESY:  Jon Favreau
Stole the movie, as far as I'm concerned:  Ben Kingsley
He was cool:  James Badge Dale
Terrifying:  Stephanie Szostak
Go Jarvis:  Paul Bettany
Endearing and simultaneously annoying?:  Ty Simpkins


What It's Good For:
-if you want more Robert Downey Jr. and less Iron Man
-avoiding Tony Stark being in his Iron Man costume
-feminists
-Guy Pearce fans
-people who hoped this wouldn't suck as much as Iron Man 2
-Lethal Weapon fans
-Ben Kingsley
-witty ad-libbing
-seeing a bunch of Iron Man suits
-the whole "demon" theme is interesting


Potential Pitfalls:
-there's 100 times more Downey Jr. than there is Iron Man
-totally subverts Iron Man's greatest villain and renders him as nothing, thus killing any future stories in this continuity
-plot involves a "smarter-than-your-average-kid" kid...
-wraps up things at the end way too easily and nicely
-terrorist plot could hit too close to home for some people
-way too much like Lethal Weapon


My Assessment:
How are the Lethal Weapon movies defined?  What's the one consistent element through the four films?

Mel Gibson and Danny Glover.

To that end, on the most generic level imaginable, the second and third acts of Iron Man 3 resemble Lethal Weapon.  Why?  Because we have Robert Downey Jr. and Don Cheadle sneaking around and running around and shooting guns and being contentious and bantering.  

"Is that all the comparisons you've got?  I thought you were better than this."  

Oh, you know I am.

Let me state this now:  BOTH MOVIES TAKE PLACE LEADING UP TO CHRISTMAS AND CONCLUDE ON CHRISTMAS.

So now we have: a similar pairing of characters + both films take place at Christmas.

In LW, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson, is battling a psychological breakdown as the result of his wife's death.  Tony Stark is suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder after the events of The Avengers.  Both characters are witty, sarcastic, challenging, awesome at what they do, totally unconventional in how they operate, and both are on the brink of total psychological collapse.  

Similar pairing + both films take place at Christmas + Riggs and Stark are pretty much the same character.

If Riggs and Stark are similar, what about Murtaugh and James Rhodes?  Come on.  Both are more traditional, by-the-book dudes.  Both are always on the receiving end of jokes made by their "loud" partners.  

(Notice both Stark and Riggs say they "don't sleep").  Murtaugh and Rhodes both have pride and are good at what they do, are respected within their law enforcement positions.  Yet both remain a step behind Stark and Riggs.  With that said, Stark and Riggs need the support provided by Rhodes and Murtaugh to be successful.  Which makes the relationships in each film reciprocal:  Riggs elevates Murtaugh and Murtaugh is crucial for Riggs' survival; Stark elevates Rhodes (literally by providing him with the War Machine suit) and Rhodes is crucial for Stark's survival.  

Similar pairing + both films take place at Christmas + Riggs and Stark are pretty much the same character + Rhodes and Murtaugh have similar defining features and play similar crucial support roles.

Both main bad guys have mercenary/ex-military henchmen, with the second-in-command being the willing attack dog that doesn't flinch at doing whatever is asked.  We see this with Gary Busey keeping his arm in the flame, without complaint, without flinching.  In IM3, henchman Eric Savin terrorist bombs public venues and kills special agents and kidnaps the President, and even threatens a child.  All without flinching.  Both Busey's Mr. Joshua and Eric Savin are major antagonists in their films.  

Similar pairing + both films take place at Christmas + Riggs and Stark are pretty much the same character + Rhodes and Murtaugh have similar defining features and play similar crucial support role + mercenary henchmen + second-in-command henchmen are major antagonists.

Iron Man 3 stews in terrorism.  We have the bombing at the Chinese theater, we have the bomb in Tennessee, we have the hit on Tony Stark, we have The Mandarin shooting someone live on TV, we have the breaching of Air Force One and the kidnapping of the President of the United States.

Check out the following scene:

Lethal Weapon also involves a public act of violence, one that we, as the general populace, are terrified of:  a school shooting.  A sniper shooting kids and cops.  This isn't "terrorism", per se, but both Black movies involve these kinds of grandiose acts of public violence.  

Similar pairing + both films take place at Christmas + Riggs and Stark are pretty much the same character + Rhodes and Murtaugh have similar defining features and play similar crucial support role + mercenary henchmen + second-in-command henchmen are major antagonists + grandiose acts of violence against the public

I think the most alarming change in Shane Black helming Iron Man:  the amount of murder.  Now Iron Man had bad guys being killed, but think of the scenarios:  terrorists who have imprisoned Tony Stark and tortured him, terrorists who are actively murdering villagers, and, last, Obadiah fucking Stane.   Iron Man 2 had even less killing.  Just a bunch of robots.  Let me preface this next bit by saying:  I'm down with killing bad guys in movies.  Especially 80s and 90s action movies.  One of the coolest things to me about X-Men 2 was...do you know when?  When the mercenaries have invaded the mansion and one encounters Wolverine.  They fight.  And because there was zero killing in the first X-Men movie, I expected Wolverine to knock the guy out somehow and move on.  Nope.  Wolverine impales the dude.  

It was a severe tone change for the X-Men movies.  Especially for that character.  It somehow made everything...more real?  At least for me.  I thought the first X-Men movie cheesy as shit and stupid.  Wolverine impaling the guy wasn't manufactured drama.  It wasn't CGI.  It wasn't over the top.  It was old-fashioned violence.  And it resonates.  For some reason.  Maybe because we see the terrified Bobby Drake hiding behind the counter, witnessing this?  Maybe it's the yell before Wolverine does it?  The yell transforms the decision from a "matter of fact" thing to an act of passion.  The killing is fueled.  In Iron Man 3 the killing is...understated. 

Who is Tony Stark killing in Iron Man 3?  Random henchmen at a mansion.  These aren't terrorists who have kidnapped and tortured him.  These aren't terrorists in the middle of attacking a village full of innocents.  These aren't the masterminds who have engineered countless deaths.  These are just...glorified security guards.  We haven't seen them do anything bad.  We can assume they're bad since they're employed by The Mandarin?  But what about the first two guards Tony kills?  Did they do anything wrong?  Maybe they did?  Maybe they didn't?  What struck me is how mercilessly Tony dispatches them.  With homemade bombs no less.  The one was already unconscious!  Tony blows up his face.  In the middle of the henchmen massacre, one guy throws up his hands and says, "Honestly, I hate working here.  They are so weird."  Tony lets this guy run away.  Here's the relevant question, then:  who is to say the first two guys Tony murdered weren't of the same disposition?  Sure, a lot of the bad guys were shooting at Tony and Tony had to do what Tony had to do...but were all the bad guys evil?  This article from Den of Geek gets at why I'm interested in Tony's lack of remorse.  All the Spider-Man movies make a big deal about death.  All of Nolan's Batman movies make a big deal about death.  Even Murtaugh makes a big deal about killing.

"You ever meet someone you haven't killed?"

Even Shane Black in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang had Downey Jr's character react to killing.  Not so, here.  Here, Tony Stark has reached a level where he lacks remorse.  "All the Extremis subjects are former US soldiers who were wounded on duty?  Should we have Tony Stark try to talk with them, try to offer to help them?  Nah.  Let's just have Jarvis-operated Iron Man suits murder them."  In Shane Black's Iron Man movie, Tony Stark is a sociopath.  It's no longer a question, no longer a "what-if".  This poster, created as a joke, is applicable:

And this fan-fiction shows how the groundwork for Tony Stark as a sociopath was already in place:  click here for fan-faction.  It's short.  

Now we can debate whether or not Riggs is a sociopath.  He's definitely unhinged, but is he a sociopath?  I don't know.  But what I do know is that Black has made Tony Stark a way more remorseless killer than in either of the previous movies.  

Similar pairing + both films take place at Christmas + Riggs and Stark are pretty much the same character + Rhodes and Murtaugh have similar defining features and play similar crucial support role + mercenary henchmen + second-in-command henchmen are major antagonists + grandiose acts of violence against the public + main character showing little remorse for killing.

Remember when Rhodes is chained with his hands over his head and tortured so he leaves his suit?  Isn't it sort of familiar to this scene (see below)?  Remember how Tony is simultaneously held prisoner (while Rhodes is being tortured)?  All the while Pepper Potts has been taken prisoner by Rebecca Hall/Guy Pearce?   What do we have in Lethal Weapon? 

Oh, so both Riggs and Murtaugh are taken prisoner?  Then Riggs escapes, kills a bunch of people, and saves Murtaugh?  And a female who is close to one of the main characters was taken prisoner in order to manipulate one of the main characters?  COOL.  Maybe Stark doesn't save Cheadle, but he does take out a majority of the guards, which opens up an opportunity for Cheadle.  Then they do escape together.  

Similar pairing + both films take place at Christmas + Riggs and Stark are pretty much the same character + Rhodes and Murtaugh have similar defining features and play similar crucial support role + mercenary henchmen + second-in-command henchmen are major antagonists + grandiose acts of violence against the public + main character showing little remorse for killing + both male protagonists captured by antagonists and tortured before they're able to escape + loved one taking prisoner by bad guy and used to attempt to manipulate protagonist

Last and least important of all.  Both final fights take place by ugly makeshift Christmas trees.  In IM3, it's the Christmas tree the President is strung up above.  In LW it's the pole-and-light combo in the front yard.  

Has Shane Black done good work in the past?  Yeah.  It's exactly what got him the Iron Man job in the first place.  But did he do good work on Iron Man 3?  Eh.....  Depends.  If you look at the movie by itself:  I think he did a decent job.  If you look at the movie in comparison to Lethal Weapon:  I think Black played it safe and made a movie that felt familiar rather than trying something unique and daring.  If you compare it to Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang:  I think he did a decent job, but it wasn't as good as KKBB.  If you compare it to Iron Man 2:  this is a step forward.  If you compare it to Iron Man:  this is a another step back.

"Why?"

Stagnation.  

Power in narrative comes from two places.

1.  Creating Status Quo.

2.  Breaking Status Quo.  

This is the major difference between first films and sequels.  The first film ALWAYS establishes status quo.  Most second films do nothing to change status quo.  Or the changes made are superficial.  Look at Jurassic Park to Lost World to Jurassic Park III.  It's always "Good guys trying to survive" and "bad guys trying to take dinosaurs".  In the first movie, it's Nedry stealing the DNA.  In LW it's the corporation trying to take live dinosaurs to a zoo in San Diego.  In JP3, it's the assistant trying to steal raptor eggs.  STOP DOING THE SAME THING.  The status quo mutates in these movies but never evolves or transforms.  

I'm not saying every first film is good.  Obviously there are bad movies.  And even when movies change the status quo they can still suck. Spider-Man 3 attempted a status quo change with the black costume, which was a great idea brutally murdered by details and tensions Sam Raimi thought people would enjoy.  Not to mention Tobey Maguire looking like this:

And these:

Anyway, fuck Spider-Man 3.

Iron Man established Iron Man.  It gave us a Marvel Universe.  SHIELD.  There was all kinds of potential.  Where has the status quo gone from here?

Iron Man 2 cements Pepper and Tony as a couple.  War Machine arrives.  Tony Stark perfects the arc reactor.  Automated Bad Iron Man suits.  Some backstory about Stark's dad.  The bad guy introduced is killed.  

Iron Man 3 does what?  Pepper and Tony are suffering as a couple.  Some backstory about Stark.  War Machine is painted and renamed:  Iron "let's not use one of the most popular characters in the Marvel Universe" Patriot.  Automated Good Iron Man suits.  Bluetooth Iron Man suit control.  Super soldiers.  The bad guy introduced is killed.  (A great mini-quo shift is with The Mandarin.  We go from thinking he's The Evil Dude to him being a stupid actor.  Great shift.  Except we already knew Guy Pearce was the bad guy, so the potential in the revelation is lessened.  Instead of creating mystery surrounding who the bad guy is (like in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang) we're left to wonder "What will Guy Pearce do now?".)    

Let me tell you why Status Quo is the key to narrative power.  Potential.  When we don't know anything, there's potential for everything.  It's like exploring a new town or city.  That's why creating status quo is interesting.  

Destroying status quo is interesting because it then allows you to create NEW status quo.  What will happen now?  For example.  My home town had six pizza places.  Then a new plaza went up near the grocery store.  There were 6 empty buildings.  WHAT WOULD GO IN THERE?!  Shopping places?  Fancy restaurants?  A fast food place we didn't have?  Guess what went in there.  A beauty parlor, a flower shop, an accountant, a tanning salon, nothing (yeah, nothing), and A FUCKING PIZZA PLACE. It lasted two years and went out of business.  What would replace it?  Turns out:  a good restaurant.  

Iron Man 2  at least gave us Pepper and Tony as a couple.  We felt something momentous had happened.  War Machine?  Totally squandered; barely does anything; there's new status quo that's underdeveloped...then underused in the next movie, too.  Sure it's an Iron Man movie (which means writers think we have to ALWAYS stick to the main character...sigh).  But that doesn't mean we can't figure out a plot that uses War Machine for more than 3 minutes.  Stark's involvement with his father is dropped in IM3.  And what's the point of perfecting the arc reactor?  The new status quo doesn't lead anywhere.  Sure, the old reactor was poisoning Stark, so the new one saves his life...but uh...that's an arbitrary problem someone made up to be a point of conflict in the plot.  Someone could have easily have said:  "the arc reactor isn't poisonous!  Let's think of something ONE MILLION times more interesting than that plot.  Like...Iron Man is overcommitted.  So the first half an hour of the movie we're just seeing him take on mission after mission after mission.  He's wearing down and wearing out.  Enemies not only continue cropping up, they're now maneuvering with him in mind.  Decoy strikes in one area to lure him.  Instead of bullets, high powered tasers.  Lasers.  Booby trapped hideouts.  He can't do it on his own.  Thus:  War Machine.  Tony is fighting for GLOBAL PEACE.  The last wrench in the operation:   Anton Vanko.  Vanko joins forces with an enemy group and starts working on enemy Iron Men.  He also knows the arc reactor.  Creates one.  Creates many.  Now the weapons Iron Man and War Machine are encountering become too much.  There's only one way around it:  escalation.  Tony has to create better weapons (which he has qualms with, we know, after the last movie).  The weapons improve, but Vanko goes for the kill.  He creates things that drain Arc energy.  Fuck.  Now Tony is in trouble.  The ground he had gained in Global Peace is taken back by the enemy.  Tony struggles to create a new reactor, a stronger one.  He can't.  This is when he learns about his dad's original research into the arc reactor.  Learns more about his father.  Tony only new part of the design!  Here he goes...New reactor, new suit with sweeter capabilities.  Climax with insane battle sequence utilizing newfound tech.  Global peace is achieved.  Which makes, come The Avengers, the arrival of Loki EVEN MORE OF A SHOCK AND GUT PUNCH FOR STARK.  Just when Stark thinks he has saved the Earth, he has to fight gods and aliens.  It's demoralizing, in an extreme way."  

What would have happened in IM3?  Stark pursues Pepper.  But is simultaneously increasing his alcohol consumption.  The PTSD from The Avengers keeps him out of the suit.  With War Machine handling the minor conflicts in the world, Iron Man isn't needed much anyway.  There's a lack of Iron Man being in the suit not because it's malfunctioning or he's been defeated or it's out of power, but because he's generally incapable of being in it.  Have War Machine attacked and captured.  Have Stark terrified to save Rhodey.  Have Pepper and Stark officially dating but she's horrified by the two men she sees:  Who Tony Was and Alcoholic Tony.  It's a terrifying story in the fact it shows the Iron Man armor is only as good as the man inside of it.  And that while Tony has been Iron Man on the outside, he has yet to solidify himself as Iron Man on the inside.  

"But where's the action?!?!"  There'll be ways to get it in there.  Mostly via War Machine and other subplots.  Or even in Tony's head.  In alcoholic delusions and dreams.  Surreal Iron Man battles and contests.  And you know what?  People would respect the fuck out of this movie.  

This is what I'm talking about in terms of status quo creation and destruction.  What saves Tony from his demons and the alcohol?  Pepper.  When she's needed the most, when he is at his absolute worst, that's when she's there to love him and see him through.  This is when their relationship loses its working dynamic, even the hesitant initial dating dynamic, this is when she turns into his savior.  Everything they have been, all the witty banter and routine dependence is washed away, because at the end of the day all of that was superficial.  They form stronger, more intimate bonds.  

So in the second movie we would have established global peace and War Machine and Tony would have eclipsed his former work, work that had started to become replicated by another.  In the third movie, we'd tear down the character, who is bored and haunted, and render him incapable of being the man he was.  This brings him love he has always been too afraid to accept.  In the second movie he had to solidify his external-self, in this third film the inner-self finds cohesion and peace.

Instead, what do we get?  A destroyed mansion, Pepper Potts gaining super strength for 1 minute, and Tony getting the shrapnel removed from his chest.  Whoopdy do!


Did I Like It:
Sure.  It could have and should have been so much better.  At least it was better than the second movie.  I do think Black had a really interesting subplot going on with Stark and the Iron Man.  There are many shots, scattered throughout the movie, of Stark being outside the Armor as it's operating.  When Stark is sleeping, he wakes up to the Armor in his face, grabbing Pepper.  The Armor is going to hurt Pepper!  Then there's Tony putting the Armor ON Pepper.  She wears it to save him.  Then, when he puts it on, it fails him.  There's no flight capability.  Down Tony goes.  Even then, the suit saves him by literally giving him a hand:  the hand of the suit disengages, takes Tony's hand, and pulls Tony from the water.  Impressive.  This subplot is concluded when Tony sees the mask on the ground, after the fight with Guy Pearce.  The mask has a fire in it.  It's staring right at Tony.  Tony is staring at it.  The flame writhes out from one eye.  

If it weren't for this psychological subplot, I think I'd hate this movie?  Or at least just not care about it at all.  As is, this self-confrontation that's running throughout the film...devoured my interest.  I think it could have been placed in a better movie and elevated Iron Man 3 to awesome heights.

Seriously:  the scenes with Jon Favreau were like...something straight out of Spider-Man 3 (I know of no worst insult).  Maybe there's some humor we can take from it?  But can you seriously say to me that "More Jon Favreau" was the best thing for the movie?  Did anyone want those scenes?  I'm not saying there shouldn't have been any Jon Favreau...just...not SPIDER-MAN 3 JON FAVREAU.  

Can we talk about how both IM2 and IM3 end with lots of AI controlled Iron Men?  Isn't that a little cheap?

In the third installment war:  as much as I talked shit about The Dark Knight Rises, I think TDKR is better.  Maybe?  I'd have to re-watch TDKR.  The plot holes could still be too ridiculous for me.  But at least it Status Quo shifts are more meaningful than IM3.  

Inquiry Closed

MODIGLIANI

Paul Verhoeven was the master of big-budget satires. From our dependence on technology (RoboCop) to anti-imperialism (Starship Troopers), Verhoeven wasn't in the business berating recycled Hollywood tropes through his films, but rather critiquing the industry through embellishment. He loved all the cheesy spectacles that did indeed have a place in film, but had, for the most part, been cast aside by millions of turned-up noses. In his attempt to Hollywood-ize his films to make them accessible to all, he alienated viewers and critics because they were uncomfortable with the satire hitting so close to home. As Eric Henderson (Slant Magazine) wrote for his Showgirls piece:

"Most prefer satire when it's dealing with the distant past to the extent that one can feel morally superior to the subject of ridicule without recognizing oneself in the mix."

In regards to Showgirls, this simply could not be more true. While many were able to realize the film's larger satirical observations on the film industry, Showgirls also directly dealt with our relationship with the characters of rise-and-fall stories. Because we were part of the problem (more on that later), a backlash ensued.

Many regard Total Recall as one of Verhoeven's lesser films, but really the satire runs so deep in Total Recall that it seems as though Verhoeven is in a battle with himself in creating a film absolutely drenched in the Hollywood formula. In his attempt to embellish American consumerism, Verhoeven chose to dress the film with blatant product placements (Coca-Cola, Fujifilm), mini-malls, faux-vacation technology, and, of course, the most bankable star in the industry (at the time): Arnold Schwarzenegger.

With that in mind, it's no surprise that Elizabeth Berkley—fresh off the after-school special known as Saved by the Bell and destined to suffer the flailing career of a teenage celebrity—came to star in Showgirls. And knowing Harmony Korine's distaste for Hollywood and traditional storytelling, it's no surprise that this generation's batch of teenage celebrities are the stars of Spring Breakers. 


People:
The guy who hates Hollywood/writer and director: Harmony Korine
The innocent Disney star/the brunette/Faith: Selena Gomez
The rising teenage stars/the blondes/Candy and Brit: Vanessa Hudgens and Ashley Benson
The independent star/the one with pink hair/Cotty: Rachel Korine
The personification of Hollywood/Alien: James Franco


What It's Good For:
-an incredible performance from Franco
-a comment on the rise-and-fall stories of Hollywood
-condemning the industry for objectifying rising stars
-a soundtrack that makes Skrillex sound poetic/gain actual purpose
-growth for Harmony Korine as a storyteller
-helping Harmony Korine's career gain more recognition


Potential Pitfalls:
-severely mismarketed; not the fun affair depicted in trailers; very slow, liquid narrative
-lots and lots of nudity (especially in the first few minutes)
-lots and lots of cursing
-lots and lots of deaths near the end
-you hate Harmony Korine (you wouldn't be alone)


My Assessment:
Think of all of the failed careers after being a child star, both men and women. There just isn't enough room for all of them, is there? I mean, hell, look at the Harry Potter cast. Emma Watson may be the only one from the bunch with a legitimate shot in the industry (I'm hoping Daniel Radcliffe just sticks with Broadway). 

Although I wouldn't be against a sequel to Thunderpants...

Anyway, child/teenage stars are no strangers to ridicule in Hollywood, as many of their highly publicized careers have devolved into porn, drugs, crime, unexpectedly flashing your crotch at the paparazzi, whipping your dick out at a movie theater, [insert career-ending/rock-bottom stunt here]. But, more often than not, careers simply whimper out. For every Shia LiBeouf, there's a couple dozen Christy Carlson Romanos. For every Leonardo, there are some crazy Kirks. For every Hilary Duff, there's a crystal meth addicted LaLaine.

And, if you don't count what Mario Lopez does as "acting" (or "work"), not a single member of Saved by the Bell went on to have serious movie careers (although you could always just write an INSANE BOOK if film isn't panning out for ya).

I should probably note: Spring Breakers and Showgirls aren't giant metaphors for Macaulay Culkin and Lindsay Lohan, aka the rise and fall of teenage stars. Characters aren't necessarily defined by where they're standing at a certain camera angle. Rather, both Verhoeven and Korine (each in their own way) are attacking the lie sold to up-and-coming, aspiring stars of the industry. The happiness accompanied rising to the top. The dream glamorized on the television and movie screen. 

In fact, you can probably find the word "dream" preached (or perhaps muttered during the inevitable downfall sequence) several times during any film of this nature. David Lynch was no stranger to attacking Hollywood's mistreatment of its stars, which he did most prominently and directly in Mulholland Dr. The oh-so-naive Betty is absolutely beaming early in the film, saying:

"I couldn't afford a place like this in a million years...unless, of course, I'm discovered and become a movie star. Of course, I'd rather be known as a great actress than a movie star. But, you know, sometimes people end up being both. So that is, I guess you'd say, sort of why I came here. I'm sorry. I'm just so excited to be here. I mean I just came here from Deep River, Ontario, and now I'm in this dream place. Well, you can imagine how I feel."

The fact that we can imagine how she feels, despite our ignorance of what it takes to rise in the movie industry, is living proof of how misleading and detrimental such a lie is to aspiring actors and actresses. And keeping in line with David Lynch's distaste for Hollywood and its restrictive nature, Betty's "career" proves to be nothing more than a sham, a spectacle—an actual dream.

As mentioned earlier, Verhoeven cared deeply about how American critics reacted to his films, but also wasn't afraid to call them out on their bullshit:

Verhoeven was neither in the business of belittling critics or shying away from them, but instead inviting them to realize that we are all part of the problem (and considering a movie critic's ego may be bigger than any other, it was a career-long struggle). In regards to the historically lambasted Showgirls (by many considered one of the worst movies of all time), the biggest crime on moviegoers' part wasn't scoffing at Verhoeven for his embracement of sexuality and unabashed nudity, but for supporting the perverse spectacle Verhoeven sought to exploit. As Eric Henderson notes from film critic Adrian Martin:

Critics constantly berate Hollywood for its lack of creativity and its repeated use of tropes. However, when it comes to a film that evaluates those tropes by taking them to the extreme (Total Recall, Showgirls), they immediately backpedal. They have, in fact, become accustomed "rise" and "fall" portions of rise-and-fall stories, and they're unable to see how incredibly tragic it is that Nomi learns absolutely nothing from her trip to Las Vegas.

"Did you win?" asks Jeff while driving away from the City of Dreams (of all places!). 

Nomi nods.

"What did you win?"

"Me."

But what did she really win? "The dream" rears its ugly head and punishes everybody in the protagonist's path—as it always seems to during films that critique rise-and-fall stories in Hollywood (Mulholland Dr., Sunset Blvd.)—yet there's promise and giddiness in the shot where Nomi drives down the highway and Verhoeven pans up to Nomi's "Goddess" billboard. It's a false victory—a faux sense of catharsis that betrays every contradicting lesson her drive for stardom has taught her.

If this was indeed the ending's intention, and if there is indeed a lie being sold to rising stars, and if the viewer is indeed part of the problem in embracing and reselling that lie, then Elizabeth Berkley's role is undeniably a prototype for that tragic figure cast aside by Hollywood. Fresh off the Saved by the Bell train and attempting to create a name for herself, Berkley's career almost needed to fail if Showgirls' satirical observations were to hold up twenty years ahead—a time and place where rising teenage celebrities face as much ridicule and hardship as the batch from Berkley's generation.

You can look at the now 74-year-old director's interview with JoBlo and read his comments about current Hollywood films (including the 2012 disgrace of a remake of his Total Recall): "It’s all completely nonsense. It’s not about anything that has any reality to it, unless you fill it in. And you have to put your own personality into it." Verhoeven loved Hollywood for the props and stories it had to offer, but he also understood that Hollywood could be better. He believed a sense of reality needed to be pumped into movies, and Showgirls was the campy centerpiece of that very idea.

So we can look at films like Showgirls and Total Recall, and see that Verhoeven had a fascination with Hollywood that directly influenced and altered the course of his films. So what is Harmony Korine's relationship with Hollywood, and how does it affect his films? From the white-trash imbued Gummo, to the blatantly Hollywood idolizing/condemning Mister Lonely, to his current deprecation of lies sold to young actors and actress Spring Breakers?

You don't need to search the Internet for very long to find a Hollywood-related quote from Korine. Just take this interview where he says:

Later in that interview, Korine goes on to say that only auteurist works matter to him (considering his influences are Terrence Malick and Werner Herzog):

Verhoeven's influences were straight out of Hollywood—your Alfred Hitchcocks, your David Leans, your linear storytellers. Korine's influences obviously aided in crafting his free-form narrative style (it pretty much apes Terrence Malick), but they also created a "disdain" for Hollywood and the conventional storytelling. While Verhoeven obsessed over Hollywood and believed it could be better, we see that Korine has no hope for the industry. Verhoeven saw room to grow, but Korine saw nothing but restriction:

So knowing Korine's obvious hatred for an industry Paul Verhoeven continually tried to reach out to in his films, we can look at Spring Breakers and see the similarities between it and Showgirls, but also see that Korine's attack on Hollywood was much more drastic and foreboding.

The most obvious (and most important) similarity is the cast. Elizabeth Berkley was the goody-two shoes from Saved by the Bell whose worst moment was becoming temporarily addicted to pain pills. Otherwise, it was nothing but four years of squeaky-cleanness for her character Jessie Spano, until Berkley shocked the world when she dry humped (and later hump humped) Kyle MacLachlan in Showgirls. As explained earlier, her first big role being a flop and her lack of legitimate roles thereafter keeps in line with the general image of teenage celebrities failing in the industry. But Berkley's failure wasn't Verhoeven's fault—our inability to recognize the genius of her role and performance in a film that's directly critiquing the audience is what truly destroyed her career. For a film dissecting the rise-and-fall stories of Hollywood, Berkley became the perfect prototype for Verhoeven.

Knowing Korine's relationship with Hollywood, it's no coincidence that independent actors (Samantha Morton, Chloë Sevigny, Ewen Bremner, Diego Luna) have starred in his past films. So it probably came as a shock when Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, and Ashley Benson—the stars of Wizards of Waverly Place, High School Musical, and Pretty Little Liars—were cast in the new Harmony Korine flick. In addition, we have Harmony's wife Rachel Korine—with a few independent films under her belt—playing a somewhat detached role outside this band of Disney stars. Perhaps most surprising was that Korine's new film was not about white trash podunks or disease affecting families or people humping trash, but instead a film about the epitome of America's current aimless generation: spring break.

Korine has acknowledged a strange fascination with spring break, calling it an "American cultural phenomenon" and a "right of passage" for youth culture. Much like Hollywood and the film industry, spring break is glamorized on the screen, full of kids having a good time, aka gettin' drunk and gettin' laid. That image (indicated by the repeated statement, "spring break bitches") is what's sought after by these four girls. 

First and foremost, both Verhoeven and Korine established the "dream" associated with Hollywood. For Verhoeven, it's establishing Nomi's misdirection in life. Stripped of a family and left to wander the endless west coast highways, an image of Las Vegas' sign displaying a population of "342" says a lot about the exclusivity of the film industry and the difficulty of breaking in. "You gotta gamble if you're gonna win," Jeff says as they pull into Vegas. Nomi is unperturbed, clearly fueled by nothing but misguided ambition and a shallow need to succeed and become famous. "I'm gonna win," she responds, foreshadowing a constantly and drastically up-and-down lifestyle that Nomi never seems to learn from. 

The first thing Nomi does in Vegas is test her luck on the slot machines. She wins big immediately—what a magical place! But a quick cut reveals Nomi to lose all of her money soon afterwards. Even when Nomi "wins" (foreshadowing the final line), it's clear she hasn't learned a goddamned thing. What does this loss do to her drive? Absolutely nothing. She is soon gambling with her career in order to rise quickly to the top. She's in a constant state of denial, ignoring the grim signs the "City of Dreams" keeps tossing at her. There is only flashing lights, extravagant dancing, endless opportunities—there is only the biggest show in Vegas: "Goddess".

Spring Breakers opens with an elongated sequence of titties and ass—bright beach landscapes splashed with yellows and pinks, booze pouring into mouths, and girls ripping off their bikinis while Skrillex buzzes in the background. There are nothing but smiles on these kids' faces. There is nothing but bliss associated with spring break by the MTVs of the world. This is a magical place these four girls must find.

Breaking out of the teenybopper scene and shifting into a world of mature and challenging roles, Gomez, Hudgens, and Benson become prototypes for such a hardship. Spring break, just like Hollywood, looks glamorous and inviting and promises a bright future. And much like Nomi's moment at the slot machine, the vision is realized, and then immediately stripped away. Faith (Gomez) tells her grandmother that spring break is the "most spiritual place I've ever been....It feels as if the world is perfect. Like it's never going to end." This level of attachment to a place Faith has literally been at for one day is a scary realization of how shallow their collective attraction is. 

Their misconception of the horrid realities of spring break is exemplified in a paralleled moment featuring a robbery and a reenactment of the robbery. Candy's sense of reality is clearly warped through mass media influences, as she attempts to motivate her robbing companions by saying, "Just pretend you're in a video game. Act like you're in a fucking movie." What follows is a quiet sequence shot from Cotty's (Rachel Korine) car, as Candy and Brit smash dishes and force people to the floor in order to steal their money. We hear nothing, and only see the robbery taking place. Cotty remains calmly in the car and celebrates with the girls afterwards. Once at spring break, this shot is brought to life for Cotty as Candy and Brit retell it, forcing Cotty to the ground to physically experience the horror she was sheltered from inside her car. Korine cuts between shots of Candy and Brit's jarring recreation and the actual, formerly unseen robbery. Here we have two images of the industry: what's depicted on the screen from a safe distance, and experiencing the scary reality.

It's in these moments we actually start to see some differentiation between each of these characters' and their roles in depicting the rise-and-fall storyline, and it seems to directly coincide with their real-life counterparts. Hudgens has already begun her sidle into Hollywood, starring in slightly raunchier features like Sucker Punch, while Benson has broken into the industry through not-so-innocent television shows such as The O.C. and Pretty Little Liars. They're each primed for a seemingly breakthrough role, ready to capture the dream. They've tested themselves beyond their Disney reputation, and the robbery was just another step toward realizing their trip to spring break. "It's the best way to live," Candy says to a terrified Faith after they finish recreating their robbery. "You'll have all this money and all this power." 

Faith, who still candidly clutches onto her faith in God and her Church life, is nerved by the recreation of the robbery. Before the dream seemed "perfect" and spring break was a "spiritual place". But now, as reality and doubt settles in, Faith's real-life counterpart Selena Gomez displays a similar predicament. After all, Gomez's most daring film so far has been Horton Hears a Who!, and her role in such a sexy feature is quite the leap. Witnessing the darker side of the industry could very well drive her away.

Rachel Korine, already a star in a few Harmony Korine films, Rachel Korine embodies a somewhat seasoned individual that has gone through the motions. But notice how she's never a part of Candy and Brit's sinister games. She's the lookout for the robbery; she is absent when Candy and Brit bang Alien; and, most importantly, the moment she gets shot ends her trip to spring break. She's an independent star with no place in Hollywood's sick, self-servicing games.

And, of course, we can't forget about Alien (played by James Franco), who essentially becomes all of Nomi's teachers friends, and rivals (Cristal, James, Al, and Tony) all rolled up into one. He is the one that bails them out of jail and temporarily suspends their downward spiral. He is their ticket out of squalor, he is their ticket into the "beautiful" perks of spring break. He can show them the ropes (James), he can provide them with jobs to realize their dreams (Al and Tony), and he is the top dog in the industry (Cristal). And Alien, as the man in charge of the industry, is there with the smooth talk and compliments, creating a fairy-tale-esque aura about them while objectifying them in a scene where he makes a camera with his fingers and poetically states:

"It must be a fucking dream
These three girls in front of me
How can this be?
They're like three mermaids come up from the sea
Close my eyes, every time I look
They're like old-fashioned bitches straight out of a book"

Here we have four girls: one brunette, two blondes, and one with pink hair. After being arrested for drinking underage,  we can see their individual reactions and how their separate groupings reflect their real-life counterparts. "This can't be the end of the dream," says one of the girls (it's hard to tell), indicating that jail definitely does not coincide with their magical, spiritual perception of spring break. But upon meeting Alien, who could be their spiritual guide through such a journey, their reactions tell the story.

First we have the brunette, a virgin to the society's dark underbelly (no robberies on her record), and hesitant about following Alien down an unknown path. 

"This is not what we came here for. We came here to have fun," a sobbing Faith tells her friends as Alien's hoodlum posse rambunctiously prances around and forces her into a game of 8-ball. But Faith's attempt to guide her friends back home is a losing battle, as Alien has already enamored the other three girls (they gleefully pile in the backseat of his car, while Faith scowls and sits with her arms folded in front). All he needs to do is show off the materialistic portions of spring break these girls have been accustomed to through the screen: the nice cars, the bling, the wealthy lifestyle ("I'm fucking made of money! Look at my teeth!!"). Faith, however, requires some psychological tampering.

"Your name's Faith? Does that mean you got faith? You believe in God? You pray a lot? You praying for your girlfriends? I was just thinking—maybe you did all that praying and I'm the answer to your prayers...you was all in trouble, and here I am."

Preying on Faith's morals, Alien's scumbag move reflects much of the manipulation practiced on Nomi in Showgirls. The misguiding promises and the self-servicing lies, all of which are aimed at procuring these unknowing girls for an industry they hold a fairy-tale view of. Faith, however, has been burned by spring break through her arrest—an incredibly similar idea expressed through Molly's dark realization in Showgirls. Molly is enamored by Andrew, bewitched by his good looks and his celebrity status, thus she unknowingly puts her trust in a man that eventually rapes her.

"If you go home, you're gonna be thinking, 'Hmm, maybe I missed something out there,'" Alien says to Faith, but she's already seen the ugly truth of the industry. "You're gonna go, but your friends are gonna star with me," he says much more sinisterly. Girls are used and objectified, and then tossed out for the next rising star. If you can't fill the shoes, then other aspiring talent will. She would have to compromise her morals (her faith in God) to remain at spring break—a dilemma Candy, Brit, and Cotty (and Nomi) have no problem ignoring for the time being. Thus, Faith departs on her bus, leaving spring break.

Cotty (the out-of-place girl with pink hair) is constantly excluded from Candy and Brit's games. While she was messing with boys in earlier scenes, flashing her boobs and teasing their dicks ("You're never gonna get this pussssssy"), Candy and Brit were quietly sleeping in bed together, dreaming of something bigger. In these moments, we can see the two images of Spring Break—the image sold on the screen, and the mystery that lies beyond. Cotty is content with spring break's underlings—with their chiseled abs and horny aspirations, these boys are just glimpses into the industry. Small roles that lead to larger goals. But once with Alien, the pink-haired girl is separated from the two blondes. France writes a pretty "poem" about the three of them as a group, but only two of the girls are willing to work for stardom. They're willing to kiss Alien, indulge his mind games, show off their bodies, and eventually sleep with him. Cotty, on the other hand, remains on the periphery, still toying with Alien's posse and remaining stagnant on the ladder.

Cotty is, just like Faith, burned once the fire ignites. We soon meet Archie (played by Gucci Mane?!) who is fighting for control of the territory with Alien. Archie also employs many girls in his posse (he owns a strip club, after all), and wishes to recruit members who will aid in his robberies. Cotty does perform some robberies with Candy and Brit, but Alien and Archie's battle over the rising stars (which could easily be compared with Al and Tony's separate reigns in Showgirls) soon produces its first causality. Suddenly in the mix of a lifestyle Candy and Brit have been subjected to privately through Alien, Cotty realizes how expendable and vulnerable she's become once she's shot during Archie's drive-by. Thus, we receive the same shot of Faith on the bus, but this time with Cotty in her place, escaping an industry that did not live up to (or perhaps went beyond) her expectations.

And then we're left with Candy and Brit—blonde, attached at the hip, and (just like in the real world) primed for a blooming career in Hollywood. Korine's clear disgust for mainstream Hollywood may shine through here more than ever, because these two girls become more confident than Alien before the final shootout with Archie. There's an insane scene where Alien is showing off all of his guns, clothing and jewelry ("This is the fuckin' American dream! This is my fuckin' dream, y'all!! All this sheeeeeyit!!!"), controlling the situation and attempting to seduce Candy and Brit. But in a turn of events, the two blondes pull out one of Alien's guns and force him to his knees. "Suck it," they say, forcing Alien to go down on his own gun. It's a power shift that suddenly swaps the roles: Alien is now at these girls' mercy, calling them his "soul mates".

"Scaredy pants," Candy repeats while their ménage à trois eerily reflects Nomi's moment with Zack in Showgirls. "Yeah, I'm real scared," he finally admits, revealing a sudden hesitancy on the boss' part. This moment is much different than Showgirls, where the owner sits above the stars as they eliminate one another. No, this time Korine's feelings leak into the moment and foreshadow a much different trajectory. Thus, Candy and Brit's victory vs. Nomi's victory shed very different lights. Both, however, are equally depressing. Each of these girls have compromised their morals and standards in order to achieve such a high status: for Nomi it's starring in "Goddess", and for Candy and Brit it's making it through the entirety of spring break. But while Nomi's faux victory is fueled by a continual denial of the industry's ugly truths, Candy and Brit's victory is one of conquering the system. Nomi wins, but she also believes she's become a better person while getting there, despite having to shove Cristal down the stairs and sacrificing her friends in the process. But Candy and Brit have chosen to take a lesson away from their trip and escape the ugly world of spring break:

"I feel different for some reason. I feel changed, like I just wanna be a good girl now. I wanna be happy and have fun. I think that's the secret to life—being a good person."

And then we have Candy's conversation with her mom. It holds the same aura and emotion as Faith's conversation with her grandmother, but in light of conquering both Alien and Archie, the scenarios reflect a feeling that is never compromised, but realized:

"I think we found ourselves. We finally got to see some other parts of the world. We saw some beautiful things here. It was so nice to get away from reality for a while. Something so amazing. So magical. It almost seems like the world is perfect. Like it's never going to end."

The "reality" comment is what sticks out the most to me. Nomi experienced the dark underbelly of show business, yet came out claiming she "found herself". But Candy and Brit were able to recognize that spring break did indeed exist outside of reality. After all, spring break only lasts a week—eventually, the dream (and careers) must end. These two insights clearly reflect their respective directors. Verhoeven begged the industry and the viewer to realize they are part of the problem—we fuel such ignorance in these characters. Korine, on the other hand, has no hope for such an industry. It's constricting, unoriginal, and completely closed off from reality. Nomi's victory invites us to realize and solve the problem—Candy and Brit's victory asks us to realize and then transcend the problem. And looking at their career trajectories, Verhoeven's continued fight within the industry and Korine's continued fight outside the industry reflect both of these mindsets.

I read an article about how Spring Breakers was a giant metaphor for Britney Spears' downfall.The Britney Spears sequence in Spring Breakers is definitely a reflection Britney Spears herself, but the metaphor doesn't entirely pertain to a single individual  Much like those teenage celebrities that are burned by the industry, Spears was a casualty of the dream. The four girls sing Spears' innocent first hit "Hit Me Baby One More Time" early in the film, but her song "Everytime" later plays over the robberies while the girls wear their pink ski masks. These two songs bookended the rise and fall of the pop star, as "Everytime" was the final track of In the Zone, which was Spears' final album before devolving into a white trash joke alongside Kevin Federline. "Everytime" is a song of hope, a song of dreams, wishing and praying for something better. Knowing what happens to idealistic stars with such aspirations, I don't think it's difficult to realize in this moment how detrimental and self-destructive that "dream" can truly be.


Did I like it:
Absolutely. I loved it. I'm not the biggest Harmony Korine fan, but Julien Donkey-Boy intrigues me from what I've seen, and Spring Breakers feels like a sign that he's directed better films than the somewhat overrated Gummo. I think he's evolved as a storyteller, as his images have now gained a coherent meaning instead of existing on their own...which is beautiful to witness, but as a cohesive whole, something wasn't clicking for me before Spring Breakers.

Franco killed it. KILLED IT. He's hilarious, he's disgusting, he's sinister. I really hope he gets a nomination for his role, which would also give Korine some recognition.

I still hate Skrillex, but damn it I might actually delve deeper into his music after this movie. That might be a bad idea...but we'll see.

Most people I've spoken to don't like this film. That's understandable. People hated Showgirls because it made them feel uncomfortable. But I think the discomfort stems from something deeper than T&A, and our awareness of these characters' scary situation rings truer and closer than we realize upon first glance.

I think it's similar to what Modigliani said about Killing Them Softly (and what's true of Showgirls)—people may not fall heads over heels for the film, but time will allow us to delve deeper into Spring Breakers and decipher its finer elements. If our distaste doesn't recede, at least our respect will grow. And I'll gladly take that.

INQUIRY CLOSED

MORTIMER GRANVILLE

The Place Beyond the Pines is a metaphoric title.

My Assessment:
Within the movie, understanding the title is a little...difficult.  For clarification, let's read an interview the director did with Grantland:

With forgiveness in mind, we can make sense of the title.  

Twice Bradley Cooper is taking into the woods.  

The first time by Ray Liotta.  We're pretty sure Ray Liotta's going to kill Cooper, right?  Liotta is a corrupt cop who has shown flashes of being an asshole.  He's menacing as can be.  Plus, he's leading Bradley Cooper way off into the woods, alone, after Cooper tried to reveal the corruption charges. Cooper knows exactly what will happen if he goes into the woods.  So...he runs away.  

The second time is by Dane DeHaan/Jason, the son of the man Cooper had killed.  Jason wants to kill Cooper.  To avenge his father.  

Instead of murdering Cooper and avenging his father, Jason let's Cooper live.  Instead of staying in that place of anger and wrath, and instead of letting these things define him, Jason MOVES BEYOND.  The movies makes the woods this place violence and murder should happen.  Remember there's the draw-out introduction to the woods, as Liotta leads Cooper, all the menace and foreboding from the music and camera shots, from Cooper's increasing nerves.  When we return to this place with Jason and Cooper, we're thinking the violence prophesied by the Liotta/Cooper trip will finally occur.

The title then is referring to this idea of choosing forgiveness.  The movie ends with Jason heading off into a new life.  

Inquiry Closed

MODIGLIANI

So you've watched The Place Beyond the Pines because you heard from Collider it's one of the best movies of 2013.  Or because a friend made you go.  Or because you love Ryan Gosling.  Or because you like artsy movies and this seemed up your alley.  Whatever reason, there's a good chance the movie ended and you were like, "....uh?...".

Let's look at the driving theme and ultimate point Pines makes.  


People:
Director:  Derek Cianfrance
Writers:  Cianfrance, Darius Marder, Ben Coccio
Screams like a little girl:  Ryan Gosling
Jumps around outside a house for 2 minutes as though he's never seen a door:  Bradley Cooper
Always plays a girl in fucked up relationships:  Eva Mendes
Menacing:  Ray Liotta
More advanced form of his Killing Them Softly character:  Ben Mendelsohn
Punished for wanting to make sure her husband was safe:  Rose Byrne
Cool dad:  Mahershala Ali
As dramatic as he was in Chronicle:  Dane DeHaan
Plays "Entitled Long Island Kid" really well:  Emory Cohen


What It's Good For:
-bringing a bunch of acting talent together
-the opening long take
-hearing Ryan Gosling scream a whole bunch
-unintentional hilarity akin to Drive
-dramatic shifts in perspective
-throwing all the emotional weight onto Eva Mendes
-as a weird, alternate-version of Limitless
-the line "just take the money, you'll never have to see me again" repeating
-people with daddy issues
-making me think Ryan Gosling is more character actor than method actor
-some cool high-speed stuff
-Cooper escaping Liotta only to be led to the woods by someone else was cool


Potential Pitfalls:
-the quality of what happens with all the acting talent is debatable
-the opening long take is followed up by less powerful directing maneuvers
-there's a lot going on thematically that could leave people going "what the hell is going on?"
-Cooper escapes again and again and again, then succeeds?
-movies makes a mean, mean, mean statement to foster parents


My Assessment:  
Face-tatted, cut-off wearing, bank robbing, bleach blonde Luke Glanton tells his baby's momma something along the lines of:  "He needs his dad.  My dad wasn't there and look how I turned out."  

This line frames the destinies of the four main characters:  
the two adults:  Luke and Avery
the two teenagers:  Jason and AJ

Look at each character. 

Luke:  no father figure  
Avery:  supportive father
AJ:  supportive father figure who Jason knows isn't his real dad; knows nothing about his real dad
Jason:  unsupportive father

Each character's fate is determined by the strength of the father (not "father figure").  Which is why I think Pines is a very superficial movie.  Not to say it isn't without merit or interest.  Rather:  the characters are one-dimensional.  Their actions wholly reactionary.  

Luke has no father (so far as we see in the movie).  He's the most troubled of the four characters (evidence: his tantrums, bashing Kofi, robbing banks, criminal record).  He's the most violent (bashing Kofi, threatening Robin, firing the gun at Avery).  The most criminal.  The most unstable (assembling a baby crib one minute, attacking Kofi the next; holding his son one minute, robbing banks the next).  He is, also, arguably, the kindest of them.  We see him emoting over baby Jason.  We know he wants to be with Romina.  He's trying to do the right thing, but doesn't know how.  It's like the you can see the potential for who he could have been...but it's undermined by who he has had to be.  Luke is killed in a classic Cop Vs. Robber showdown. 

Avery is the killer cop.  He's hailed as a hero for slaying Luke.  His father is proud of him.  His father is there to offer him advice.  "A limp goes a long way in politics." (not verbatim).  While we can see Avery is a bit standoffish from his dad, his dad is there for him and supportive.  Is Avery's dad the reason Avery is so ambitious?  Avery's gone to college. He's gone to law school.  Avery's dad was a judge so both college and law school makes sense.  We see how Avery tries to leverage his "hero status" within the police force for a promotion.  The Chief of Police laughs at Avery, denies him.  Avery is given a desk job (his injured knee means he can't be on patrol).  Instead of settling there, Avery tries to fight the corruption this new vantage point has given him.  This is the anti-thesis of Luke.  Luke dove into illegal activity in order to support his family.  Here Avery is battling illegal activity for his own gain.  When Ray Liotta finds out about this, Ray Liotta is going to fucking kill Avery.  Why?  Because Ray Liotta doesn't stand for any rats in his police force.  Avery runs.  Runs runs runs.  Where's he run to?  His dad.  His dad is there to support him and tells him how to get out of this:  go above the Chief of Police, go to the District Attorney and get the corrupt cops arrested.  If only Luke had had someone to offer him decent advice.  Not only does Avery sell out the corrupt cops, he seizes the opportunity to become Assistant DA.  This is why I consider Avery's story a mini-LA Confidential.  What's Avery go on to do?  He becomes the Attorney General of the United States of America.  

AJ is Avery's son.  AJ is weird.  We can all agree on that, right?  The scene where Avery is having the meeting and AJ pulls his shirt off, stands at the edge of the pool then dives in:  that's a weird scene, right?  Like...ambiguous and strange all around?  AJ is into drugs.  Throws a massive party at his dad's house.  There's alcohol and illegal drugs at the party.  That's a scandal and a half.  Why is AJ so messed up?  Is it just his character?  Oh, wait.  Via dialogue given by Rose Byrne (AJ's mom) and a conversation AJ has with Jason, we find out AJ is the byproduct of divorce.  He's lived with his mother.  Has only recently come to live with Avery--after Rose said AJ needs his dad, is losing his shit without Avery there to support him.  Turns out:  Avery isn't being very supportive.  We see Avery ignore AJ, admit he has no idea what to do with AJ (that it's not a good time for him to be around (ouch)), he grabs AJ's face and pushes him into a wall, screams at AJ.  AJ, in that moment, is terrified.  

Avery sucks as a dad (we can agree on that, too, right?).  

Which is why Avery sort of sucks as a human being, or so the movie would have us believe this is cause-and-effect.  After AJ and Avery have they're near death experience, we don't know what happens between them.  We know Avery kept yelling at Jason "IS MY SON OKAY??  WHAT DID YOU DO TO MY SON!?"  Maybe the two reached a tipping point and landed on a good path?  When Avery wins Attorney General and takes the stage, we see AJ is still reluctant to follow him, is goaded by the coordinator.  But when AJ is on the stage, standing behind his dad, seeing all the people cheering for his dad, is listening to his dad talk:  AJ smiles.  

Jason is Luke's son.  Except Jason doesn't know he's Luke's son.  Jason 100% knows he isn't Kofi's son.  So here we have a kid who is in the dark about where he comes from (Romina hasn't told Jason anything about Luke, per Luke's dying request).  And how is that kid identified?  As a loner.  Despite having a loving mother and a very supportive father figure, Jason is isolated, unable to form connections.  Why?  One could argue it's simply because that's how Jason is. But what happens once Jason finds out about his dad?  He moves.  He goes from having a false and destructive connection with AJ to seeking vengeance to forgiving and moving forward.  The impetus for all of those actions is Jason connecting to his father.  Reading what happened to Luke.  Talking to Robin about Luke.  Getting his dad's shades.  It's learning about the connection between Avery and Luke that motivates Jason to get a gun, to bash AJ the way Luke bashed Kofi (unknown to Jason), to bring a kidnapped Avery to the same woods Ray Liotta once took Avery.  When Jason lets a crying Avery live, Jason can't stay in Schenectady (where he's broken into a house, knocked a classmate out, then nearly murdered the soon-to-be Attorney General of the United States).  He leaves.  And he leaves how?  On a fucking motorcycle.  Jason is no longer isolated.  The bike is a connection to his father.  He rides off into the sunset.

Jason's connection to his dad is through the bike.  Especially because Robin said Luke was the best bike rider he ever saw.  AJ's connection to his dad, if one indeed formed and the smile at the end wasn't simply because he was on stage and smiling was the appropriate thing to do, comes at seeing how excited other people are about Avery.  In other words:  both kids connect through pride.  Jason takes pride in his dad's riding ability.  AJ takes pride in his dad's achievement.  Remember, this is the closest AJ has ever been with his father.  We can assume he's never had first-hand experience with what his dad means to other people, that AJ's always been in the shadows.  He hears his dad is travelling for important events.  Watches his dad have meetings.  Seeing all these people scream and cheer and be excited about Avery...this is something totally different...this isn't hearing about an event or seeing the tiny meeting preceding the event...this is history...and it strikes a chord within AJ.  Probably similar to the pride Avery had in his dad being a judge.  

Is this well-structured?  Sure!  Will it resonate with some people?  Definitely.  Do I find it insulting?  You betcha!  

"Wait, insulting, how?  You find EVERYTHING insulting.  You found Moneyball insulting!"  

Yeah, because Moneyball is insulting to Art Howe, Miguel Tejada, Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, Jeremy Giambi, Lenka (she wrote the song Billy Beane's daughter claims to have written), etc. etc.  How is it insulting?  Click here!

I find Pines insulting because it seems to make the case that a male needs his biological father's guidance, or else he'll turn out to be a criminal.  Sure, he can be a well-meaning criminal, but still a criminal.  The one character who has a positive, supportive biological father goes on to become a big-time politician.  Do 21st century Americans still even associate political achievement with actual life achievement?  I guess that's a whole other conversation.  Yeah, Avery achieves a lot.  But he's also a slime-mold.  He does do some decent things (tries to return the money, doesn't give in to corruption) but he fired first on Luke without giving Luke a chance to turn himself in, and he is an asshole to his son (you can argue it's because he feels guilty about murdering Luke, that it's established he's formed an aversion to his own child, yeah, yeah...doesn't mean I feel bad for Avery, or that it justifies his behavior).  

Luke:  criminal
AJ:  criminal
Jason:  criminal

You could argue the movie is only showing what's true for these four characters.  That it isn't commenting on EVERYONE.  Except you have the line "My dad wasn't there and look how I turned out."  Then we see this is true for both teens.  Their dad's aren't really there:  look how they've turned out.  And the fact Avery is the polar-opposite of Luke.  Even going so far as to have them in opposing careers:  robber and cop.  It's too consciously structured for me to think the movie wasn't attempting larger commentary.  

Which makes Pines insulting to single moms who raise decent human beings who have goals and achieve goals.  And insulting to kids who have shitty parents and work and work and work to not be shitty, to do better than what they see their parents have done.  I find it insulting to step-fathers who do their best to care for a child as their own.  

Yeah, I know.  

There are kids of single moms who are awful.  There are kids with terrible parents who are terrible kids.  There are kids who are terrible people despite having a terrific and well-meaning step-parent.  Despite those truths, it's uh...what's the word...stupid?  Maybe "stupid"?  Let's try it and see if it works!

It's stupid to me to have such a narrow scope (yup, that's the word!).  To have the character growth dependent on the father/son relationship.  Yes, parents do have a tremendous impact on their kids.  It's just not as simple as the movie portrays it.  I think the subject matter of the film is too verbose for the narrative to encompass.  While the story captures aspects of that subject matter, it fails to give proper coverage, which renders the film terribly simple.  This simplicity and one-sidedness is, for me, a fatal flaw.  

It could be Cianfrance, Mendar and Coccio have very egotistical views of their impact as parents and the dependence their children have on them?  Or it could be Cianfrance, Mendar and Coccio each want their kids to watch the movie one day in the future and appreciate their fathers for being there (assuming C, M and C the "supportive" father types).  Or it could be Cianfrance, Mendar and Coccio each have issues with their fathers, and are working through them in this movie?  Or it could be they have a paltry perspective on parent/children relationships, with no concept of how influential a good mother, a good step-father, or a strong will to succeed can be.  Or it could be none of those things.  Ultimately, I don't know why Cianfrance, Mendar and Coccio made the decisions they made.  What I do know is I don't agree with them.  

An example of a similar narrative:  The Kid with a Bike.  Cyril's father has left Cyril in foster care because the father is a selfish asshole.  Cyril doesn't understand what's going on.  He is desperate to reconnect with his dad.  The dad keeps giving Cyril false hope.  Cyril encounters a woman, Samantha, who he asks to visit.  Samantha tries to care for Cyril, to adopt him.  It proves very destructive.  She has to battle against a predatory drug dealer who preys on Cyril's abandonment issues in order to get him to rob a convenience store.  In this movie, we're seeing the impact a parent can have, a child's reaction, then the narrative develops potentials:  Cyril could surrender to Samantha's care, he could stay in foster care, he could listen to the drug dealer.  How he interacts with each potential is based on, yes, his issues with his dad.  But each of these potentials impacts Cyril.  He changes by following the path.  We see reaction, growth, action.  

Cyril isn't bound by his dad the way the four characters in Pines are.  Other people impact his life.  The same is true in The Lion King.  Simba is reacting to his dad's death, but he is transformed by further encounters in his life.  We get a whole picture.  Bike and Lion King allow Cyril and Simba the narrative space to define themselves beyond the influence of their dad's.  Pines ends the story right before the story reaches a point of actual narrative importance:  "what now?".  So if I'm going to end on a cheesy, really forced joke, this is the time to say:  The Place Beyond the Pines never really goes beyond its roots.    

 
Did I Like It:
Meh.  Like with Drive, the opening sequence one me over.  I was ready to love the movie.  I had heard good things, too.  But like with Drive, the movie is insanely melodramatic to the point of being comical.  When AJ took his shirt off and stood on the edge of the pool:  I was cracking up.  All the homoerotic exchanges between AJ and Jason:  I was cracking up.  Ryan Gosling screaming so hard he should be known as the Bank Robbing Banshee:  I was cracking up.  Gosling runs into the house and hides and Cooper dances around outside the house like the monkey-style fighter in Bloodsport:  I was cracking up.  When Cooper drove all the way into the woods then waited for Liotta to stop then gunned the car in reverse and escaped:  I was cracking up.  When Jason got the bike and rode off into the sunset:  I was groaning.  

Fine acting.  Fine directing.  Interesting structure.  I just don't like the content.  There are parts I like.  When Cooper says to Mendes "Just take the money, you never have to see me again" and she just breaks down...that was awesome.  When the movie forces Cooper into Mendes's house and he has to hold baby Jason while the other dude searches the crib for the money:  that was awesome.

If the movie had just ended with Avery feeling like a piece of shit:  I'm happy with it.  Continuing on...just felt...meh...it tied everything together too neatly for my taste.  It didn't expand on any tensions.  It solidified ideas from the first part.  We could have debated those ideas.  Instead, the movie doesn't really give us anything to debate other than "isn't it shitty that both mom's are relegated to well-meaning but useless in the positive development of their children?"  

The more I think about the ego it took to write this movie...the more I dislike it.  I'm sure Cianfrance and Marder and Coccio didn't mean anything insulting by the movie.  I'm not accusing them of being assholes.  But when you look at the movie...it's pretty arrogantly in favor of The Father.  

Inquiry Closed

MODIGLIANI