Thought Chasm

it’s not a surprise that i’d end up watching this one. everyone knows i’m a sucker for dumb movies with attractive female leads. along the same vein there is nothing surprising about this flick either. everything is predictable and cookie-cutter. even the twist ending is predictably shallow and implausible. the characters are pathetic and the acting is atrocious. so i’m not going to waste my time critiquing the directing << sub-par at best >>, the story << about as top-notch as 10 things i hate about you >>, or the overall social merit of the film << impressive negative value associated with this one >>; instead i’m going to discuss the shining stars of the picture.

first there’s the overachieving, brainy, snotty, blond. a girl like this will always annoy me. she takes herself too seriously and drives me to feel i’m inadequate before i’ve even disrobed. under the guise of social hyperactivity she loses her own sense of self and becomes a compilation or montage of whatever groups she’s associated with. to her, introspection is a waste of valuable time and consequently is almost always a chore to chill with. arielle kebbel is absolutely gorgeous << if i were to go for taller ladies >>. she packs a stomach that i’d eat breakfast off for weeks.

second comes the defensive, over-sensitive, social vixen of a cheerleader. while shunning the label of stupid or ditsy she invariably perpetuates the stereotype. she’s shallow and too concerned with what others think to find her own path. i understand that all cheerleaders aren’t mental defectives, but when you immerse yourself so deeply in your own public image i find difficulty in trying to respect you beyond a sweet piece of ass. Ashanti drives this character home with abandon and tallies up major points for diversity. i’m all for it, but it was too overt for me to digest even with abs like those.

then here’s the vegetarian, hippy, peace-on-earth, pompous, social-cause bitch. she is too wrapped up in a cause or social injustice to ever discuss anything remotely interesting. yes, we have to make monumental changes in order to maintain our terrestrial existence, but choosing to avoid beef will have very little effect on anyone around her. sure she’ll probably taste better << and this is up for debate >>, but she’ll be too indubitable in her own beliefs for a guy to strive for a taste test. knowing change must happen and influencing people to make those changes is one thing; preaching is another. Sophia Bush looks absolutely intoxicating dressed in hemp. she has the type of stomach that screams time in the gym. her eyes have an aura of sex that compliments a body built for it.

and finally there’s the girl next door who’s adorable, smart, insecure and sweats naivety. she’s approachable and won’t be the one to make the first move. she holds entertaining and topical conversations on whatever comes to mind without being conceited or judgemental. she is overlooked because of her subtle charms in a world saturated by attention hounds. Brittany Snow is overwhelmingly adorable and has the eyes of an angel. she doesn’t drip with sexy, but has the countenance of long-term potential. i was even a fan when she played a neo-Nazi << see Nip/Tuck >>.

for the record i’m a fan of number four when i think people would assume i’m into number one or two. odd misconception i don’t mind perpetuating. the film gets two stars for it’s subtle humorous sequences. Brittany gets five.

**

The Hillside Strangler Murders

This film was one on the list from the same KQRS bit << see ask the dust >> and daniel spends a good third of her time on screen in her birthday suit. This alone would normally make for a quality film, but then fisher wanted to add some historical perspective to it. I guess this was an attempt to add depth or even a film to surround daniel’s nudity. It could have worked if daniel and those surrounding her were quality actors, or he didn’t spin the camera in circles nearly every sequence.

It’s not as though the low caliber performances came as a surprise. High expectations of the love interest in joe dirt and a racist border guard in babel would be absurd. Neither performance is horrible, but the movie itself would have carried some weight if different actors were chosen. Not that I had any personal objections to Daniel. Great casting at least visually.

Beyond that it appears this was a pet-project of Fisher’s. He wrote and directed this one. As the writing goes it’s simple and unintelligent. Dialog is beige and mostly irrelevant. I don’t know how historically accurate this one is, but i can’t imagine too much time spent on characters’ interaction. It’s just too forced throughout.

The directing though is at least atypical. I can’t say for sure if it adds to the film’s merit, but it does make it fun to watch to a certain point. He takes liberty with lengthy shots that spin around a room while transitioning from medium shots to long in order to follow the action. The camera creates a first-person perspective of characters as they move through sets for almost the entire movie. It’s effective in displaying multiple points of interest in confined spaces, but overused. The camera movement has a disorienting effect, but i still enjoyed it in certain sequences. There is also a layering of shots in order to create the effect of intensity. This too was done excessively and something alluring became tedious.

unfortunately for Fisher he picked a strong subject << the hillside stranglers >> and then failed to create a strong film around it. There is no believability in Daniel as a psychologist with her own practice and the other characters are too shallow to spark interest. His directing style would be more effective if done with a quality screenplay and in moderation, but at least it added to the scenes where daniel was clothed.

and a sidenote: what’s the deal with blurring when you’re going straight to DVD? all you have to do is stamp that “[unrated]” on the front and you’re golden. it’s cheesy and ridiculous. it’s not like everyone isn’t already doing it anyway.

**