MrGonk

For some reason, when I hear "self-indulgent", I think Paul Thomas Anderson. Maybe it was his unconstructive and misguided lambasting of the modern masterpiece Fight Club, or maybe it's just all of Magnolia. Could there be anything more self-indulgent than a three hour long character montage? And how painful it is. It just keeps cutting and cutting and cutting as the music keeps looping and looping and looping, and it really FEELS like a montage. Quirky as the concept may be, did any of the people responsible for putting the words "final cut" in Anderson's contract stop to think about just how exhausting and aggrivating it would be for an audience to watch a movie that moves at the montage's unnaturally rapid rate for three hours? Despite the amazing acting and (to an odd extent) well-developed characters, I couldn't help but leave the movie feeling more than just a little disappointed. The idea that the film centers around a seemingly-unrelated group of characters who actually share a common thematic thread has been done before and done better (see: Exotica). Though this film is not afraid to dive deep into each of its characters, Magnolia just doesn't have the payoff. Forgive me, but after watching three hours of largely vague and cryptic dialog take place over an unusually annoying soundtrack (that loops the same tinny violins for half-hour chuncks at a time)in order to slowly and meanderingly develop sub-plots (as there is no real main plot to speak of)that are equally vague, I want some character resolution. Well, if you want to see a movie that features well-developed characters that are involved in intriguing events that satisfactorily climax and fulfill the viewer, you'll only get 2/3 of the equation from Magnolia. And in a way, that's even more cruel than if the movie were just flat-out bad. It seems as though Magnolia spends three hours building up epically and enthrallingly to a grand conclusion and then... the credits roll. I understand how the frog thing is a metaphor for man's absurdity, and that all these characters that fight for control are leading themselves in futility and the magic factor of the unpredictable and blah blah blah... and that's all well and good, but it doesn't make up for the fact that you never know what the heck happens to any of the characters and their situations after that takes place. Oh sure, there are quick little subtle things that take place and successfully tie up the most desperately dangling elements of the plot, and there are some hints at changes in the characters, but it's almost like the movie is actually six hours long and everybody only has the first half. It seems like it should keep right on going and it just stops. Almost everything is left hanging. None of the cryptic dialogue is made clearer, the characters are not given just resolution, there is no significant lesson to be learned, and there is in fact little more than disappointment. The whole movie, you sit there and think "Okay, this is interesting... where are they going with this?"... and in the end you realize the horrible truth: nowhere. And that's when I begin to think about P.T. Anderson's self-indulgence... I can't help but think of him dancing around on the DVD documentary as he is editing the film, gleefully spouting lines about how people won't understand it. He is truly like a kid at play, and it shows, because in the end none of the work is done. He tries so hard to deliberately attempt to break every formula possible, even the formula of storytelling, which may be good for the dancing director, but becomes agony for the poor, disappointed audience. * *

On the surface, Brainscan seems to be your run-of-the-mill dumbed-down Hollywood hollywood thriller; Its plot seems gimmicky, it's got a young up-and-comer/teenage heart-throb as its star, and it seems to try very hard to be cool, presenting us with the usual watered-down and unrealistic depiction of teenage life that we've come to expect from studios: a surface depiction of stereotypical personalities, obviously produced by middle-aged men deliberately attempting to target the MTV audience, which will see through it instantly anyway. But beyond all that, Brainscan is still somehow quite entertaining. Michael (Furlong), the main character, is believable for someone caught in such an unimaginable situation. Furlong's acting style is really odd, bouncing back and forth between effectively realistic to dedpan and awkward. Thankfully there is more of the former. The Trickster (Smith), however, is nearly the death of the film. While his character is necessary to facilitate a lot of the events in the plot, I still don't see why he has to be so lame. There are a number of scenes in which the audience just doesn't know whether he's supposed to be funny or frightening. The movie seemed to be going for a dark comedy element but it just didn't come together. Despite these faults, the story itself becomes quite absorbing. It reminded me of The Game, the way the audience was led to question whether what was going on at any given time was "real" or not. It's a mystery to the very end. And the feel of the movie helps to really draw the viewer in-- the music is very reminiscent of Twin Peaks, as is the photography. And the film does what any good thriller movie would do-- puts the protagonist in a position in which nobody could logically help him, and while there are still plot holes, the surreal environment lends itself well to the suspension of disbelief that is necessary for a this kind of story. Perhaps most importantly, there is actually a point to the movie: the kid is immersed in a vat of his own medicine. The jaded, unshockable fear-lover is torn to pieces when he is exposed to true fear. The movie certainly has a Twilight-Zone-esque sense of irony that just makes you grin. It even effectively explores some philosophical issues: When Michael kills people in the game, is he a murderer? Is it enough just to KNOW it's not real when in every indication it IS real? Does that, in fact, make it reality? Add to all that a few sequences with the lovely Amy Hargreaves in some tiny little bedtime numbers (which is sure to capture at least half of that teenage audience) and in the end, what it amounts to is a movie that, despite its faults and frequent silliness, is a very entertaining and fun psychological thriller. * * *

This is one of the most incredible movies I've seen in the last ten years. Perhaps it's remarkable enough that this is Arnofsky's first major film and that it's so artistically mature and entertainingly enthralling, but that's not what really amazes me. What really amazes me is that this is the only movie I can think of that has been made in the last 20 years that I can't compare to any significant extent to any other film. While almost all movies (even the good ones) anymore are to some degree rehashed from previous stories, Pi is really unlike anything I have ever seen or heard of before. It's a true original. And the visuals, the utter intensity, and the incredible polish of the storytelling are absolutely mind-blowing by any measure, but especially considering how incredibly low-budget it was. Anybody who thought The Blair Witch Project was impressive on its budget should see this movie. My only complaint is that it wasn't longer and didn't go even deeper into the concepts it examines, but I guess we can't have everything and in reality there actually isn't any more story to be told than it already tells. Short as it is, it's still deep enough to leave your head spinning.