REVIEW: Flower.

Zoey Deutch plays Erica with frantic energy, never missing a step with the off-beat procession of a plot. With this momentum, Flower crashes into the disastrous second act, hurling through any possible wit and subtlety. Teenage angst sits like a white elephant in the theatre.

It’s unfortunate because Flower builds its potential with a great sense of humour and the visuals of suburban complacency. The characters pop in lush colour from the set of a hazy town and the backdrop boredom of teenagers who would kill themselves for something to do.

From this overarching archetype arises classic films like American Beauty, The Virgin Suicides, Heathers – and now newer attempts such as Flower.

Erica is our anti-hero of the story, a sixteen year old who opens the film by giving a blow job to a local cop, her friends perched with a video camera for blackmail. She has the unstable sulk of an adolescent, the kind of slightly-out-of-touch with reality that teenagers can be. She seems reassured, chirpy, and Zoey Deutch plays her with such ease, comfortably digging into the gritty corners of her character. There’s a certain depth to her character that unfortunately doesn’t extend to the rest of the film, a vulnerability that doesn’t lag the plot but drives it with considerable force.

Despite how nonchalant Erica may seem, how much she insinuates she doesn’t particularly care, there’s moments like where she counts her bail money, calls her father in the closet, or dances with Luke where she burns onscreen with casual complexity. Her use of sexuality like a weapon, her indifference, and the way she talks big is underscored by the innocence of her age, the strangeness of her home life.

So whether Flower is an enjoyable film depends on its framing – if the plot is taken straight and serious, or if we give it the benefit of the doubt that the movie has a great deal of self-awareness. It seesaws between attempting to be a coming-of-age story with all the staple honesty and alienation of growing up and a black comedy film – both which fall just short of accomplished.


While the plot becomes increasingly surreal and ridiculous, the film also attempts to become emotionally more serious, reaching for some great insight as the ending nears. Heading into these two completely different directions simultaneously, it pulls the movie thin, ultimately leaving something to be desired. Here, the story is tied up with an oddball ending with no real resolutions or consequences to the actions of the characters, even though it sets us up to feel and sympathize with Erica and watch her grow. As a result, the film falls flat and caricaturizes the main character in a way that doesn’t read intentional.

Flower is commendable for its effort, for Zoey Deutch’s portrayal of Erica. It has a compelling energy, nice comedic timing, a velvet morbidness. But it tries to be too much, and by the rolling of the credits, it seems to have fallen apart from its rocket-booster start.

PREVIEW: M-agination Film Festival

The best showcase of student films is back. This Thursday join M-agination Films for their 17th annual festival, where they will be playing 15 student films (including a SAC Honors thesis). As someone who went last year, I assure you these are not clumsy films you and your friends used to make for Youtube, but relatively high-quality shorts that students spent months writing, shooting, and producing. Furthermore, admission is free and attendees get free popcorn and t-shirt. The festival will take place tomorrow at the Michigan Theater. Doors open at 7:30 and films begin at 8:00.

REVIEW: Isle of Dogs

People describe each new endeavor by Wes Anderson as more Wes Anderson than the last–and well, they’re right. Although all his films are different (at least, superficially), they each have this distinct glaze, and with every new film he makes, this glaze gets thicker. This isn’t entirely a criticism, but it might constitute a warning–if you didn’t like the last couple of Wes Anderson films, you won’t enjoy Isle of Dogs either. The reverse is also true, if you like Wes Anderson, you’ll like his latest film. Though, in this instance, the glaze might be getting too thick, or perhaps I am merely getting tired of it. I enjoyed the film, as much as one can enjoy something they watch without attachment, but the movie did not move me. It did not make me feel any particular emotions. It lacks the imperfection, the slide into the raw, that is required for a movie to get its moviegoers. Every shot is perfect, is beautiful, is placed correctly–there is beauty but not life. And this is the track Anderson has been on, and while I do not know for sure, I feel as if it is almost what he is going for, that his end goal of his films is to cultivate this kind of pretty perfection shot by shot, to make a movie without flaws. He has a vision, and with every movie he gets closer to accomplishing it, but I am not certain it is a worthy vision.

But, let’s move on from Anderson to Isle of Dogs.

Here, Wes Anderson returns to familiar themes in an unfamiliar setting. Children in love, dogs, an exhaustive chase–these are all things Anderson has covered before.  But the Japanese setting of this film adds something new and forces familiar tracts of land into unfamiliar territory. Furthermore, Anderson does not use this setting on the surface only–this setting has an affect on the plot and how the audience understands the film, quite literally. Although the dogs are in English, almost every other character is Japanese and speaks Japanese. This Japanese is not subtitle, though in some situations it is translated by another character. The audience must understand the untranslated portions by other means and often there is no definite translation given (unless of course, one understands Japanese). There are portions of the film that go entirely untranslated, and though there is never any confusion about what is happening, this creates a certain disorientation, if not quite boredom. The audience finds themselves waiting and watching, paying closer attention to the available visuals of the film (of which there are plenty). It’s an interesting decision to make, and one Anderson uses sparingly.

Overall, it is a good movie, though more beautiful than emotionally impacting. It continues to play at the State Theatre. Student tickets are $8.

REVIEW: Ready Player One

Ready Player One, is a movie based on a book of the same name, by Ernest Cline. The story takes place in 2045 where everyone spends most of their time in the virtual reality world known as the Oasis. 5 years ago, the creator of the Oasis died and inside his virtual reality he hid an Easter egg.; and whoever found that egg would win the rights to the Oasis and the sizeable fortune that he left behind. The movie focuses on Wade Watts and his search for the egg against large odds.

I was cautiously optimistic that this movie would be able to follow in the book’s footsteps (I very much enjoyed the book). With Spielberg getting back to his roots of directing fun popcorn flicks and reading about all the IP that they had gotten the rights to, I thought that it was very much a possibility. My expectations were far from exceeded.

I understood going in that it was completely impossible for them to capture the same story as the book in all its detail; but I was disappointed with where they cut elements from. The movie rushed the relationships of many of the main characters. We briefly saw an empathetic side to both Wade and Art3mis, but their backgrounds were fairly sparse; as was the basis for the relationship they began to form. Aech, one of the best characters from the book, didn’t have any depth, which sucked a lot of the excitement out of her big reveal in person. Dato and Shoto had no background at all, and yet we were still supposed to root for them and their plight. Unfortunately for the story, most of these main characters were very undeveloped and their relationships felt rushed and shallow; which made caring about them and the events a lot more difficult.

Furthermore, the movie takes a lot away from the hunt for the egg. In the movie, the challenges aren’t terribly difficult and it doesn’t seem very realistic that no progress had been made in the hunt in over 5 years, with puzzles that were so easy to solve. In contrast, the book spends a ton of time in this part of the story and shows the immense difficulty of the hunt; even for people as experienced and as well-studied as Parzival. The hunt in the movie seemed more elementary and really lowered the stakes in the eyes of the audience.

Where I think this movie succeeds is in its ability to be a movie accessible to many. Where the book was very niche and for a very specific kind of geek (me in a lot of ways) the movie does a good job of making it more mainstream. The references are toned down and the plot doesn’t rely on having knowledge of these pop culture references as much as the book does.

All in all, I think that my default response to people who have seen this movie would be “read the book”. If you liked the movie, then you would love the book; and if you didn’t like the movie (especially if that was because you felt it was thin in some parts) then there is a very good chance you would like the book as well. The exposition and world-building are necessary for a movie like this, but in the end it took time away from some of the best elements of the story.

REVIEW: Korean Cinema NOW | Jane (꿈의 제인)

“Jane,” or “꿈의 제인”, is the second-to-last installment of the Nam Center’s film series, Korean Cinema NOW, and also a film that left a good majority of its audience in a state of enchantment, wonder, contemplation, and, most prevalently, confusion.

Whatever preconception you may have about the film is probably wrong. I went in with only the barest sense of the movie’s premise, and yet I had already formed a vague idea about what the film might include: as an indie movie screened at the Busan film festival, I was expecting a cinematic, warmhearted movie with occasional moments of lighthearted humor, cozy familial dynamics between its characters, a social commentary neatly packaged into two artful hours.

However, this film defied all of those expectations. It lingers with you long after the credits start rolling, and has an almost-unsettling effect. Interestingly enough, “Jane” does actually include those aforementioned elements, but it also has so, so much more. For starters, the movie’s winding, non-linear plot is extremely hard to pin down; the narrative initially seems concrete enough, but viewers gradually begin to realize that the certain events, symbols, and images are repeated in different settings and contexts, and the dream-like side of the film begins to take hold. After a while, viewers are unable to discern the ‘dream’ from reality, something that the film’s director, Cho Hyun-Hoon, ensured was an intentional effect.

Something to note is that the literal translation of “꿈의 제인” is “Dream of Jane”. My initial conception of the film was that Sohyun, the protagonist, through Jane’s guidance, would find peace with herself while also discovering aspects of Jane’s past and dreams for the future. However, as the film unwound and became more convoluted, I began to wonder if “Dream of Jane” is less of the ‘Jane’s Dream’ interpretation than it is of ‘Jane is the Dream’. Because as the plot unfolded, I became more aware of the protagonist, and the film begins to narrow in on her psyche, becoming more of a psychological study than a feel-good movie (opposite to my expectations.) The unsettling ways in which Sohyun manipulates the people in her life to fit her narrative, or for her personal uses, all with a blameless, unassuming face, forces the viewer to take a step back and try and separate fiction from reality, and realize with dawning awareness that she is not to be trusted. “Jane” is not, in fact, about Jane at all; instead, it is a film about a lonely, manipulative girl with abandonment issues, and how she is able to mesh together fiction and reality so cohesively that even the audience is unable to see the truth.

From a socio-cultural perspective, I thought it was interesting how the film addressed topics that are taboo in South Korean culture, such as eating disorders, mental illness, and suicide. However, I was significantly disappointed with the way Jane was portrayed. I think that transgender rights and experiences in South Korea are issues that had so much potential for exploration, and I was let down by how the film focused more on Sohyun and her narrative. I am still trying to decide if the director made Jane a transgender character in order to reduce her unconventional identity to some sort of metaphor or plot device (because her lived experience as a South Korean transgender woman is never really outrightly addressed or mentioned at all), or not.

Plot-wise, I am still very confused about the logistical timeline of events. I am also unsure about the actual nature of the “business” the group is conducting, and the true nature of Jung-ho and Sohyun’s relationship. But most importantly, where does the dream end, and where did it begin? I would love to talk to someone about these questions; if you managed to catch the screening of this film, please drop a comment down below!

Image credits: HanCinema

PREVIEW: Isle of Dogs

Wes Anderson is back in his first animated film since Fantastic Mr. Fox (which was fantastic). Isle of Dogs showcases the typical Anderson cast, but this time, in a Japanese setting. The movie follows the story of a young boy who joins a crew of mutts in order to rescue his beloved dog stranded somewhere on trash island. There is going to be dogs, pubescent love, and tons of trash–what more could one want?

The movie is playing NOW at the State Theatre. Student tickets are $8.