Kaboom

Gregg Araki's breakthrough film, 1992's THE LIVING END, was a gay THELMA & LOUISE in the age of AIDS, very cutting edge, and I thought he'd go much further than he did but, then again, big things were also predicted for John Dahl (RED ROCK WEST, THE LAST SEDUCTION) at the time. Oh, well. Anyway, Araki's been on the indie scene ever since and KABOOM takes his "apocalyptic teen angst" series (TOTALLY F***ED UP, THE DOOM GENERATION, NOWHERE, MYSTERIOUS SKIN) on a psychedelic roller coaster ride to a trippy -and inevitable- eve of destruction. It's a stylish (with vivid colors you can eat with a spoon), funny, sexy, college-set CLUELESS-on-acid that morphs into a cross between Sergio Martino's ALL THE COLORS OF THE DARK and THE WIZARD OF OZ after a horny, existentialistic film student begins to realize he may be at the center of a global conspiracy with cataclysmic consequences. Fairly indescribable, free-wheeling sci-fi fun that'll leave you with a WTF? feeling. I liked it.

I'm not gonna spend my time talking KABOOM up and up. There is no need. It is, in a way, a return to form from Gregg Araki, and also somewhat exploratory, with genre. It's not his best film, but it's not his worst either. What constantly strikes me about his work is the way so many people who negatively review it, cite all the wrong things as why it's bad. It's as if every negative review of his films, and every negative reviewer is determined to showcase precisely the things which are intentional, to the film, as mistakes or reasons for it's overarching badness. Does POST-MODERNISM really get lost on so many? Case and point: The first review on this page (at the time of my writing THIS review) is titled, "Pointless photoshopped farce perpetrated on your wallet. Take your kids" I mean, yeah. Duh. That WAS the point. It's pointless, photoshopped, vapid, and....YOU MISSED THE RELEVANCE. You weren't IN on the joke and that's your fault. It's social commentary. Surely, you can understand social commentary's place in art? That statement may as well be a blurb on the cover of the DVD, trying to gather attention for it's purchase. It's not really doing it any injustice. Now, like I said, this film certainly isn't perfect, but boy do some people need to better train their eyes.

After the complex, challenging, touching and definitely mature "Mysterious Skin" (2004) I was really looking forwards to Araki's new film (And let's just pretend that the 2007 Smiley Face doesn't even exist). The trailer makes Kaboom look quirky, subversive and somewhat crazy in a fresh and fun sort of way…. Once again, a misleading trailer! Unfortunately the film itself has really none of that offer, as if Araki, instead of growing up, had been regressing to a film student again, because, that's what this film feels like: a polished and yet pointless student film! And believe me, I've seen many of those in my life! Thomas Dekker is quite likable and he's probably the best thing in the film and yet he's struggling with a story that has no beginning and no end (literally no end!)… and actually, come to think of it, no middle either! The film tries to be anarchic, dark, sexy, funny, rude, aping films like Donnie Darko and even The Rules of Attraction (which was a pretty faulty film anyway). In the end it is just too chaotic and definitely too silly to be taken seriously or to even recommend. There are very few original ideas and the little excitement in there is only given by the music and the editing, but certainly not by the story. Even the few good lines of dialogue in the script remain too isolated and detached be noticed, let alone remembered and they get lost in the ludicrous plot. What is real? Is there a conspiracy? Who are those people dressed like animals? Does any of this really matter? And actually, do we give a toss? In the end it's very hard to care about who does what and why, so basically you'll just end up waiting to see who's going to have sex with whom, (basically everyone seems bed down with just about everyone else in this movie despite their gender differences) and yet, none of the sex never has anything to do with the story. It is completely incidental and purely exploitive. But even if you take it as a sexy film , beyond its average straight/gay/bi soft-core porn clichés, it is all quite unremarkable and gets nowhere close to push any boundary and it thinks it does. In fact it all gets rather repetitive (I lost the count of how many times some character wakes up all of a sudden from some bad dream). This film might have been the director's wet dream, but none of that excitement shows up in the final product. I'll give Araki one last chance then I'll begin to think that "Mysterious Skin" was just a lucky mistake in an otherwise disastrous filmography MoviegeekBlog.wordpress.com

This film is about a young man in college, who encounters a series of sexual encounters together with weird events.

"Kaboom" is quite different from the other Gregg Araki films I have seen, in that it has paranormal elements and feels more eerie, but still has the sexual subplots to give the it the director's signature. At times feels like a thriller, and at times it is the director's signature story of sexual awakening. Despite the blurred distinction between the two, "Kaboom" is still weirdly engaging. The leads are great, they can act and they look good too, providing loads of eye candies. Thomas Dekker is certainly a person to look out for in future films. And have you wondered why the film is called "Kaboom"? Watch the film until the last scene and you will understand!

Since other reviewers of Kaboom have mentioned Donnie Darko and Southland Tales, David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, Polanski, Hitchcock, and Craven I might point out that the character, Smith is introduced as film student who is actually studying "Un Chien Andalou" by those naughty twenty-somethings Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí. Our wiki friends inform us that "The film has no plot in the conventional sense of the word. The chronology of the film is disjointed..... It uses dream logic in narrative flow that can be described in terms of then-popular Freudian free association, presenting a series of tenuously related scenes." Sound familiar? Chien was essentially a student film but one might say that it has had some staying power.

I liked Kaboom but it was certainly a bit silly, especially toward the end. About as silly as a lobster telephone. And if characters were continually waking out of dreams (and being interrupted during "spanking" sessions), perhaps that was a hint to the viewer about where the film was coming from.....