Southland Tales (2006)

This movie is an underrated masterpiece that gets better at every reviewing. Yes, the performances are indeed pretty awful, but perfect for the film's purpose. True, the plot is almost impossible to follow, but this has a specific purpose too, and adds to the comedy of the whole experience. And finally, yes, the political message is garbled and insincere, but that is what makes Southland Tales a postmodern triumph. This movie flies in the face of "rational" political discussion, a concept which is more fantastical than the apocalyptic setting of the film itself. Our current political climate is basically reality television, a fact Southland Tales predicted and then exposed through its near-incomprehensible bombarding of information and commercialised images. Anyone who rejects this film is simply in denial.

Fmovies: overly-ambitious? probably. puzzlingly dense? certainly. meandering and confusing? absolutely. SOUTHLAND TALES, richard kelly's much-maligned, oft-questioned, studio-crippled but still hotly-anticipated follow-up to DONNIE DARKO is guilty of most of the accusations that critics have hurled at it.

indeed, it's a mess - but it's one of the most beautiful, most engaging, most daring messes i've seen in awhile - especially considering the fact that this is a big-studio film with such an abundance of marquee stars. but it hits on many of the same themes that DARKO did - both metaphysical and spiritual - and that's promising to me, because it's indicative of a singular focus/concept that richard kelly wants to explore in his work. i once read an essay on the cinema of David cronenberg - i can't find it now, so i'll have to paraphrase - it mentioned that the best storytellers often spend their entire careers retelling what is essentially the same story, but executing it in different ways. with only two features under his belt so far, it's premature (downright offensive, some would say) to make kelly/cronenberg comparisons at this point - but if this kid keeps digging into the same subject matter over and over, he's eventually going to produce an honest-to-goodness masterpiece. and that really excites me.

think back to the theatrical cut of DONNIE DARKO, and how mystifying and enigmatic it was on yr first viewing. then think about the director's cut - did it feel "dumbed down" to you? like more exposition had been crowbarred in, so that the film would be EASIER for us to digest? there's some of that going on in SOUTHLAND TALES, and i'm forced to wonder if that was kelly's original vision, or if it was the result of studio interference. alternatively, the director might have gotten so tired of everyone theorising about DD, that he wanted to make certain plot points entirely unambiguous this time out. whatever the case, the end result is one the year's best films, in spite of (or perhaps because of) its flaws.

i've studied the graphic novel and the website, and i intend to delve deeper into both (including the ancillary sites). i might even need to see the film again before it leaves theaters - which will probably be soon, as this thing has "box office flop" written all over it (box office mojo reports a paltry opening-night take of $37,000), and has a "wide release" that includes all of 63 screens.

at present, we can be sure of a three things: ONE, SOUTHLAND TALES has so much going on, that it's literally boiling over, and it's going to take years for people to realise what a treasure this film really is. TWO, there is a TRUE maverick inside the gates of Hollywood, his name is richard kelly, and he's going to be here for awhile. and THREE, nobody rocks the cock like krysta now.

I had not heard much about Southland Tales when I started to rent it. The only reason I was getting it was because I will watch anything with Sarah Michelle Gellar and always enjoy her even if I do not enjoy the movie. I had no idea what I was in store for. While watching this movie, I just became so, entranced. From beginning to end, I was loving every second and I could not figure out why. Maybe because it is so eccentric and well executed that it seems weird to like it for how odd it is. Maybe the performances were giving the film it's edge where the plot was so original and crisp. No, the real reason I enjoyed this movie is because it was so incredibly interesting and fun to watch, and it appeared to me as a perfect film throughout my whole viewing, when in reality it is one big mess. Yes, this is quite perfectly the most beautiful piece of junk I have ever seen, and I can not get enough of it!

Allow me to explain further for those who are unsure what I am saying. This film is an apocalypse-themed string of events that seem to make absolutely no sense sometimes as the film progresses. There are no stand out performances, only ones that intesify the artsy atmosphere the film tries to create. At that same time though, Richard Kelly does not attempt to make it anything more than it is; it seems as though the film is just there, no more, no less. What I love about Southland Tales is it is not afraid to test it's viewers. People who hate this film just do not understand it usually. They think it has no creative merit, no purpose but to see how random it can be. That is not the case. I, in my honest opinion, believe the film is as perfect as it can be without actually being any good, and that is the complete opposite of hating it. In the end, there is really a lot of questions as to why this film is so good if it contains so many problems, and that is because it does the one thing a movie is meant to do, entertain, and it does that unconditionally.

Those who say they are appalled by it's lack of intelligence really are judging the film in the wrong way. Those who say it was boring, it just might not be the film for you. I, for one, enjoy it more and more with every viewing and my opinion on why I love it so much, I can never exactly pin down. The movie is an apocalypse within itself, but masks it all with what the creators want us to believe is pure genius, and I completely respect and admire that in every way. Those are just my views, take them or leave them.

Southland Tales fmovies. So, what did I think when I saw this movie? Well I enjoyed the visuals, the tone, the soundtrack and the way the film was made (but couldn't understand why as I didn't really understand the movie itself).

Like when I watched Magnolia I was confused and disappointed, but just like Magnolia I watched it the next time it was on T.V. with little or no expectations and better equipped to understand the story.

This is not a film that can be summarized clearly in a paragraph (without begging more questions then answers).

I appreciated the humor, the dialog and of course the story far more after watching it again and again and again.

Its certainly not everybody's cup of tea, but some people seem to take great exception with movies that ask more of the viewer then the average popcorn flick.

How anybody could give it 1 out of 10 can only be explained by their inability to grasp the concept of movies that don't have everything spelt out to the viewer. This is an arty movie, but hasn't pretended to be anything other then cryptic, I blame those who went to it without reading any sort of review. Ignorance is Bliss I suppose.

Perhaps some people struggle to separate their own religious beliefs or political preferences to really just enjoy a complex modern take on age old Stories.

This is'nt a popcorn flick where you will be wowed by the special effects or rolling around the aisles with laughter. I think it is so much more then that and will leave a lasting feeling of fulfillment if you allow yourself to get on board its story.

I for one wished there was more movies like this around. Why did I give it 10 when it is not clearly faultless? Because if you truly allow yourself to get into the story it is so satisfying on so many different levels.

I liked this enough to tell you in the first sentence that it would have been a candidate for one of only two 4-star ratings I give per year.

If you are an average viewer, you will be put off by the apparent narrative incoherence, the seeming lack of center and the childish nature of some of the devices. That's all fair enough. But let me point you to two things that make it for me.

The first is that it is inherently cinematic. It makes about as much sense when the sound is turned off. Indeed I watched the whole thing through this way once and it actually makes more sense. There's lots of cinematic nesting: movies about movies; videos, narratives and disguises within. There's lots of causality denoted visually. You will find scores of quotes from other films, many more than those "parody" teen movies. And you'll discover many of your favorite intelligent but not famous actors.

That would be enough for me, but there's something else. In fact, though the story is confusing, deliberately made so through how it unfolds, it does make complete sense. It makes as much sense as, say, "The Matrix." I wish it didn't, but there you are. But its the way the story slips about that is pretty wonderful. You see, a narrative works by the way the pieces connect.

Usually we don't have to work because the way the pieces connect is the way they happen in real life: the causal flow of the narrative telling is the same as in the story. But the detective story, and modern noir changed that and now we have a variety of causal connections that can glue the bits together. Even these you don't normally notice unless the writer — as here — makes the shifts between bits cover a greater distance than usual.

Pay attention to this. Greenaway uses reference to number sequence. Barney uses progress through the sexual encounter, clever that. Lynch provides these discontinuities by having characters shift selves — a technique of discovery. Joyce — who in a way is the gold standard because he reified this sort of art through cognitive plumbing connection — depends on notational congruence. All these are exciting as getout in the hands of their masters.

But this is different, more rooted in noir, in cinema. These elements are connected in ways that only read in film.

Here's what I mean: film has evolved a set of notions we call noir. These capture two worlds; the world of the story where the laws of the universe seem to be deliberately arranged by strange occurrences, "mistakes" and coincidences to play havoc with key characters. Then there is the (usually implied) second world where those laws are manipulated and we the viewers sit. In almost all noir films, this effect only occurs in the long form, meaning that it is apparent when seem over the whole story.

Now look here. For all intents, there is no long form here, just a sequence of medium- sized events, each of which contain rather than follow the previous ones. This form was pioneered (I believe) by Altman. The narrative glue of the whole is how the segments slip against one another. We have "Magnolia" that plays with this concept as well, this slipperage. Its the connection that conveys the world. Its subtle and homeopathically powerful as a result.

Now this. Its another step forward in that the connection between elements involves changes in the way the world works. Each shift is not just between story segments that don't make sense, they don't

Note well and full: my rating of 10/10 is for the combination of the graphic novel "prequel saga," which is nothing less than the *first half of the story*, and the movie itself. I'm not sure if it makes sense to rate the movie as a separate entity, but it is wildly entertaining enough, I think, to rate a solid 7/10 or 8/10 for anyone who can lock into its satirical mode.

A word on that: it's amazing how tone-deaf some critics can be. I've read numerous reviews that criticize the movie for attempting to make deep or profound statements that instead fall flat because they are in fact trite, shallow, or stupid. Duh! I think it fair to say that at no point does any character say anything that Kelly thinks is profound; what we hear is a steady and very funny parody of exactly that. Maybe because the tone of the movie, its vision, is fresh and unique, that those who don't get it just assume it must be serious. This is part of the reason the movie is getting such wildly mixed reviews. Half the critics don't get the tone at all and hate it. Half the critics get it, and about 1/3 of those think the movie still isn't coherent enough to recommend, while the other 2/3 of the 1/2 think it's got just enough coherence to make it a treat.

So how coherent is it? *Without it's first half*, I think it's fair to say that it's confusing as hell and a challenge to follow. But we are given enough of the back story that the pieces can be put together reasonably well *by someone with decent experience seeing and reading complex science fiction stories*. I can certainly see how someone could regard the story as wholly incoherent, but that's their inexperience with this kind of story. Anyone who has "gotten" ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, PRIMER, or, yes, the original cut of DONNIE DARKO on the first viewing, gotten them enough to figure out the broad outline of the plot, should be able to do the same here (as did my companion at the theater).

There is a big difference, though, between the movie half of SOUTHLAND TALES and these other flicks. The broad understanding of the story that you can get from a first viewing is an understanding of the WHAT of the story, but not of the WHY. In particular, it is impossible to understand the motivations of the movie's most important characters, the Treer Corporation, without having read the first half of the story.

Now, here's the astonishing part. Usually when a movie is widely dissed as incoherent, the best argument its defenders can muster is that some decent sense can actually be made of it after all. Often that involves inventing plot points that the actual story omits! However, the complete SOUTHLAND TALES, the graphic novel first half and the movie second half, is not just adequately coherent, not just satisfyingly coherent, it is *thrillingly* coherent. It's every bit as coherent as its reputation for the opposite. The big reveals near the end make numerous pieces of the puzzle fall into place, and once you leave the movie theater the pieces keep on locking up, bit by bit by bit. It's one hell of a science fiction story.

In short: if you have any strong interest in this movie, do yourself an immense favor and read the graphic novel. (Ideally, read it first, but I think that seeing the movie, reading the graphic novel, and seeing the movie again would be highly satisfying).

I still cannot figure out what Kelly was thinking when he decided to split this huge story the way he d