Much more futuristic
I was looking up Southland Tales on Metacritic, where it is not doing well, but a lot of the positive notices are coming from big deal places (like the NYT and the Village Voice) and basically saying it’s such a mess it’s brilliant, but honestly, most of the bad reviews made me kind of want to see it more. (Italics are mine).
Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader:
“You can’t be both political and incoherent, and even though Kelly’s models are ‘Kiss Me Deadly’ and ‘Blade Runner,’ this vision of the near-future suggests a random blend of ‘Dr. No’ and ‘Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!’”
Scott Foundas of the LA Weekly:
“Southland Tales pilfers large chunks of its plot and visual style from Alex Cox’s ‘Repo Man,’ Kathryn Bigelow’s ‘Strange Days’ and Shane Carruth’s Sundance-winning ‘Primer,’ and unlike the makers of those films, Kelly hasn’t digested his influences and made them his own — he’s more like the slacker college kid who’s just enough of an intellectual poseur to bluff his way to an A. That said, Southland Tales isn’t entirely without its pleasures, chiefly The Rock.”
Ray Bennett of the Hollywood Reporter:
“The English term “shambolic” best describes a slow-paced, bloated and self-indulgent picture that combines science fiction, sophomoric humor and grisly violence soaked in a music-video sensibility.”
Desson Thomson of the Washington Post:
“May be ambitious in its genre-defying abandon, sideswiping science fiction, satire, film noir and melodrama along the way, but it’s also exasperatingly convoluted, self-amused and politically sophomoric.”
I am already planning my impassioned defense.
5 Responses to “Much more futuristic”


Rach on 19 Nov 2007 at 7:18 pm #
Are you planning on seeing Beowulf? Because I saw it last night, and I’m curious to see if you have the same reaction that I did.
brenda on 20 Nov 2007 at 9:52 pm #
Honestly, I had no plans to see Beowulf. The whole dudes with swords and monsters genre is not really my scene. Why?
Rach on 21 Nov 2007 at 8:08 am #
Well, it was satisfying in a way, but the animation style bothered the hell out of me. It was hyperrealistic (well, everything was hyperrealistic except Beowulf himself, who they completely reimaged away from what Ray Winstone actually looks like), and I was left with a “Well, what was the point of that?” feeling about it, like this review from Newsweek:
I actually went in thinking that it was a live action flick, and the style kept pulling me out of it. Sometimes, everything looked incredibly real, and then there was something that wasn’t quite, and it distracted you. Like, they had Anthony Hopkins in there, but it was essentially a wax representation of Anthony Hopkins, with none of the spark and charisma that Anthony Hopkins oozes from his pores.
The more I thought about it, it kept reminding me of Frankenstein; the desperate and continuous attempt to recreate humanity through technology. Especially since they seemed to be doing it just for the sake of doing it; there was no reason it couldn’t be 300 style, with largely animated everything, with actors. I don’t know; Alex, the guy I saw it with, argued that he was in favour of experimentation with animation styles, but to me it felt really hollow, and detracted from the experience.
As did Angelina’s gold stilleto heels. What were they thinking?
Rach on 21 Nov 2007 at 8:10 am #
Actually, this review says it pretty well for me.
brenda on 21 Nov 2007 at 10:51 am #
Yeah that basically sums up why I didn’t want to see it, plus extra for the creepiness of “naked but not naked” Angelina Jolie.