Tuesday, March 4, 2014

I "Liked It" Random Acts of Violence: Or, Random Appearance by Kirsten Dunst

Random Acts of Violence is a realistic fantasy. Not a sci-fi Blade Runner fantasy, nor a psychological fantasy like Brazil. I can’t really think of a movie like Random Acts of Violence. Falling Down, but that wasn’t a fantasy – and yes, I guess you could say that Random Acts of Violence isn’t a fantasy, but seriously, it is. There is nothing realistic about it other than it is set in the real world, and it treats itself as real, but it’s a fantasy by someone who had the idea of making Grand Theft Auto into a real thing. Think American Psycho without all the intelligent acting and the intelligent film making and the intelligent and original story.

            There is nothing to the main character of Random Acts, he is just someone spouting off the script and frequently shooting people on the streets or in their apartments or in the park. The violence is well done enough that it is, through-out the movie, a bit disturbing, but story and the acting and the film making aren’t strong enough to carry the violence and so when he’s not killing, the movie is dying.

            The main character is at times rather likable in his comedic timing; his working off of the director of the documentary crew following him around was occasionally funny. The main character had moments when you could tell that he could maybe possibly be a good actor at some point in his career . . . or not.

            The main thing I didn’t like about the movie probably had something to do with my mood, but for whatever reason, I was not in the mood to see a movie about New York City. I mean, seriously, what is so flippin’ great about that city? I’ve been there three times now? It’s a big city, lots of people, lots of history, I get it. The whole gentrification thing? I. Do. Not. Care. I couldn’t care any less than I already care, and after this movie . . . well, okay I could care less because after this movie I now care less than I did before. Seriously, what is the national threat? Why the need for a movie about it? I was under the impression he was just trying to start a crime wave. Maybe I need to read Netflix more closely or something because when I started the movie I was okay until he started talking about people moving in and blah blah blah. Who cares? Leave that part out? And it was kind of funny with the documentary guy talking back how the main guy wasn’t even originally from New York and I guess maybe they were trying to say something about that, and if so they failed. Everything failed and probably a minute into the movie I knew how it would end, and when it did end that way I was completely let down. There was nothing original with the ending, and everything remotely daring that they had tried to pull off during the movie was forgotten by the lame ending.

            This is just me, but I would be more upset and offended by the kind of people who have the time and energy to gather together with their friends and make spaghetti and laugh and have fun.

            I’m not a big fan of happy people; I’ll say that right now.

            Not that I’d go on a spree against them, I’m just not a fan of them. It’s like this guy’s passionate hate of the people living around him in his New York neighborhood and all – that’s how I feel when people around me are happy. I’m less happy when there are happy people around me, miserable people around me and I’m on cloud nine.

            The movie was good enough that I watched the whole thing. The writing was smart enough and clever and funny, and the girl’s speech about her theory of if there’s a God or not was pretty good, but I felt the story really started to lose energy towards the end and for a low budget movie like this, it can’t afford to lose energy in any specific area.

No comments:

Post a Comment