Against the Crowd Blogathon 2016: Dell's Entry and Day 3 Recap

Killer Joe

Directed by William Friedkin.

2012. Rated R, 101 minutes.

Cast:

Matthew McConaughey

Emile Hirsch

Juno Temple

Thomas Haden Church

Gina Gershon

Marc Macaulay

Chris (Hirsch) is in trouble. The cocaine he’s supposed to sell has been stolen and he doesn't have the money to pay off his supplier. He suspects his mother, since she’s the only one who knew where it was and her long broken down Cadillac is suddenly running very well. Chris needs the money pretty quickly and he’s just heard about his mom’s fifty thousand dollar life insurance policy of which his little sister Dottie (Temple) is the beneficiary. He fills his dad Ansel (Church), now remarried to Charla (Gershon), and Dottie in on his idea and all are in agreement that it’s a good one. Not wanting to do the deed themselves, they hire Joe Cooper (McConaughey), a Dallas detective who provides such services on the side.

From there, the movie gets into some even more uncomfortable territory. Much of this surrounds Dottie. We’re not quite sure how old she is. She’s not as slow on the uptake as everyone around her thinks, but she’s plenty naïve and easily taken advantage of. When Chris and Ansel can’t pay Joe’s advance, he offers to take Dottie as a retainer. Let’s just say their “dinner date” can be tough to watch. However, that’s the twisted charm of this movie. It delights in parading an entire roster of unlikable people before us and mining the depths to which their souls have sank, if they ever had any in the first place. Dottie stands apart from the crowd, maintaining innocence despite doing things that would normally disqualify a person from being innocent. This is key to the movie’s success because even though we might not readily identify with this woman-child, we sympathize for her and find it difficult to lay blame at her feet. Juno Temple plays the role wonderfully. She fully personifies Dottie in the way this movie needs her to.

Joe is on the opposite end of the spectrum. He’s cold, calculating, and ruthless. The one trait that facilitates all those others is his complete lack of conscience. McConaughey plays it with a scary coolness. He’s always in control of the situation and is more than willing to make sure it plays out in his favor. He might be my favorite villain of 2012. Of course, he doesn't see himself as a villain, but a businessman following through on a transaction, regardless of what actions that calls for.

Besides Temple and McConaughey, the rest of the cast is also great. Thomas Haden Church is perfectly dumb, Gina Gershon is thoroughly skanky (we literally meet her crotch first), and Emile Hirsch nails it as the brightest of a not very smart bunch.

The twists and turns of our plot develop because of people we don’t, or rarely, see. This works because it fosters the notion that these people are not only in this together, but completely alone with one another. Any problems they may face will have to be dealt with on their own. To paraphrase Ansel, and a very old saying, they must lie in the beds they've made. They, and we, know that the cavalry isn't riding in to save the day and ‘happily ever after’ will be an elusive destination. Whatever happens is going to be determined by these few people we've spent all of our time with.

Eventually, things can get to be a bit on the outrageous side. I've already mentioned Joe's “date” with Dottie. Later, the way he utilizes a chicken leg is something I’m fairly certain the Colonel never envisioned. Then we get to that ending. It’s purposely ambiguous and will flat piss some people off. The standard question that lingers is did she, or didn't she? We can argue which for eternity, with evidence to support both sides. For some, this will leave way too much wiggle room. I suspect this makes Killer Joe a love-it or hate-it type of affair. Count me in the love-it camp.

Speed Racer

Savages

Directed by Oliver Stone.

2012. Rated R, 142 minutes.

Cast:

Blake Lively

Taylor Kitsch

Aaron Taylor-Johnson

Benicio del Toro

Salma Hayek

John Travolta

Emile Hirsch

Diego Cataño

Joaquín Cosio

Sandra Echeverría

Every successful operation, especially those of a criminal nature, needs both brains and brawn. Ben (Taylor-Johnson) provides the former while Chon (Kitsch) handles the latter. Together, these two grow and distribute some of the world’s best weed from their house on Laguna Beach. They also share a girlfriend. Her name is Ophelia, but she goes by O (Lively). She’ll explain the whole sharing bit if you decide to watch. The point is, the boys are so successful they've attracted the attention of a Mexican cartel run by the brains of Elena (Hayek) and lots of brawn, mostly provided by Lado (del Toro). They want to partner with our heroes who don’t exactly cooperate. Of course, this means Elena and crew respond by putting their damsel in distress and kidnapping O. Oliver Stone ensues.

If you can’t already tell, Savages sets a frenetic pace from the get-go relenting occasionally to let people yell at each other. This comes complete with lots of quick cuts and a blaring soundtrack. To Mr. Stone’s credit, he uses them to great effect. They aid his story-telling in a way that’s not quite as intrusive when used in lots of other movies. There is also some pretty vivid violence which is what people watching this movie have come for.

There are two things that detract from Savages in a major way. First is how the leads are handled. Second is letting one of them, O, narrate. She makes a tremendous effort to be profound but comes off as a babbling pot-head trying to justify what we've seen or will see. This makes perfect sense seeing how that’s what she is, but this is annoying to the viewer who is not necessarily under theinfluence. Her preposterous first line sums up what I mean. She opens the movie with “Just because I’m telling you this story doesn't mean I’m alive at the end of it.” Trust me, when I heard this I couldn't possibly roll my eyes any harder.

As far as the two leads they just don’t quite work. We meet Chon first. He’s an ex-Navy SEAL. We’re fed some malarkey about how his time in Iraq has scarred him but it really means nothing other than his solution to any problem is shooting people and he has a bunch of other former SEALs available to do his bidding whenever he needs them. He stands around with a stern look on his face and disappears from the movie for stretches at a time.

The bigger problem is Ben. The first thing we notice is he has the wrong name. With his white faux-Rastafarian look, smoking habits and “We Are the World” exploits he should have the more hipster name, Chon. That the guys’ names are misplaced is too clever by half. The important thing to note is that they are opposites. O explains this in the first few minutes after we meet Ben, and the movie as a whole makes the point repeatedly. His peace-loving ways are supposed to inspire empathy. However, it has the reverse effect. I spent most of the film wanting to punch him in face only to settle for yelling at the screen for him to “man up and grow a pair”, calling him a dirty word that begins with ‘p’ for emphasis. The script going overboard to make us understand he’s a sensitive guy is partly to blame. Also at fault is the performance of Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Half the time he sounds like he’s reading his lines and the other half he’s whining. As a result he has little presence, if any. Whoever he shares the screen with blows the poor guy away. This is a major issue considering we focus on his character more than any other. 

Don’t go blaming the supporting cast for Taylor-Johnson’s lack of pizzazz. They actually redeem the film. John Travolta is great as the corrupt FBI agent in cahoots with our boys. He seems to be having big fun with the role and lights up the screen whenever he’s on it which isn’t all that often. Perhaps better than he, certainly with more screen time, is Salma Hayek. She dominates her scenes aptly conveying not only an evil villain but a compassionate mother. For my money, it’s among her best portrayals of her English speaking roles. Better than them both is Benicio del Toro. A bad wig (I’m assuming it’s a wig), 70s porn-stache, a too cool approach and oozing confidence all help him make Lado a menacing figure. He’s the kind of guy that unnerves less by the heinous acts he commits than the manner he goes about them. If the others help the movie, he makes it.

Alas, no matter how good the supporting players are we have to focus on the main characters and their story. This is where things fall apart. As avant-garde as it wants you to think it is, it comes off as a bit goofy and a lot sloppy. It’s also a bit disappointing it doesn't seem to want to be anything other than an ultra-violent shoot ‘em up, given the director. That’s probably a “me” problem. Since I knew going in it was an Oliver Stone flick I was looking for some political and/or social statement that I didn't find. Enlighten me if I've missed it. That said, I didn't find Savages to be a terrible film like most seem to have. I found it fun, but very uneven.

MY SCORE: 6/10

Taking Woodstock

Directed by Ang Lee.
2009. Rated R, 121 minutes.
Cast:
Demetri Martin
Imelda Staunton
Dan Fogler
Henry Goodman
Jonathan Groff
Eugene Levy
Jeffrey Dean Morgan
Emile Hirsch
Liev Schreiber
Paul Dano

Plot: Elliot Tiber (Martin) is desperately trying to save his parents’ motel from being foreclosed upon. When a nearby town pulls the plug on “a hippie music festival” he calls the organizers to see if they want to move the event to his town. “Inspired” by the true story of Woodstock.

The Good: Visually, it’s an interesting movie. It’s not interesting in a big special fx blockbuster way, but there’s so much going on your eyes willingly dart around the screen trying to take as much of it in as possible. It effectively captures the feel of Woodstock as thousands of people seem to be incessantly milling around. More importantly, we get three interesting stories of self-discovery. To that end, the way Elliot’s relationship with his parents plays out is very well done. Overall, the movie is at its best when it goes for the stoner vibe. That aspect supplies us with the best humor.

The Bad: It can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. It tries to be a straight comedy but unless Elliot’s mom (Staunton) is on screen it’s not quite funny enough. At other times, it tries for gut-wrenching melodrama. However, it never quite succeeds at that, either. Without the ability to commit to any style in particular, it’s not effective enough at any one of them. Finally, the music that makes Woodstock legendary is strangely absent.

The Ugly: Liev Schreiber in a dress is disturbing on a Patrick Swayze & Wesley Snipes in To Wong Foo level.

Recommendation: TW is a movie with some interesting parts but they never seem to work all together. As a result, it’s a terribly uneven watch. There are stretches of flatness interspersed with a few moments of greatness.

The Opposite View: Joe Williams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

What the Internet Says: 6.8/10 on imdb.com (6/3/10), 48% on rottentomatoes.com, 55/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 5/10