I have been unlucky enough to watch some truly terrible TV shows, and I have to say this makes the top 5, perhaps even the top 3 worst shows ever to grace the small screen. Emma Stone…? Is this the best you got now?
This is a story about the most shallow, despicable, reprehensible, zero morals, zero ethics people who are so far beyond phony that it’s not funny in the least. You will hate everyone, and I do mean everyone, in this show. The most dislikable person is the lead actor who is also the creator, the writer and the director.
There is absolutely nothing funny about this show. Seriously, there is no comedy whatsoever, it’s about people you cannot find a single redeemable quality for and if you don’t like the players then why watch the play? For the message? The message is terrible too.
Your time is better spent vacuuming your carpet - one fiber at a time with a microscopic vacuum cleaner than it is spending even a single minute of this insanely stupid show.
The acting is on par with a play put on by three year olds.
Do yourself a favor and forget this show even exists.
Jennifer Connolly plays Virginia, a single-mother in the middle of America with psychologically traumatized past. Come for the sexually charged scenes with Ed Harris, as a cheating Mormon sheriff running for Mayor. Watch Connolly stun in PG rated sex scene looking as good as ever clad in full dominatrix gear taking it hard and heavy. Stay for her performance of Virginia, a broken woman played to with an intimate desecration as she arranges last minute heist to leave her son something before her failing health takes hold.
Dick Tipton (Ed Harris) is a ridiculously arrogant alpha male Sherrif without a shred of responsibility towards Virginia or her son. He's only in it for the pooyani. Film legend Yeardley Smith plays the over-concerned social worker with a convincing southern drawl that makes you yearn for more. Connolly overalls feels lost in a sacred time towards an afterlife fantasy as she attempts to make up lie after lie, raise her son quite unsuccessfully, and manipulate her life around the few sex romps she has with the Sherrif.
The film is framed through her sons eyes. The actor playing her son is forgettable which is the only loss this film suffers from. It's a pretty big loss though, considering how much screen time his part of the story has.
Scenes of him casually in the house while Connolly get's railed by Harris make up the first part of the film. The second part is a series of vignettes between the son and a local girl, possibly Harris' characters daughter, with interdispersed scenes of Connolly breaking down or getting boned by Harris in various ways. I felt the sons story with his pals had a weaker dynamic playing under such a heavy talent load on top. I would of liked to see more of Connolly on top of Harris as well. The film could of been carried by Connolly and Harris' sex scenes, like a Wild Orchid meets Mother hybrid, instead it became a sidestory against a cops and robbers meets dazed and confused tragedy. The third act, is entirely this, complete with a rebellion, a Taxi Driver type of "campaign" bombing and Virginia's poetic stand-off.
The story overall invokes a tinge of Tennessee Williams "Baby Doll" meeting notes of Brie Larson's unconditional-love-under-extreme-circumstance performance in "Room." It falls short due where the bulk of scenes are given to a young actor who simply does not serve the overall momentum. Virginia shines when Connolly is on screen and simply put, due to her single performance it could of been added to what has become "The Fallen Single Mother" canon. It fails in its vision. When you have Jennifer Connolly as a blonde southern girl you want Cassavetes not Paul Thomas Anderson. They should of focused on her under the influence of knowing her own mortality was arye and the story taking place around that. It's a better way to understand the film if you're going in fresh. I hate to do this to Sarah from Labyrinth but this is a 6.5 out 10. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:
Let's be real here. This isn't a good film. And it's flawed from the get-go.
The casting. Dreadful. Hanks is a creation from Batman Returns. Priscilla has none of her beauty. And the most fundamentally unforgiveable issue - Elvis doesn't look like Elvis. Who signed off on an actor to carry this film where the eyes nose and mouth are absolutely incorrect?
The editing. Horrendous and overdone. There is barely a moments peace from the onslaught. However, for this catastrophe of cinematography to only cost 85 million USD is a triumph.
The pov aspect. Why in the hell would you base this around the ridiculous story of Colonel Tom Parker only to then leave out half of the facts? And it's not short on time at 2hr 30.
And finally, the pacing. When Elvis is washed up prior to the 68 Comeback special we haven't been fed enough of him at his peak for the rise and fall to make sense. When he passes, the bloatedness isn't shown and then arrives unexplained but for a single line of voice over. Periods that needed to be shown are glossed over and periods of relative unnecessity are dragged out.
But the real crime is the music. I counted 2 uninterrupted performances. The rest were manic collages or mixed in with - wait for it - modern hip hop... What egotistical mind decided that was a good idea...?
I watched. Now I'll hope to forget. And for anyone who wants an actual representation of Elvis from an actor who actually looks like him and tells the actual story, look for the Jonathan Rhys Meyers TV miniseries biopic.
To paraphrase a Bill Burr routine... Elvis was the first to be a major superstar. He made all the mistakes because he had nobody who had led the way.
Why is that not spelled out?
The 'theft' of black music. The 'child' marriage... I get that 2022 eyes see the world differently but a film like this shouldn't pander to the modern trend for rewriting history. It should provide perspective.
If Elvis hadn't grown up surrounded by black culture and organically witnessed that music, he'd be Pat Boone. But he wasn't. He was a true child of the musical influences. If he hadn't had his career, then it might have been another 20 years before black music found white ears... And it wouldn't have been a black artist who brought it. That's the sad truth. There needs to be a conduit and Elvis was that.
To labour this point... Tom Hanks being cast as a gay man afflicted with HIV (Philadelphia) opened the door to films of that nature being mainstream. Nowadays a gay man must be cast in that role. But you don't get to where we are without Tom Hanks being the conduit. That seems to be lost on people these days.
Progress is a series of incremental steps.
And look at the Priscilla marriage. The age of consent and the times and the location were all a world away. Don't be outraged at this, be outraged at Jerry Lee Lewis or Chuck Berry.
How sad the film was so overwhelmed by its desire to create ridiculous camerawork that it failed to deliver any of the impact of the first major superstar.
5/10
Fascinating documentary on what was a negligible late 90s festival. The director makes the case Woodstock 99 was an expression of “white rage” and examines the musical performances as a bunch of shallow musicians egging on the primarily “frat bot” crowd to misbehave — which they did.
I remember in 99, thinking how awful music had become and witnessing every event being horrible, so I would make the case it wasn’t just Woodstock 99, but everything that year was filled with chaos. Whether its the the fault of MTV sinking backwards to pop acts, the rage of nu-metal acts or a statement on “white behaviour”, its up to you in the end. What you get out of this documentary will entirely depend on where you fall in relation to those aspects. Gen-Z respectively might not care at all and see Woodstock 99 as a primordial pig stew of their parents culture war. Gen X however, might be able to squeeze some meaning out by remembering where they stood in relation the the nonsense at the event. I know I was too busy trying to build a career and saw the burning stages on the news as a sign that American alternative music culture had completely failed to escort us into the diverse daydream of a Nirvana based early 90s promise.
Lollapalooza 1 and 2 were better than Woodstock 99 or 94 (the latter is constantly referenced as being this ideal version when in fact, the absolutely never-mentioned Beastie Boy "Tibetan Freedom Concerts" were the real evolution of the Woodstock vibe.)
So, its a good documentary, but it’s based -- because it doesn’t consider the "better festivals" I mentioned above, which require critical examination in our culture on how we do a modern peace event. For example, where's the Uygher Awareness music festival (to match the Tibetan Freedom Concerts of the 90s) or the Anti-Fascist Music Festival (to match the LiveAid Anti-Apartheid festivals of the 80s, which can be argued effectively ended apartheid in South Africa.) Right? Where's the discussion on what worked instead of documentaries on festivals that failed due to privledge and whiteness - we know about Fyre, we know about Woodstock 99. That examination is nowhere to be seen, therefore the documentary is based -- a symptom of an overwhelmingly cultural bankruptcy in American culture right now.
America had a single export in the 90s -- our music culture, an attitude of anger towards racism and white supremacy, a repulsion towards the objectification of women and the privileged materialism of the 80s, all wrapped up in our music scene (conscious hip hop included within Nirvana, RATM and even Janes Addiction/Sublime/Pixies mystiques.) All of those mystiques were systemically dismantled by a war-mongering mindset of corporate commodification of (a) our concerts and (b) the acts that played in them. By the late 90s we were back where the 80s left off, overwhelmed with contrived boy bands (Limp Bizcuit included) through various consolidations of media companies, betrayals of peace-love-unity vibe and "colonization" of a rave scene that was probably the most vital historical outgrowth of it all. The commentary by Moby in the documentary contains gems to this perspective which can be expanded on tenfold for another documentary -- we'll see. The point is that Durst did go on to run Sony Music, so his moronic display in 99 had some kind connection to what the record companies saw him as beholden to. As a kind of white-Kali destroyer to the white-Christ Moby figure.
These aspects of white-rage, the subtleties explored in Woodstock 99 are now active in US politics (down to the unironically adornments of "red hats" repeating echoes of Fred Dursts moronic manipulations of the crowd. Much like the red hats storming the capitol looking to "break stuff." In that sense, Woodstock 99 begins a conversation about the poisons in American culture actively still destroying us, that began in the late 90s. What we do know is that the exported American coolness that went out to the rest of the world — our musical diversity, our punk rock, our skate scene, our real street music, our real trauma inspired grunge scene -- have been gutted by something. The mystery of what that was will not be answered in Woodstock 99 but maybe in a future revolution we will rediscover who we are again. The central question Woodstock 99 brings up therefore is not so much how to get it back, but to ask ourselves why, in 22 years since has not a single "good cause" festival occurred.
People will look back at Southland Tales after Trump and say Richard Kelly predicted the entire decade, and them some. Those who don't get the film just have low IQ's and can't see the brilliance of it. A hitman with amnesia, a reality television president, the bs conspiracies and angry vets while Tech Companies create an elite political class existing off human capital a midst a climate apocalypse (followed by a nuclear one); welcome to 2020.
But this was made in '06. Right it was, and it belongs in the canon of "Idiocracy", almost serves as a prequel. You've got all the elements of the sh-tstorm we're in from Q-Anon to Reality Television presidents to traumatized Iraqi vets on a mission to Facebook dictatorships and mysterious foreign interference's communicated through bizarre corrupt Homeland Security type organizations.
This movie is about the overall dumbing down of America before the apocalypse but after what we thought in 2006 a post-911 world would bring us to -- Dwayne Johnson, The Rock, represent this playing a hitman with amnesia throughout the story. A guy who doesn't remember what he's fighting for. People just use the word "Freedom" to justify their neurotic sadism and greed throughout the film. Justin Timberlake, an Iraqi vet, who predicts Jaoquim Pheonixs' Joker performance, plays an insane militia vet in his self-cutting musical numbers. It's a cinematic masterpeice and Timberlakes greatest paradoxical performance.
Warning : The "conservative media" is a central character in itself this film and if you don't understand how FOX news is hate speech propaganda you will, right off the bat, not understand the premise of the movie from scene 1. Instead of seeing how each character is either being manipulated by the media or is making the media that manipulates others you will just see moving pictures you wont understand. Unfortunatley, this is because your brain doesn't understand that media is created and since Kelly doesn't spell out to the inept audience what each characters motivation is, you would have to think that out. Which for 42% of Americans is very difficult to do. If you actually believe one single solitary ounce of Q-Anon or InfoWars BS you won't see the cutting humor of this film. I feel sad for you because you are stuck in a rabbit-hole by people who watched this movie in 2006 and created their little BS cultspracies. This movie teaches you how to mess with people and how politcal sides are all horseplay. Only culture-makers understand what this film is saying because Richard Kelly, the director, thought his Donnie Darko audience was smarter. Followers of conservative media who actually see the world through FOX news absurdity are numb to the profound absurdity of SouthLand Tales -- because it's talking about you easily reactionary freaks who see the world like Dwayne's character -- paranoid, amnesiac and scare sh*tless of terrorists. Meanwhile, he's the central terrorist. It's a genius judgement of domestic militant Americans today.
The people who don't see this movie as a prophecy, including a great performance by Kathy Griffith as this muscle bound feminist liberal ripping political heads (something she ACTUALLY did in 2016 much to her professional shigrin), are blind to prophetic cinema. Then again, the word Republican/Conservative are now synonymous with Corporate Environmental and Human Right annihilation, Cult Racism, White Supremacy, Sadism and greed -- so anything against that is considered anti-fascist. Don't get me wrong, If there ever was an Antifa Manifesto that American Nazi's couldn't interpret because of their traumatic FOX induced brain injuries, this movie is it. I doubt they even understood that sentence. My only contention is if this was a prequel to Mike Judges' classic comedy"Idiocracy", where the future of American is beyond stupid, I wonder what film could END the trilogy.
Southland Tales is about the fall of America by paranoia, media manipulators and toxic masculinity (even in women), who carry out the apocalypse dictated to them by elite's, literally in a bubble. I won't give away the ending...but hint, hint -- look outside your window.
The Long Shot is completely opposite to feeling I had about The Dead Don’t Die insomuch as on paper it should not work. A romantic comedy in which the lead is yuk-yukking stoner Seth Rogen and long slim drink of rather attractive water Charlize Theron, meet back up after decades apart and ‘get it on’. Only in the world of Hollywood could this happen.
All told the two leads are the glue that holds this fairly flimsy story together. It is nothing you have not seen before even if you are a moderate filmgoer. There is a bit of cop-out because although Rogen’s character is a stoner and unlike a lot of his other characters he is actually very good at his job and very principled. So actually only a little bit stoner. Charlize Theron is a tough, politically minded politician who ambitious but in fact, has a conscious and goes with what she thinks is the right thing to do despite advice from her hard-nosed staffers. So not very politician-like then.
They get together and although unlikely it is the premise of the story so all is good with me. There is no doubt the Theron and Rogen have a chemistry that hauls the movie through the sticky ground and there is fun to be had and ultimately it is good entertainment.
For me the letting your hair down ‘drugging it up’ part of the movie did not work.
Nothing much really occurs as boy meets up with girl, gets with girl, breaks up, gets back with girl, realises his failings and lives happily ever after. That is it.
Supporting characters are hard-nosed, supportive and wimpy. Again nothing you haven’t seen before. The story has it’s grotesque baddy in a well covered-up Andy Serkis going full-on Rupert Murdoch and it whips along at fair old pace.
So all in all, nothing to wrong with The Long Shot, nothing too great with it and much like that candidate who did not quite elected within a month or so you will have forgotten all about it.
