Reviews

I randomly selected and streamed this film last night on Netflix, enjoyed it, and checked today to see what others were saying about it. I was surprised to find harsh words about the film, and they made me wonder why people would react this way to a well-made story like this. The cinematography is lovely. The music is so well suited that it plays unnoticed beneath the visuals – never clashing with the emotional content of the scenes. The sound editing is top notch. The young actors are all excellent. Set design is spot on for the story. No dialog is wasted. Etc. etc.

So what was the problem? My personal reaction was quite good. When it started, I expected a bad film – another sappy story about girls at school. In fact, the only scene I didn't care for was the girls "partying" in their rooms. Such a cliché rendering. But the rest was endearing. The film seduced me, drawing me in further and further as I watched. It's not revolutionary, to be sure, but why does every film have to be revolutionary? We don't hold music to that type of criteria. "Oh, another blues song. That's been done…"

Harron's achievement here is in the mood of this piece. I see people complaining about the connecting scenes, and I think about how much they must hate a film like Upstream Color or Tree of Life or Melancholia (though those films are rated quite a bit higher). The Moth Diaries is not like those films because it has a much more grounded story.

Why are people down on this film? My best guess is that the negative reactions this film received are indicative of the altered nature of film itself. The Moth Diaries takes a different tack than contemporary blockbusters. It's not The Conjuring (a great horror film), which twists every few minutes and keeps throwing shocks at you, making you squirm in your seat. But it's not intended to be. It's not a shock piece. It is a mood piece, and Harron does a beautiful job of establishing a consistent mood throughout, a mood that captures appropriate emotional content for the age-rage of the characters in the story. Had this movie been released in the 1970s, it would have found a large, receptive audience. I, for one, found it refreshing to watch a film that takes its time building mood and environment and character.

The strength of the film is its subtlety. Unfortunately, it appears that subtlety is lost on many contemporary film goers. For me, The Moth Diaries returned me to the days when movies could be captivating and sensory without abandoning story in service to "art." I liked it and I'll be tracking Mary Harron's work from now on.

Look, it's a good script with good editing and wonderful acting. In fact, the acting is the best part of this film. Everyone in the cast is tremendous. But but but...the reason I even checked in on this film is because of the camera work. I read the reviews to see if anyone mentioned it. I only found one guy who had. The reality is that the camera work almost sinks this film. For some reason, someone decided to arbitrarily zoom on almost every shot - in and out! Randomly, without any logical point related to story. Now generally you keep you hands off the zoom in film because it is unbelievably distracting. Pulls the audience right out of the film every time. In this film, the camera will zoom in, then zoom in again, and then zoom back out without any justification. No reason for it. It's like some kid got into the studio and grabbed hold of the zoom. I can't figure out why they did it. But it really damaged what otherwise would have been a much more solid film. I don't know whose idea all the zooming was - the cinematographer Jas Shelton's? The Duplass directors? If it was the cinematographer's idea, the directors should have pulled him back and made him stop it. If it was the directors idea, then they should have noticed during the first dailies that it doesn't work and reshot. Really unfortunate decision. It doesn't ruin the film, mainly because it's a solid story and the acting is so good, but believe me, when you watch the film, it will drive you crazy.

Reminiscent of Ed Wood's Orgy of the Damned, except instead of naked strippers, you have wrestling monsters. Astonishingly bad. It was as if you had actors...I mean "actors," performing at different locations, but cut together to make it seem as if they were in the same place. Like a comedy written by someone without a sense of humor. Actual wrestling commentary is better than the dialog here. There is no plot. There is no story arc. There are no main characters. There is nothing to recommend it. It has no more depth than a SNL skit, but it goes on for an entire movie. The only detail worthy of any note is some of the set design work (though note all of it).

I'm stunned by the reviews this film received. It makes me wonder what audiences are looking for. Giant robot cars, maybe? Stereo-typical heroes and bad guys (with capes!)? This is an independent film and the reviews read like they were written by a church group. This film is innovative and clever and extraordinarily well written. Sublette and Cates' work here deserves better reviews than these. I feel bad that they have to be subjected to this type of unenlightened ridicule for such a wonderful film. I suspect that the film just didn't get a chance to find its audience (which is not the Bridesmaids/Hangover crowd). Lucky is a different type of romantic comedy that successfully takes brave risks and they all pay off. On to specifics:

The screenplay was an extraordinary piece of writing. I won't give anything away, because if you like quirky independent film, you should see this movie. But, some of the scenes were beautifully nuanced. In particular, the final scene, which was an extremely difficult scene to pull off. Sublette manages to make it work. The pacing, editing, and direction are all as good as it gets. And the way the screenplay subtly builds these characters so that we believe their relationship (as bizarre as it may be) is masterful.

The acting is superlative. Hanks and Ari Graynor are ideally cast as nebbish serial killer and quirky love interest, and their performances are exquisite. I was amazed at their work in this film. The emotionality of the scenes required refined acting chops and they delivered.

I'd kill to work with any one of these creative talents and think they should be lauded for this film.

The good points:

Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography is majestic. The performances were stunning, particularly the leads. Editing was adequate for what the editors had to deal with. I suspect Corwin et al could have done more if they'd been given more.

The bad points:

The entire movie reads like bad, sentimental poetry. Poetry, to be sure, but trite, sentimental poetry full of saccharin clichés (e.g. returning to the sea, passing through doors, and on and on). The soundtrack was wholly inappropriate for the images. Sickeningly sentimental. Structurally, it was like national geographic footage + beautifully shot home movies laced with overly dramatic whispering, as if whispering would make the mundane divine..."mother," "I can be me," "how do I get back,"...on and on.

I realize some people think this movie is great. But before they attack my intellect and aesthetic sensibilities, let me assure them that I understand the movie. It was not lost on me. I get the wonder of childhood, the role of memory, the subtle grandeur of growing up, the sense of something greater than oneself, etc. But this film reminded me of Bergman without Berman. Lynch without Lynch. As a whole, I found it melodramatic, overbearing and self indulgent. Throughout, I kept thinking what could have been done with 32 million dollars, Lubezki on the lens, and the brilliant actors in this film.

I gave it 3-stars for the performances and the cinematography. Beyond that, there is not much to recommend.