2018 Blind Spot Series: Bad Education

The Top 22 LGBT Movies

The Quick and Dirties: Prepping For the 2016 Dellies

The Quick and Dirties: Prepping for the 2015 Dellies

Moonlight

2016 Blind Spot Series: Philadelphia

Pariah

Tangerine

The Imitation Game

G.B.F.

Stranger by the Lake

The Gay on Film Blogathon: Tee and Lorraine

Mulholland Drive

 

Directed by David Lynch. 

2001. Rated R, 147 minutes.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts 

Laura Harring 

Justin Theroux 

Dan Hedaya

Brent Briscoe

Robert Forster

Katharine Towne

Billy Ray Cyrus

Chad Everett

After a horrendous car accident, a young woman suffers from amnesia. She stumbles into a nearby apartment and forms a friendship with Betty, the actual occupant's niece. Together, they try to figure out who she is.

It's a movie with so many metaphors and symbols it's near impossible to figure them all out, especially when some of them seem to change in meaning. The film-making technique is masterful and helps pull you along for a strange ride. However, the writing of this tale, also handled by director David Lynch, is cryptic at best. The dialogue purposely vacillates between pretty good and pretty awful. After it finishes winding itself into a knot, we find it's essentially plotless. To top it all off, it ends in a baffling manner, complete with an homage to Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, no less.

When the credits started rolling, my general feeling can be summed up by the question "What the hell did I just watch?" However, I was prepared for this by the warnings that many fans of the movie and its director gave me. So I said to myself "I'll bite." I waited a day or two and sat through it again. Some things became clearer upon second viewing. In particular, the ending became transparent. This time, when the credits rolled, so did my eyes.

Lynch fans and their warnings came to mind again: "You might not get it the first few times you watch." That's troublesome for me. It's like foods that people say are "an acquired taste." When someone says that, I hear "it doesn't really taste that good but since we're convinced it's a delicacy I just kept eating it until I convinced myself I like it." Maybe by my fifth or sixth viewing I'll swear by this movie like lots of other folks. However, I must apologize to all David Lynch fans out there. The fact is, I just don't want to keep watching it until I like it. And I'm not going to be one of those people who says it's great just because everyone else does.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

Dallas Buyers Club

Directed by Jean-Marc Vallee.

2013. Rated R, 117 minutes.

Cast:

Matthew McConaughey

Jared Leto

Jennifer Garner

Denis O'Hare

Steve Zahn

Kevin Rankin

Michael O'Neill

Dallas Roberts

Griffin Dunne

Deneen Tyler

Our saga starts in Dallas, Texas in 1985. Back then, AIDS was still thought of as something that affected primarily, exclusively by some, homosexual men. So of course, shock and disbelief are the first emotions felt by Ron Woodroof (McConaughey) when he is told he has acquired the disease and will probably die within the next thirty days. After all, he's a hard drinkin', coke sniffin', rodeo ridin' cowboy/electrician that strictly into women. Two at a time, if he can get them. It doesn't help that the gay community was openly frowned upon, more likely to be attacked than welcomed into a bar where straight folks hung out. Therefore, it's no surprise that once Ron's friends learn of his plight they ostracize him. He can't even hold onto his job. However, he's an enterprising sort. Despite it not yet being approved by the FDA, he manages to get his hands on the AIDS treatment drug AZT while it is in its developmental stages. When that doesn't work, he finds himself in Mexico where a shady doctor has prescribed him a cocktail of vitamins and drugs from other countries. When that works, keeping him alive well beyond thirty days, he enters into business with the doctor and begins smuggling these things into the U.S. and selling them in Dallas. As his local business partner, he surprisingly takes on Rayon (Leto), an openly gay man who also has AIDS and is hoping to save enough for a sex change. Less surprisingly, he also takes a liking to Eve, the doctor who cared for him when he was first diagnosed. Eventually, Ron takes the FDA head-on about their practices and which medicines should and should not be approved. This is based on a true story.

A lot has been made of the acting in this movie. Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto took home Oscar gold for their roles. I won't begrudge either of them as they both performed excellently. McConaughey's physical transformation is nothing short of startling. He really does appear to be withering away. More than that, he fully embodies the character. Woodroof's backward views, as they are shown here, come spilling out of him even when he isn't saying anything. That isn't often, because he says a lot and never bites his tongue. He's also a guy with a quick temper. More than any of that, he's a survivor. We feel his hustler's spirit as he does whatever is necessary to go on living. On the other hand, Rayon is trying to survive, but he has some quit in him. He needs Ron to push him and make him continue fighting. It's a battle that bonds the two even as it constantly wages. Leto completely disappears within the character. For my money, he is by far the most sympathetic figure in the movie.

The fact that I feel more for Rayon than for Ron is where my problems with this film begin. I don't like Ron. Truth told, I don't have to like the protagonist to like the movie. In this case, however, the movie is kind of dependent on the viewer getting in his corner and rooting for him because he's become such a great guy. That's hardly the case, at least the way its depicted here. He's a guy who acquired a disease and exploited other people with the same affliction for profit. At no point, do I feel like his mindset has changed. Therefore, his actions and the end don't quite match up with the man he seems to still be. He still appears to be homophobic, a bit racist, and all greed even as his cause eventually takes on a magnanimous tone. Sure, he cares for Rayon, even takes up for him in public in occasion. However, it doesn't feel like he's changing his attitudes towards gays, but that this is his one gay friend. It feels much the same as a white racist not understanding he can be called such when he has one black friend. By the time his battle with the FDA escalates it feels more to me like a guy trying to keep himself both alive and out of jail rather than a man that is working for the good of the people.

Because of my issues with Ron, Dallas Buyers Club is a very uneven watch for me. On the one hand, I have to marvel at the performances turned by McConaughey and Leto. Both men turn in amazing work. From a technical standpoint, many other things work well, too. The movie has a great look to it, and the tone is spot-on with what's going on. Still, I can't equate what this man accomplished with heroism the way the movie wants me to. Did he do some good things? Sure. It would be foolish to say that he didn't or that they weren't impactful. They were. The fact they were helpful to many people seems to be something that happened to come along with the fulfillment of his own selfishness than any truly altruistic intentions. At making me believe otherwise, the movie fails. To be fair, the movie does an excellent job of painting the FDA in a negative light. Their greed is also readily apparent. I just didn't see what Ron was doing as entirely different. What it all boils down to is that while I recognize a number of good things going on, including the simple fact that what happened is important, the film as a whole doesn't connect with me.

Blue is the Warmest Color

Directed by Abdellatif Kechiche.

2013. Rated NC-17, 179 minutes.

Cast:

Adele Exarchopoulos

Lea Seydoux

Salim Kechiouche

Aurelien Recoing

Catherine Salee

Benjamin Siksou

Mona Walravens

Alma Jodorowsky

Anne Loiret

Benoit Pilot

Adele (Exarchopoulos) is your typical high school student. She seems to be a fringe member of the in-crowd. this isn't some all-powerful elite crew like in movies for teenagers. It's just a group of girls who seem like they're the cool kids. They hang out together at school, talk a lot about their sex lives and exert a bit of peer pressure on each other about it. So when they tell her that a cute guy has a crush on her, the news comes with advice on how she should handle the stiuation. She pursues him and sure enough, winds up in bed with him. In the immediate aftermath, we see that something's amiss. She seems conflicted about the event. Her issue isn't whether or not she should've done such a thing. We can presume she was not a virgin before this. It appears she's not sure she really enjoyed it and doesn't know why.

Things would soon change. Adele decides to hang out with a gay male friend from school. He takes her to a nightclub full of guys where she stays for a while. Eventually, she wanders off on her own and finds herself in a lesbian bar. There she meets the blue-haired Emma (Seydoux), a budding artist and college student. The two hit it off right away. Emma pursues our heroine and before you know it, the two are in a committed relationship. We follow them for an unspecified number of years, well into Adele's adult life.

One thing that sets this apart from other movies about same sex relationships is that that is not the focus of the narrative. Early on, there is some hesitance on Adele's part as she comes to grips with her sexuality and a bit of cruelty suffered at the hands of her school friends when they only suspect she's a lesbian. However, that passes quickly. For the rest of the film we focus on fairly universal themes. Adele struggles with her place in Emma's life as Emma advances in her career as an artist, has friends more sophisticated than her, and an uncomfortably chummy relationship with an ex. She fears being left behind as Emma outgrows her. At times, she also feels neglected. On the opposite side of the coin, Emma is driven, climbing the ladder of success, and proud to have Adele in her corner. Unfortunately, she's somewhat oblivious to Adele's concerns. Adele hasn't verbally communicated her feelings and Emma hasn't picked up on them. Both Exarchopoulos and Seydoux give wonderful performances conveying their characters' emotions and motivations.

Normally, watching a three hour movie has me looking for things that should've been cut. I'm speaking to you, Peter Jackson. In this case, I actually found places where things could be added. Most important of these is finding out how Adele's parents feel about her relationship. I've already mentioned that the fact the couple in question is a lesbian one is not the movie's main focus. However, judging by the reaction of Adele's friends, the climate toward homosexuals isn't completely friendly, either. This is confirmed by the fact that Adele hides the fact that she is in a lesbian relationship when she introduces Emma to her parents. She presents it as a platonic friendship between two straight girls. Following this scene, her mom and dad just disappear from the movie. I'm not saying they have to disapprove of their daughter's lifestyle to create some massively melodramatic scene, but they should at least have knowledge of it and acknowledge it in some way. Without their input, there seems to be a gaping hole in the narrative of Adele's life. This is especially true when, just a short while later, we're shown that she has moved in with Emma. We're left to assume her parents are still in the dark about her relationship. This doesn't seem logical unless it were something that was expressly communicated to the viewer.

Delving into the parents' feelings may have placed more emphasis on the fact that our lovebirds are of the same sex than what was wanted. However, that is clearly the visual focus of the film. There are a number of sex scenes and they are almost all lengthy and graphic. It gets dangerously close to all out porn, if it isn't already that. It's hard to believe we aren't seeing actual sex. The way these scenes are shot, I wonder how it's possible that they are not doing what it looks like they are. Even during the one hetero sex scene we're shown something not seen in American movies outside of the adult industry: an erection. Cinematically, if there is a place to shave the runtime, it is here. Most of these scenes can be cut in half, if not reduced by two-thirds and change absolutely nothing about the movie. Of course, my inner-pig won't let me actually suggest that, so deal with it.

When the closing credits roll, we realize we might not be at the end. Ignoring the obvious, that we're told this is chapter one of two, the film concludes in such a way that suggests there could be more. I say could because if this were to be a standalone film then it functions as a fully self-contained unit. We've ridden the roller coaster of a relationship and come to a satisfactory finish. On the other hand, we can see there is possibly lots more to tell. What closes the movie could be interpreted as the chance for a new beginning, or at least a restart. We enjoy the ride we've had up until now and hope there is more to come.

How to Survive a Plague

Directed by David France.

2012. Not Rated, 120 minutes.

Cast:

Bob Rafsky

Larry Kramer

Jim Eigo

Iris Long

David Barr

Mark Harrington

Bill Bahlman

Gregg Bordowitz

Dr. Ellen Cooper

Franke-Ruta Garance

In the late 1970s, AIDS became a known disease and it seemed to only affect gay men. By the early 1980s it had become an epidemic and a death sentence for the stricken. Hundreds of thousands of people were dying around the world on an annual basis. The development of effective medication was slow. How to Survive a Plague is the story of a group of activists, collectively known as Act Up, who fought to expedite the process.

The people of Act Up diligently filmed seemingly everything they did. As a result we get a documentary that tells its story mostly through actual footage, relying very little on interviews and less prone to the possible misrememberings of the people involved. There is not only video documentation of their rather public protests and run-ins with public figures, but of many of the group’s private meetings. This is where the movie’s real power lies. Though it is present, this isn't another documentary built upon a bunch of seniors reminiscing on the good ol’ days.

In this case, the ol’ days were actually pretty bad. The situation was bleak and spreading as the world slowly came to realize anyone could become infected with AIDS. Act Up formed out of a mass sense of urgency. That urgency is poignantly conveyed by the use of all that footage I mentioned. We see on the faces, and hear in the voices of the people involved, real emotion, real passion for the work they’re doing. It’s hard for the viewer to not root for them. Also helping in that regard is an ominous ticker that marks the passing of each year by displaying how many people had died of the disease to that point.

During the course of the movie, we’re introduced to a number of dynamic personalities. Some of these people have succumbed to the disease and are no longer with us. Nonetheless, we can understand why these folks became leaders of a movement. We see how much their lives, and in some cases, their deaths impacted the community and their cause.

Perhaps best of all, we learn that Act Up and its leadership weren't always right and they most certainly were not always operating in harmony. We see rifts form within the organization, even to the point some very prominent members of the group break off and do their own thing. Among those that remain, we witness more in-fighting as their best efforts seem to be going for naught and they try to come up with new strategies. It eventually comes to light that the sheer panic that drove them in the early days led them to push for things that may not have been all that beneficial.

The movie ends in 1996 after a major medical breakthrough. Despite growing up in New York City, where the group was based, much of this happened on the very edges of my periphery awareness. This is particularly true of the stuff from the 80s as I was very young and had only the knowledge of AIDS that most regular junior high and high school kids of that era possessed, which isn't much. I heard about AIDS protests in the city, but not much more than that they happened. From this outsider’s point of view, it seems two topics are wholly missing from Plague. This first is how basketball legend Magic Johnson contracting HIV affected their cause, if at all. Magic’s announcement marked a tectonic shift in the way many people though about the disease. He himself, become a crusader for finding a cure and joined a presidential committee. Did any of this matter to Act Up? Did it help them, hurt them, or neither?

The other topic is the country’s, even the world’s, changing outlook on and attitude toward homosexuals and homosexuality. From the time AIDS was discovered until ’96, I’d like to think the world became a bit more enlightened and/or tolerant. Again I’m left wondering how the people of Act Up felt about this. Granted, the main point of the movie is their battle for effective medication, but those things could easily fit into the narrative.

Despite the absence of these issues, Plague is still an enthralling documentary. Its story is very well told. It is also a reminder that even though AIDS isn't the immediate nailing up of the coffin it once was, it’s still out there and plenty of people continue to die from it. That said, this showcases a remarkable group of human beings who helped make the world a better place.

Side Effects

Directed by Steven Soderbergh.

2013. Rated R, 106 minutes.

Cast:

Rooney Mara

Jude Law

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Channing Tatum

Vinessa Shaw

Ann Dowd

Polly Draper

David Costabile

Mamie Gummer

Having most recently tackled the super secret agent flick (Haywire) and the stripper movie (Magic Mike), director Steven Soderbergh now wrestles with the psychological/medical thriller. That means someone ends up dead fairly early. We know who did it. We just have to figure out the how, the why and if the person who did it is ultimately responsible. That who is Emily (Mara). She has been holding down the fort while waiting for her husband Martin (Tatum) to come home from prison after being convicted of insider trading. For her, this is even tougher than it is most in a similar situation because she suffers from severe depression. As one person puts it, she’s been putting on a brave face. However, shortly after Martin gets out she starts having dangerous episodes. The first of which, purposely ramming her car into a brick wall, puts her under the care of Dr. Jonathan Banks (Law). He prescribes her some medication and that’s when all the fun begins: more suicide attempts, some hardcore sleepwalking and, ultimately, murder.

The good doctor seems most affected by all the goings on. Since the case involves a brand spanking new and very high profile drug, he’s constantly hounded by the media. He loses his practice and is in the midst of losing his family as some very ugly things about his past begin to surface. Maintaining they’re not true, he sets out to expose the truth. Jude Law handles the role solidly, if unspectacularly. Of similar caliber in performance is Catherine Zeta-Jones as Dr. Victoria Siebert, Emily’s former shrink. She lets her ‘look at me, I’m smart’ glasses and vividly painted lips do most of the heavy lifting. Tatum, now a Soderbergh regular, doesn’t have much to do until it’s decided he can’t have anything to do at all. Hint.

The shining star is leading lady Rooney Mara. As with her outstanding turn in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, she gives us a thoroughly damaged young woman. Like the people in the movie, it takes a long while to figure out if she’s a victim or creator of her circumstances. Is she possibly both? Mara wrings every ounce of emotion she can from the character keeping us on our toes.

Of course, Mara is greatly aided by Soderbergh. The man simply makes beautiful looking movies. Side Effects is no exception. It’s filled with both subtle and bold touches that congeal into exquisite frames. Unfortunately, the story eventually reveals itself to be too generic for him to elevate to greatness. We figure things out too soon because it feels like any number of Basic Instinct clones. The two things that might be considered twists are hardly unexpected. Still, the director’s craftsmanship and the star turn by Mara make for a good first hour or so. After that it devolves into too familiar territory.

The Skin I Live In

Directed by Pedro Almodóvar.

2011. Rated R, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Antonio Banderas

Elena Anaya

Marisa Paredes

Jan Cornet

Roberto Álamo

Blanca Suárez

Susi Sánchez

Bárbara Lennie

Eduard Fernández

If you’re familiar with the work of director Pedro Almodóvar then, like me, you’ve seen some wonderfully warped films. Strained relationships between parent and child is one commonly occurring aspect. Others are betrayal and sexual identity. Though the two are always present, they don’t necessarily have anything to do with one another. Their importance to each tale varies. The stories are expertly told psychological dramas at their core and branch out into mysteries, revenge fables and other tragedies. The Skin I Live In both follows suit and ups the ante by including elements of horror.

Dr. Robert Ledgard (Banderas) is a popular and wealthy surgeon working on something very important. During a lecture, he informs them he’s been successful in creating an artificial skin that is resistant to burns and insect bites. He says this is integral to the field of reconstructive surgery for burn victims and people with skin disorders. He also tells them he’s been testing this on lab mice with amazing results. However, we learn that he’s really been testing this on a woman he’s been keeping captive in a room adjacent to his bedroom at his estate. Her name is Vera (Anaya) and, perhaps understandably given the circumstances, she’s suicidal.

It is instantly apparent that the two have developed an odd relationship. He watches her from his room, operates on her when needed and seems to genuinely care for her. Though willing to kill herself, she appears on the verge of Stockholm Syndrome, either falling in love with her captor or cunningly making a play for her escape. Through Robert’s trusted servant Marilla, played by Almodóvar regular Marisa Paredes, that Vera bears a possibly unhealthy resemblance to his late wife. To say anything more would be spoiling things.

Trust me, the stuff that follows deserve not to be spoiled. Our journey is a winding trail down the path of the bizarre. Emotions, motives and desperation repeatedly collide with disastrous results. The ethics of any of these people is shaky at best, to begin with. They get completely tossed aside in favor of easing one’s own pain.

To say things spiral out of control is a massive understatement. It would be more accurate for me to say The Grand Canyon is just a hole. The degenerating lives of these people keep us watching in wide-eyed and slack-jawed amazement. Even after we figure out the massive twist about midway through, we just have to know where this is going. When we finally get to the last scene, the depth of all that has occurred to that point sinks in. It’s a moment that the people involved need to be a happy one, but it’s far more chilling and completely beyond the scope of their comprehension.

Through it all, Antonio Banderas gives a superb performance. He’s morose, yet oblivious to the fact since he’s secure that what he’s doing will bring about happiness for all involved. Even as Marilla warns him and pleads with him, he’s dismissive of the idea he could be in the wrong. His logic is simple: Trust me, I’m a doctor and I know what I’m doing. Paredes as Marilla and Anaya as Vera are similarly brilliant making this a very well-acted movie.

If there is a drawback to TSILI is that for some viewers, the envelope is pushed too far. Not merely strange, things can get repulsive at multiple points along the way. Sometimes one already loathsome act becomes worse in retrospect. For instance, there is a rather graphic rape scene. In itself, it could be difficult to sit through. Thirty minutes later, after we’ve gleamed more details, it becomes even more horrific. To put it bluntly, if you’re not already a fan of Almodóvar’s work you may be in for the shock of your life. If you can get past that, you’ll find a terrifically twisted tale that’s uncomfortable in a good way. Then again, you may not make it through the whole thing, wish you’d never started and say a prayer for all of us sick souls singing its praises.

J. Edgar

Directed by Clint Eastwood.

2011. Rated R, 137 minutes.

Cast:

Leonardo DiCaprio

Armie Hammer

Naomi Watts

Judi Dench

Josh Lucas

Lea Thompson

Christopher Shyer

Dermot Mulroney

Ken Howard

Geoff Pierson

Jeffrey Donovan

The life and times of the famed first director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio). He’s reciting his memoirs to various bureau agents serving as typists. His recollections start in 1920, or thereabouts, a short while before he would get the job he literally kept for the rest of his life. He tells his story in grand fashion, sure to highlight the bureau’s successes along the way. Of course, he’s also sure to claim credit for them, whether deserved or not. If it were up to him, this movie would be an unabashed puff piece, a love letter to both the organization he loves and to himself.

Alas, it’s up to director Clint Eastwood. Since that’s the case, Hoover’s memories are spliced with flashbacks to things the lawman would likely never speak of. There are two main subjects explored. First is his blatantly Oedipal relationship with his mother, played by the always awesome Judi Dench. Second is the relationship he carried on with Clyde Tolson (Hammer), the man he hired to be the FBI’s assistant director despite dubious qualifications. The two are portrayed as having a friendship with a homosexual slant, if not a full blown romance. That’s because whether or not their interactions are strictly platonic or not is a murkier issue. If we are to believe the film, there is hand-holding and come-hither looks exchanged over the years, but nothing more.

Leonardo DiCaprio does an excellent job showing us a man who strains to repress his nature and masks his insecurities with a rigidly formal persona and shameless bullying of anyone he could, including the various Presidents of the United States he served under. This makes him a bellowing contradiction. He’s a man dedicated to bringing the nation’s criminals to justice yet totally unethical in his efforts to keep his job. He rabidly protects the sanctity of America yet seemed to detest freedom of speech. DiCaprio ably puts these complexities front and center.

Still, the performance isn’t quite what it could be. Part of this is no fault of the actor’s. The makeup betrays him and does the same even more egregiously to Hammer. Whenever either is shown as an old man, which is quite often, they look distractingly bad. The other night I caught a glimpse of what is perhaps Eddie Murphy’s last great comedy, Coming to America. In it, Murphy and buddy Arsenio Hall play something like a dozen characters between them. Even though the movie is over twenty years old, the makeup jobs still look good. In fact, they’re outstanding on several and very good on all but one, the lady in the nightclub that Hall plays. However, if you’ve seen it, you may agree it wasn’t supposed to look believable for that scene. Here, DiCaprio and Hammer are supposed to be believable. They’re supposed to represent the two men getting older. Sadly, they look deformed rather than aged. They are too plainly buried beneath pounds of immobile, seemingly hardened rubber that’s been glued to their faces. It’s hard to buy into the illusion we’re watching gentlemen in their twilight years when they look as if they’re struggling to move their lips beneath the weight of their prosthetics.

Another issue is that the movie seems to dislike its protagonist. Thankfully, this keeps it from being an exercise in hero worship. However, it may go too far in the other direction. The effect is it feels like it is less interested in informing us than it is in embarrassing Hoover. We’re never sure why even the people closest to him like him. It seems a miracle that only one person appears happy when he dies.

As biopics go, J. Edgar is a mixed bag. It wants to expose him, but is frustratingly vague about certain aspects of his life. Good things that he’s done, most notably a centralized finger printing system, are downplayed as mere strokes of his ego. The impact of all the advancements in law enforcement under his watch is hard to gauge. So is the stuff the movie seems to want to tell us. It’s entertaining in spots but never captivates us beyond how bad the characters look.

The Roommate

Directed by Christian E. Christiansen.

2011. Rated PG-13, 91 minutes.
Cast:
Leighton Meester
Minka Kelly
Cam Gigandet
Aly Michalka
Danneel Ackles
Billy Zane
Frances Fisher

Tomas Arana
Lauren Alfano

Although a college student, Sara (Kelly) is pretty dense. She’s the last co-ed on campus to realize that her new roommate Rebecca (Meester) is a few assignments short of a syllabus, if you know what I mean. Within thirty seconds of the two meeting, Rebecca becomes obsessed with Sara. Actually, obsessed is putting it mildly. She also becomes violent against anyone who spends any time with Sara. As you might imagine, Rebecca isn’t very popular.

For the next 90 minutes or so, we get a very tame and much dumber version of Single White Female. That movie is bolstered by a gutsy, decidedly adult tone even if it is merely a riff on Fatal Attraction. Bridget Fonda is sufficiently suspicious and eventually afraid of her roomy, as we are. It lacks much restraint and goes for gold whenever possible. The best thing it has is a skillful and deliciously over the top performance from Jennifer Jason Leigh in the psycho chick role. All of these things add up to a guilty pleasure. On the other hand, The Roommate is a watered down, stupid PG-13 rated mess inhabited by non-descript actors giving bland performances. This assessement excludes Billy Zane as the faux-chic, ultra-sleazy fashion design instructor. He's far from bland. Then again, hasn’t Billy Zane become a warning sign that you’re watching a bad movie?

Anyhoo, stupidity isn’t inherent is the premise of The Roommate. We’ve been thrilled by plenty of these types of movies. Stupidity comes from the handling of that premise. Having one character not realize something about another often works. It doesn’t work when the unknowing character is completely oblivious to even the most obvious signals. That’s just plain frustrating. Speaking of stupid, there’s Sara’s binge-drinking buddy Tracy (Michalka). I won’t say exactly what happens to her but it’s an uninspired take on a certain iconic scene in the classic Psycho. Yes, compared to that and most other films that label themselves “horror” and/or “thriller” Tracy’s ordeal is quite tame. The stupid part is she has a choice between two actions that most of us would take, or a third choice that only the most timid among us would even entertain. Of course, she shows all the backbone of a jellyfish then mostly disappears from the movie. I wouldn’t be surprised if the bigger girls aren’t still taking her lunch money.

If there is one daring thing The Roommate does it’s that it takes the lesbian subtext of SWF and pushes it to the forefront. Even this is botched, though. It’s not necessary to the plot or done with any other meaningful purpose. It’s simply there to try and recapture our attention with the most risqué thing the restrictive PG-13 rating will allow, a few seconds of a two pretty girls kissing. By the way, neither of which is Minka Kelly, so don’t get your hopes up. If anything, this serves as a reminder that this is a mostly a bloodless, sexless affair that can’t even manage to excite us horndog guys in the audience or scare anyone who has ever had a sibling or friend jump out at them and scream “boo!”

The Roommate is fairly unwatchable. It’s not good in any way, shape or form. It also lacks the balls to go all out and become a so bad it’s awesome experience. Instead, it just grates on you with its idiocy and predictability. We don’t like our heroine as much as we just can’t believe how dumb she is. As for our villain, Meester gives a game effort in the role but doesn’t seem like someone we can’t handle. Here’s an idea: skip this, find a copy of SWF and watch that, instead.