Apocalypse Now
'Donnie Darko' follow-up leaves me in the dark
MORE
At the Movies
SOUTHLAND TALES
Running time 160 minutes
Written and directed by Richard Kelly
Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Dwayne Johnson
Richard Kelly’s Southland Tales, from his own screenplay, can be described as a pre-apocalyptic fantasy set in Los Angeles in 2008. The two-sentence synopsis in the production notes tells us: “The city stands on the brink of social, economic and environmental disaster. Southland Tales is an epic story set over the course of three days that culminate in a massive 4th of July celebration.” One can say that the recent fires in Southern California given massive coverage on every television news channel provide a ready-made apocalyptic déjà vu for a viewing of Southland Tales, a longer version of which was shown to a reportedly unappreciative audience at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, long before the recent flame-up in California.
If I seem to be stalling for time, it is because I must eventually confess that the film made even less sense to me than Mr. Kelly’s Donnie Darko, his 2001 debut with Jake Gyllenhaal, Drew Barrymore, James Duval, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Mary McDonnell, Holmes Osborne, Katherine Ross and Patrick Swayze, all in all, an awesome cast for a directorial debut. This perhaps at least partially explains the favored cult status the film enjoys to this day despite a universal rejection of the unsatisfactory ending.
Consequently, Mr. Kelly’s problems with narrative logic are compounded in Southland Tales by its comparatively no-name, no-face cast vis à vis Donnie Darko. In this respect, among the high-billed performers, Sarah Michelle Gellar is vaguely familiar to me from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series on television. Dwayne Johnson as the top lead has the kind of striking face he has inherited as The Rock in a series of films, but otherwise this densely populated motion picture is mostly a collection of blanks except for John Larroquette and Wallace Shawn as two of the evil, ruling-class villains. One of the film’s many oddities is that there are hordes of female action characters, but almost no sex.
On the positive side are two clips of Robert Aldrich’s 1955 doomsday classic, Kiss Me Deadly, transformed from a Mickey Spillane thriller by Mr. Aldrich and screenwriter A.I. Bezzerides into the first screen manifestation of a nuclear nightmare. The two clips are part of an early episode featuring the underappreciated Ralph Meeker and the as-yet-undiscovered Cloris Leachman. So I must at least credit Mr. Kelly with good taste in his choice of appropriate movie memories. But then anyone who can imagine a character in Donnie Darko proclaiming her ardent support for Michael Dukakis against George H. W. Bush in the 1998 presidential election has a great deal to recommend him politically.
As for the rest, I must single out the first cinematic display of two cars copulating as a demonstration of an infinitely renewable energy source. You have to see it to believe it, but I am not sure if it is worth your time. The plot, such as it is, deals with death and reincarnation, amnesia and identity theft on a grand scale, and a mini-nuclear-holocaust of sorts to start things off with a bang. I suspect that I am too old to appreciate the picture’s pop illogic. Yet I did not find it at all depressing in as much as it roamed too far from any reality I could recognize. Hence, I can just write Southland Tales off as an example of a sophomore jinx encountered by radically experimental directors after their first effort proved to have more traction with audiences and critics than they had anticipated. Still, there is such a thing as being so radically experimental as to risk drifting into a deserved oblivion. But that’s only one critic’s opinion. Critics of one kind or another are indispensable for would be cinematic trailblazers. Certainly, the vast risk-averse public cannot be counted on to propel new artistic adventures in the medium.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Not only did you get the year of H.W. Bush's election wrong in your article, you also have gone so far as to suggest that Justin Timberlake, arguably the biggest star of music and an up and coming thespian, is a faceless no-name? So Mr. Sarris, you didn't see Black Snake Moan this year or the under-rated Alpha Dog last year, and you have not opened a magazine or turned on your television for the last decade? That's the only thing I can assume regarding your blatant disregard for detail.
Please pull your head out of 1955 classics and focus on the movie at hand, which I don't think I need to remind you, is your job.
Thank you.
Um, he got the election year right.
He got the election year right....but this article reads like it was written by somebody 100 years old (Justin T and Seann William Scott as no-names, Gellar as "vaguely familiar"...). Going through it point by point is not worth my time, but I'll single out one thing. It's terribly sad that someone has been watching films as long as Mr. Sarris can claim confusion about Donnie Darko. It's not that difficult a film, so he is either unable to understand narrative complexity, or he's being completely disingenuous. Neither bodes well for a film critic.
"...Michael Dukakis against George H. W. Bush in the 1998..." - that is in no way the correct date. It was 1988. But, more importantly, I agree that calling this a no-name picture is ridiculous. When I watched the trailer I felt like EVERYONE was in this movie, at least in cameo form.
Quite honestly, this is lazy critiquing, Mr. Sarris. For the publication you represent, I expected something more substantial. Instead, you've found refuge with the hordes of film critics who have prematurely bared their teeth at this film. I have not seen it myself, so I cannot judge but I can understand how a bias can be nurtured long before a work is seen. Either way, you specifically distance yourself from the very subject matter that makes the film so controversial. If a movie critic chooses to judge a movie by how much he knows of its actors and what references it makes, he effectively misses the point of buying into the film rather than the sordid history behind this particular one. You may want to rewatch both this and "Donnie Darko" and perhaps reconsider.
This is easily the dumbest film review I've read in years. I haven't even seen the movie, but I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about. This reads like it was written by a high school student.
So there was a "universal rejection of the unsatisfactory ending" of Donnie Darko, huh? If by "universal" you mean all the people in your livingroom, then you may have a point. But as for the millions of other people who reside outside of your residence, trust me, there was NO "universal rejection" of Donnie Darko's ending. In fact, the ending was one of the reasons it gained such a following...and the song "Mad World" that accompanied the montage right before the end exploded in popularity as a result.
Seriously, your critique was lazy, ill-informed and self-important. It was 10 times more useless than the film it was covering. For the record, I saw the film and I wasn't impressed with it too much more than you were. But that fact shouldn't give you a license to write a review as half-baked and shallow as the one you've written here.
Open Letter to the Film Illiterate
Mr.Sarris is, unquestionably, one of the most accomplished critics living today. As such, Mr.Sarris doesn't find himself compelled to appease the consumer demand for dime store "movie theorising". The addressee of this letter is representative of the demographic commonly targeted by the likes of Mr.Kelly. That is to say, that kind of director who, in want of authentic expression, fills his/her screen with pretensions acquired via the indie wholesales market. These, of course, act as perfectly acceptable substitutes for today's art-house filmgoer. If your colourless banter needs to be voiced on a public forum, try to counter its lack of taste with a bit of reverence for a man who wrote the book on American film criticism.
Well put, pjk.
How can there even be such a torch-burning intensity for this reviewer when no one has seen the damn film yet?
Seriously, kids, switch to decaf.
隔音屏隔声屏
crmsaas
A lazy review, yes, but the movie still sucked.
Andrew Sarris may have a solid fan base among certain demographics, but his rejection of two films that he admittedly doesn't understand - as well as his being completely out of touch with the current Hollywood scene, as evidenced by his lack of familiarity with no less than 20 well-established actors - is proof that his days of effective criticism are likely well behind him.