Bad Biology — B-

And I'm probably being generous with my rating. I really wanted to love this movie, as it's been seventeen years or so since Henelotter last made a film (Basket Case 3). The microscopic budget on this, however, really shows through the final product (especially since, ironically, it was filmed in 35mm rather than digital). The financiers of this movie were a bunch of white New York rappers, and everybody in it are either their buddies or their girlfriends.

Even despite that, I loved the pure-Henenlotter premise — girl with a mutant vagina consumes a trail of lovers/victims, while boy with mutated penis can't manage to get off with even the most elaborate Rube Goldberg device — until the third act, that is. The blurb on the back of the box says, "the bonding of these two very unusual human beings." Well, in the third act the penis disembodies itself and goes on a raping spree. The penis does eventually get with the mutant pussy, but it is still disembodied and the boy has no part in the "bonding." Then the ending is a far more absurd punch line than Henenlotter has ever delivered before.

Still, it is a new film from Frank Henenlotter, in his familiar genre. Also, FH was diagnosed with cancer just prior to shooting, and he says shooting BB helped him to focus on something other than his daily radiation treatments, and he is now clear of the cancer. So I feel like the movie deserves a little generosity.

I AM LOVE: Odd, unsuccessful miscegenation of thoughtful, understated filmmaking, and high, flurried melodrama, this sketchy art-house soap opera seems confused about what it wants to be. A ripe, blustery score only manages to highlight the film's underlying goofiness. While I actually found the film interesting to watch through, I'm not sure why: it is slow-paced and yet at the same time, for all its unhurriedness, virtually all of its narrative threads and themes feel both underdeveloped and -- particularly in the third act -- overbaked. There was also a lot going on here that I feel like I've seen before, done better in other movies.

Or this review I just stumbled on puts it pretty well, although I wouldn't go as far as to call the first 45 minutes "positively divine" ...



K

Restrepo — A+
An intense documentary about a unit's (very recent) tour of duty in Afghanistan, and just a courageous piece of filmmaking, masterfully edited for a focused impact. There are no judgments made, no surreptitious political agenda. The point is simply the look in the eyes of the kids who fight our wars, after their story is told. This is the reason why I hate phoney bullshit like the Hurt Locker.

double post

What was phoney about the Hurt Locker?

I haven't seen it yet, just asking because I have heard from some that it is "neutral" and unpolitical, also.

Besides being a fictional story of fictional characters, no one bothered to get any of the details right. Entering and leaving controlled zones with no regard to procedure, non-believable behavior from personnel of various ranks, uncountable numbers of goofs in equipment and apparel, the main character's preference for war over being with his family is just thrown out there and not examined at all, etc.

HL may be unpolitical, but as for its being neutral, no. It glorifies war, plain and simple, and its hero is a swaggering cowboy who plays by his own rules.

I agree with you, but it's still a good action film. The sound design is amazing.

That would also make a great description of the last Bush administration.

Well, HL found success when all the critical war films did not. Sure, it's more entertaining, but there's a reason for that.

I also hated Gladiator because of its phoniness. I'm probably the minority, but I find true history to be more interesting than fake history.