bretangell

Donald Kaufman is just an extension of Charlie Kaufman's vanity. But Charlie and friends are trying to keep it "secret" from the press.

He has no twin brother--Donald is just a character and an alter ego. Read about it in Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times article called "Twin Pleasures."

Mr. Jonze, Mr. Cage and Mr. Kaufman are playing a post-modern little prank on the world. They're trying to get a completely fictional person screenplay awards and nominations.

They can, because Writer's Guild rules allow the writer to get credit on a script under ANY NAME THE ORIGINAL WRITER CHOOSES.

ADAPTATION is an exercise in pure masturbation, and it's too bad Kaufman and Jonze bore film audiences with their mid-brow observations.

Grow up, Charlie Kaufman! You and Mr. Jonze are not smarter than everyone else! All of your observations are vain and obvious; you have no new ideas to contribute!

It's time for the movies to go post Post Modernism. It's not clever anymore.

Try sincerity for a change!

PUMPKIN is another patience-sucking exercise in preppie bashing that's way too juvenile to offer truthful insights or clever observations.

The movie's not about sorority girls or the mentally handicapped. The filmmakers obviously didn't talk to any of those people.

The movie could be about a couple of former high school nerds who can't understand why blonde chicks aren't constantly attached to their genitals, so they decided to make a movie with their buddies about how bitchy they all must be.

Well, they missed the truth by a longshot. Ricci's lover is not handicapped--he acts like a fully cognizant loner, except with a limp. Ricci's character is surrounded by a catty Mother, snotty sorority sisters and the stuck-up jock boyfriend, all of whom are tired cliches that explain their behavior by spewing the filmmakers' naive assumptions (Mom tells Ricci to "just forget about" all her troubles because "Yes, life is easy;" Ricci claims she's "Never experienced pain" before her sex scandal with the handicapped boy).

Ricci's "emotional arc" is smokescreen. The poor actress does her best to fill the spaces between her simplistic dialogue with tears, which only drowns us with melodrama.

There's no plot. Most movies focus on one action for the heroine to complete. PUMPKIN keeps making crap up as it goes along. Is the film about winning the Challenged games? Ricci's sorority contest? Ricci's membership in the organization? When is it over? The action drags on and on, moving only if some cartoon unnaturally blames Ricci for something she obviously didn't do.

PUMPKIN's filmmakers might claim this is all camp. They might say, "We made everything this far-fetched on purpose, and we think it's hilarious."

They would be incorrect. Their jabs don't poke at the truth. Every behavior is shrill and phony. Somebody like John Waters would go over-the-top and stay there with chaos and charisma. At least he'd sustain the flick with stunts. He would never bog the script down in fake lovesickness.

I'm fed up with movies like this. You've seen it all in HEATHERS, JAWBREAKER, DROP DEAD GORGEOUS, BRING IT ON and more. I officially declare Preppie-Bashing Satires a DEAD FASHION.

The problem is not Preppies. Naive Preppie Bashers are the ruling snobs in Hollywood, and it would be nice if they had some truthful insights for a change.

"Tadpole" is a deliciously smart, giddy and hilarious farce with an unbeatable cast! Why did imdb user "utahfilmmaker" hate this whimsical kick in the pants?

I'm a Utah filmmaker, too, but I reveled in "Tadpole!" I probably know this dastardly naysayer "utahfilmmaker" personally, and can't wait to find out who it is so I can kick his/her ass!

"Tadpole" really made me want to have sex and argue. That is the stuff of life! You can't beat the nuclear fabulosity of Bebe Neuwirth, John Ritter or Sigourney Weaver, especially when this newcomer Aaron Stanford undresses in front of them! I found his performance touching, and he can touch me anytime!

"Utahfilmmaker" thinks the plot is trite. He's right--it's a classically derived farce of mistaken identities and wacky misunderstandings, which we've all seen a million times before.

But that's all the plot wants to be! Why else would they cast the star of "Three's Company?"

The plot can be simple because the characters are rich. They're all conflicted in human and genuine ways. Ways that are thoughtful and engaging; ways that ask us to rethink the world and our morals in new shades. No, "Tadpole" isn't revolutionary, but it really reminded me to proceed through life with passion, and to start skimming the internet for scantily clad photos of the lead actor.

The only thing I hate about "Tadpole" is the nauseatingly pretentious flashcards with Voltaire quotes. Every other scene, the filmmakers interrupt the story with a truly obnoxious sample of Voltaire's writing that happens to compliment whatever just happened to the characters.

Barf-A-Go-Go! Talk about pandering! Those imbecilic flashcards are the signature of filmmakers who aren't fully confident in their own observations. They're trying to impress us with what they know as opposed to the unfolding events of a good story. What a horribly amateurish display of bad taste! If Voltaire had made his living through techniques so outstandingly mid-brow, history never would have remembered him.

But on the whole, "Tadpole" rocks the casbah. So boo on "utahfilmmaker!" He's wrong!