Latheman-9

In the interests of full disclosure, I should confess I have a weakness for any film in which actresses in their mid 20s play teenagers, but when two of those actresses are Rose McGowan AND Rebecca Gayheart, how can a film not be watchable? Many commenters have complained that "Jawbreaker" was very similar to "Heathers" (1988) but not as good. So what? If you want to see a film just like "Heathers" then go watch "Heathers." Although generally panned by critics, "Jawbreaker" is nonetheless a cut above most 'high school' movies. The sound track fits the film better than is the case with most others of this genre. I particularly liked the use of Imperial Teen's "Yoo Hoo", and the playing of "Young at Heart" during Courtney's (McGowan) meltdown. The use of such irony and cross reference is enough to show the makers are not taking it all too seriously, but not so much that the film becomes camp. I'm curious as to the geographic distribution of the negative vis-a- vis positive comments. My bet is that those who are more familiar with L.A. high school life had a better appreciation for "Jawbreaker" than might those living elsewhere.

I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.

Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.

Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.

There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.

The summary says it all from my point of view, but a minimum of ten lines are required so .... Director Kathryn Bigelow does have her moments during this film, using a visual style that comes close to that of her sadly under-appreciated earlier vampire flick "Near Dark" (1987). Unfortunately, the acting load is carried (or not) by three hams and a twinkie: Patrick Swayze, Keanu Reeves, Gary Busey, and Lori Petty. It's notable that the performance of the usually comically bad Swayze actually looks good in this film when compared to the others. The screenplay of W. Peter Iliff is horrendous. I notice that several commenters thought the film to be at least in part a satire, but I didn't get that impression. I think the script is just so awful it becomes unintentionally laughable. I must confess that I am at a loss to understand the rave reviews many have given this film, but it would be a very boring world if everyone had the same taste. Rating: 5/10.