Flakes
So.. I just watched Flakes.. Anyone who has Direct TV can watch it on IFC in Theaters pay per view. I'm not sure the film was worth the 6.00 I paid for it. I mean, of course I love a bunch of Stanford and Deschanel, not to mention Christopher Lloyd, but you know. The first half was pretty excruciating. It was kind of like watching the straight to DVD release of Empire Records four, where none of the lead characters are still around, the premise is the same, and the writers got lazy. All the actors were wasted. But there were a few moments where something actually transpired.. And those moments were still pretty lackluster, other than the end, which totally sort of makes up for it.
Anyway, this film is about a bunch of ridiculous people who are such douchebags they could eat and breathe and thrive solely on the stench of their riotous sense of cynical idealism. On the plus side, Zooey's tights are cool, we get to meet the sassiest Token Sassy Black Woman who ever did sassy, and Stanford has some gems that badtattoos_4 would part seas to get hold of. Also, the "did I stutter" line took me right back to That 70's Show season 5. That 70s' Show nostalgia always makes me happy.
The premise for the film had promise... Transcendence and marching to the beat of your own drum via en vogue unwashed indie fuck.. It should've sold--I know ten thousand of the types who are just like that. Hell, I'm kind of like that (I like to bitch about capitalism while I'm shopping at Wal-Mart. Clearly, irony gets me off.) What I'm wondering, is what went wrong?
Was it that the script was better, and then was made worse? Did the director cut it badly? Did the studio re-cut it? Variety liked it. The actors are all good. Zooey Deschanel's likability is through the roof, Stanford acts the fuck out of life, and it's motherfucking Christopher Lloyd.
I also want to know why Stanford chose to do this film. Was it the script? Because if it was the script, then.. Really? Was it the director? Was it that he got to spend a couple months running around filthy, playing with a Powerbook with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth? Was it that he got to be a rockstar (because he was really awesome at it, to be honest--or, at least, I was amused)?
I don't really know. I would kind of like to.
The thing is, that this film isn't really good. It's deep inner meaning is pretty cliche at this point. Empire Records did it better. Any film that has ever been about moving from one step to another has been better.
The thing is.. It's muddled. The subplot and the plot are intertwined in a way that isn't clever so much as kind of predictable and annoying.
But the music is awesome.. The art in the film is cool, and the cereal geekery was interesting. The acting was good. I just.
I really *want* to like it. I don't *dislike* it. I guess I'm just disillusioned by it. Maybe watching a film about they type of people who don't ever really *do* anything except care about The State of Things and never really do much about them until it's time for a grand sweeping gesture takes me to a place of deep-seated slacker apathy that only a film about stoners who hang around all day paying two dollars to eat a bowl of cereal can.
However, I still recommend watching it. If only for the music, Stanford with the most hilarious hairstyle ever, and Zooey's tights. Then, there is always a possibility it's far too brilliant for me to understand. If it is, someone explain it to me. Maybe cereal is a metaphor for something I've yet to encounter, or something. IDK. But, like I said.. Guitars and tights, people.. Guitars and tights.
XO
Ashe
Anyway, this film is about a bunch of ridiculous people who are such douchebags they could eat and breathe and thrive solely on the stench of their riotous sense of cynical idealism. On the plus side, Zooey's tights are cool, we get to meet the sassiest Token Sassy Black Woman who ever did sassy, and Stanford has some gems that badtattoos_4 would part seas to get hold of. Also, the "did I stutter" line took me right back to That 70's Show season 5. That 70s' Show nostalgia always makes me happy.
The premise for the film had promise... Transcendence and marching to the beat of your own drum via en vogue unwashed indie fuck.. It should've sold--I know ten thousand of the types who are just like that. Hell, I'm kind of like that (I like to bitch about capitalism while I'm shopping at Wal-Mart. Clearly, irony gets me off.) What I'm wondering, is what went wrong?
Was it that the script was better, and then was made worse? Did the director cut it badly? Did the studio re-cut it? Variety liked it. The actors are all good. Zooey Deschanel's likability is through the roof, Stanford acts the fuck out of life, and it's motherfucking Christopher Lloyd.
I also want to know why Stanford chose to do this film. Was it the script? Because if it was the script, then.. Really? Was it the director? Was it that he got to spend a couple months running around filthy, playing with a Powerbook with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth? Was it that he got to be a rockstar (because he was really awesome at it, to be honest--or, at least, I was amused)?
I don't really know. I would kind of like to.
The thing is, that this film isn't really good. It's deep inner meaning is pretty cliche at this point. Empire Records did it better. Any film that has ever been about moving from one step to another has been better.
The thing is.. It's muddled. The subplot and the plot are intertwined in a way that isn't clever so much as kind of predictable and annoying.
But the music is awesome.. The art in the film is cool, and the cereal geekery was interesting. The acting was good. I just.
I really *want* to like it. I don't *dislike* it. I guess I'm just disillusioned by it. Maybe watching a film about they type of people who don't ever really *do* anything except care about The State of Things and never really do much about them until it's time for a grand sweeping gesture takes me to a place of deep-seated slacker apathy that only a film about stoners who hang around all day paying two dollars to eat a bowl of cereal can.
However, I still recommend watching it. If only for the music, Stanford with the most hilarious hairstyle ever, and Zooey's tights. Then, there is always a possibility it's far too brilliant for me to understand. If it is, someone explain it to me. Maybe cereal is a metaphor for something I've yet to encounter, or something. IDK. But, like I said.. Guitars and tights, people.. Guitars and tights.
XO
Ashe