ill_behavior

I really wanted to like this film, but it is hard to defend something you are ambivalent about.

Nothing really original, the plot twists were probably pulled out of a hat before the days filming, there are lots of guns, lots of people lying to each other, lots of other films in there. Two slightly dumb, (it's easy in films to make someone tough, edgy, with complex feelings and bad-guy with a good heart qualities, just write them as you'd imagine someone slightly retarded would act) thugs kidnap a pregnant woman, and all hell breaks loose. Probably. Didn't really care. All I knew was I wanted everyone in the film to die.

Oh, and before I forget, it has a contender for THE worst film accent of all time. Step forward Ryan Phillipe (spelling?). Single handedly ruined the film for me with his glass-chewing mongoloid speak. Really, I think it would have been half bearable, but every time he opened his mouth, this inhuman cacophony wail came out instead of actual words. You could write a thesis on how bad it is, and I'm really surprised only a few people have mentioned it. He must have done it for a bet.

There should really be two reviews for this film, one for the plot, and one for the subliminal images and ideas which pervade the story the second time you watch it. I loathe using spoilers and see them as detrimental to the point of a review but to talk about a film like this they would be hard to avoid.

I will concentrate instead on the need for this film to be watched a second time, I really cannot underestimate the difference a second viewing makes, it really is like watching a different film. Odd lines like "Trevor! I need a hand!" take on completely new meaning, scenes such as Christian Bale's Trevor screaming at people who may be plotting against him are simply terrifying when watched with different context.

Brad Anderson excels himself packing the film full of literary references and images, the acting is fantastic, I don't know whether Bale was nominated for any awards, but he should have been and he should have swept the board, becoming so immersed in the character he inspires fear and revulsion as well as pity and empathy, an absolute masterclass.

The first time I saw the film I came away thinking it was a clever psychological thriller. The second time I saw it, having sat through the Route 666 scene, I came away with the distinct feeling that this was a horror film, I was shocked at how my perceptions had changed. The aforementioned scene will probably go overlooked, but is possibly one of the single most disturbing scenes I have ever sat through. Skin-crawling, and we don't need over-the-top violence to shock us when film-making is this clever.

I'd urge everyone to watch it, wait awhile, then watch it again, there aren't many films I re-watch unless for a specific reason, this should be mandatory for everyone.

I read the book, so my reactions to the film would not have been from someone who had no idea what would happen. But, it's pretty obvious from the title what goes on here.

Themes dealt with include repression, small-town life and how it suffocates, the loss of innocence and the corruptive power of sex on teenage minds as represented by stale authoritarian figures. There are no car-chases or explosions. There is a sub-plot about a tree that might get cut down.

Now, the acting. Here's my problem. The direction consists of "stand around and look arty". And that's what happens, Josh Hartnett is particularly guilty of wanting to make love to himself so badly it ruins his character. Trip Fontaine in the book never came off as such an arrogant moron, yes he is arrogant and yes he is a bit of a moron, but Hartnett seems wooden to the point you think he's more of a model than an actor.

It's a good story, there are some subtle, funny lines (mostly taken from the book), and the music gives the whole thing a dreamy, floating on air, this-is-not-really-happening feel. I think my problem, like with Lost in Translation is that people see these films and automatically think they are art because they don't fully understand what is going on, not because it's genuinely hard to fathom what we're supposed to get out of it. "Open to interpretation" is the big cop-out when it comes to explaining or defending something and thats the best thing I could say about this film. For people who think normal multiplex fare is beneath them.