dxia

There is a very strange fascination with this movie that I really don't understand, and in fact, I cannot even comprehend it so I won't even try. But somehow, the general consensus on this movie has been positive, which is bewildering to me because I don't think I've ever seen such a pretentious, worthless, work of a wannabe auteur gain such praise.

Zach Braff is a bad student moviemaker. It is a fact because he shares the exact same characteristics as other bad student moviemakers. So much so that I expected him to possess one of the NYU film school's certifications to make music videos. He aimed "Garden State" at people my age and believed that he could explain our twenty-something angst with his laundry list of blatant hypocrisies.

He blames prescription drugs, he blames his parents, he blames the broken latch on a dishwasher. Braff spends so much time analyzing what's wrong with life and family that he doesn't recognize that he depends on those same things to survive. The fact is, there isn't anything really wrong with his life. He's only trying to make us feel like there's something wrong with our lives, that maybe we're the ones that have spent most of our years in a drug-induced haze. Braff is wrong, and it demonstrates how bad moviemakers are the ones preaching an agenda rather than portraying honest characters.

And that's not to say his preaching is any good either. His scenes of calmly experiencing a plane crash, the sterile bedroom, and blending in against a wall pattern are obvious suggestions of his mental state, and so obvious that it takes away from the narrative of the movie. He spends all his time feeling sorry for himself and hanging-out with his shadow puppet friends, who seem so incapable of expressing any realistic emotions that they have to exhibit an array of absurdities in order to pretend to be plausible human beings.

"Garden State" is a demonstration of a young moviemaker trying to make an important statement by contriving meaning out of something that was a bad idea to begin with. Ian Holm plays an emotionless father in this movie, and I somehow believe that he was not acting in his role. I believe he was so bored by the quack pseudo-intelligence behind the script that he felt it unnecessary to put a mature adult in his scenes.

After all, does anyone on this planet know what the "infinite abyss" is? Does even Zach Braff know what the "infinite abyss" is, or is it just another spit bubble that looks like something that has substance but is really just the foaming hot air coming out of his mouth? One thing I do admire about Braff. He was able to convince so many people that he actually knows what he's talking about.

Out of the 1200 movies I've seen, this is one of the truly awful ones that scrapes the bottom with "Autumn in New York," "40 Days and 40 Nights," and Demi Moore's "The Scarlet Letter." This is one of those movies that I paid to see and felt so cheated by the end, that I snuck into another movie. Happily, that movie was "Napoleon Dynamite," which was like a pleasant breeze that cleared the stink that "Garden State" left in its wake.

People who like this movie need to grow up.

I admit my comments on "Batman Returns" are probably biased because I have a strange sort of love for this movie, which I remember that Gene Siskel also had with "Saturday Night Fever." This was the first movie that I ever owned, and I grew up watching it. Batman was probably my favorite comic book hero when I was young, but I have never read Bob Kane. I completely understand why some Batman fans hate this movie, and it's probably the same reason why I dislike the Lord of the Rings trilogy. When you become familiar with someone's work and form your own interpretations, it becomes difficult to watch someone else change it.

But by imagining that this movie has no ties to the original comic book except through the superficial use of its characters, it's not difficult to see an odd sort of genius behind it's making. When Tim Burton created this eerily dark version of Gotham City, he was making an homage to "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," which no doubt has had a great influence on his work. Maybe it's true that comic book movies don't blend well with film-noir, but if any comic book had to be chosen to do so, it would be Batman.

I believe the reason why some people dislike this movie is because there's no character to identify with. In the first movie, we had Kim Basinger's character, who served as the movie's reality check, and we discovered Batman's world with her beside us. She is one of the heroes of the movie that we could identify with. However, the sequel has no one to guide us through. One of the qualities of film-noir is that there are no heroes, and that's certainly true in "Batman Returns."

The main characters in this movie are obviously insane and driven by their own selfish motivation: the Penguin with his self-loathing and desire to make others feel his pain, Catwoman with her intense hatred of her boss and wish to free herself from a male-dominated world, Batman on his continuous quest to take revenge for his parents on every criminal he meets, and Max Shreck in his cynical love of profiteering. The characters aren't fighting for world domination or any of the more grandiose plots we see in comic book movies but for satisfying their emotional needs.

There isn't a sense of morality or the incessant good vs. evil undercurrent that is so common in this type of a movie. The characters are caricatures of raw human emotions in collision, and it's interesting to note that the Penguin, Catwoman, and Batman don't even really hate each other. They fight only because they stand in each other's way, and as far as the acting goes, it's superbly under-appreciated.

Michelle Pfeifer and Danny DeVito give the best performances in their careers. Pfeifer discovered that even though her face is covered by a mask, her lips are all that she needs to convey the seductive malice in her character. DeVito absolutely disappears behind the Penguin in a role that is both disturbing and incredible to see. (Has any other comic book movie ever dared to create a character that takes pleasure in biting a man's nose off?)

All in all, the movie contains some brilliant cinematography by Stephan Czapsky, who also worked with Tim Burton on "Edward Scissorhands" and "Ed Wood." It's filled with strange sexual inhibition and a depressing outlook on the history and future of its characters, and so "Batman Returns" isn't a movie that will ever be liked or appreciated by a wide audience. But for those of us that do love the movie, we tacitly agree that it's the best comic book movie ever made, and we smile at all the "Spiderman 2" yuppies.

I won't hide the fact that my comments here are directed toward the people that don't like this movie, but my foremost goal is to clarify a few issues about this movie that some people just plainly don't have right.

Issue 1: The movie is gratuitously violent!

Well, yes and no. I admit that for it's time 'Pulp Fiction' seemed excessively bloody and does at times glamorize violence, but if you review the film frame by frame, you'll realize that most of the violence is implied. The famous needle scene and Marvin's unexpected end actually show less than you may think. Tarantino stealthily cuts away at the exact moment when the audience expects to see something gruesome, and everything that we think we saw only occurred in our imaginations. Now apart from those two scenes, there is a sword fight and a few executions, but none of them are as gruesome as what one would expect to see in action movies.

The reason why people believe the movie is so violent is because of the extraordinary tension that Tarantino builds up in every scene. Bret's interrogation creates incredible tension because everyone knows that it will explode in violence, but they don't know when. Vincent's "accident" is excruciating to some people because they see the gun bouncing in Vincent's hand just before it discharges. People find it painful to watch because what they fear would happen is exactly what happens. I know some people dislike this movie because everyone laughs at the violence. They don't seem to understand that the audience is supposed to laugh. The laughter is there to relieve the tension because otherwise the movie really would be gratuitously violent.

This movie is a caricature of criminals and neurotics, and the point is to watch them react to their world. Fans of this movie are not blood-thirsty and do not find it cool to kill people. What so many like about 'Pulp Fiction' is how Tarantino builds up his events and then pays them off so elegantly that some mistake it for a director trying to be cool. He isn't trying. He's succeeding very brilliantly.

Issue 2: The non-linear story is confusing and pointless!

This issue that some people have with 'Pulp Fiction' really bewilders me, and it's plainly obvious that the people who says it are conventional movie watchers who don't like to put effort into what they're watching. These mainstream movie-goers want plot points and character arcs that can be diagrammed. While there's nothing wrong with linear story-telling, non-linear movies can be a relief sometimes, especially when it's done well. 'Pulp Fiction' is a perfect example of non-linear story-telling because the movie cannot be told in a linear fashion!

Think about what would happen. The movie would begin with Jules and Vincent, but then Jules' redemption would happen midway through the movie, Vincent would go on his date with Mia, and finally Butch would have his turn. The movie wouldn't make any sense! People would wonder why Butch was introduced so late, and Jules' redemption would feel less meaningful because it would no longer be the focus at the end. But as it is, the movie begins and ends perfectly. Tarantino introduces all the characters at the correct moments, and he places the chapters in such a way that it brings more focus on the characters rather than the plot.

If the movie had ended with Butch riding away, it would have felt drab and awkward, but ending with Jules feels ennobling.

Issue 3: The dialogue is meaningless!

I know it shouldn't, but this issue really ticks me off sometimes because there's not a shred of truth behind it. It's like complaining that Mozart's music has too many notes. People complain not because there's too many, but because they're just too lazy to listen to all of it and interpret what it means. As Roger Ebert says, Tarantino's dialogue is "load bearing." Take the "Quarter Pounder with cheese" discussion between Jules and Vincent. Some may believe it's frivolous dialogue, but the information we learn from it makes a reprise in a later interrogation and initiates the mounting tension in that scene.

The discussion of foot massages introduces the imposing threat of dating Mia Wallace, and Fabi's speech about potbellies is used to hide the fear in her situation. She's trying to comfort herself with pillow talk so that she won't have to talk about hiding from the mafia. Honestly, 'Pulp Fiction' is the most quotable movie ever made. At times, the dialogue sounds like poetry. The conversations do not jump or bounce, they flow and ebb with the sounds always hitting their emotional cues. It's a rare film that can be just as entertaining when listened to rather than watched.

If you are one of those few that cannot at least appreciate how well Tarantino creates his characters and narrative structure, then don't bother complaining because I already feel sorry that you cannot enjoy the movie as so many do. At the very least, you should not criticize the movie with false and shallow comments. Because really, in the end, you're only embarrassing yourself.