MYST #1: John Dies at the End

John Dies at the End:

Review by Nicky Nocerino

     I actually had several different movies I was trying to decide watching for this review, I even watched Silence of the Lambs in preporation to do a review on it. All of that changed when me and some friends decided to watch some random movie we found on Netflix with a wierd name. This movie was, of course, John Dies at the End, one or the most facinatingly wierd movies I have ever seen.

     Director Don Coscarelli, know for movies such as Bubba Ho-Tep, a movie in which a retired Elvis Teams up with JFK to fight of the curse of an ancient mummy, really holds nothing back with this movie, making it one of the most memorable movies I have ever seen. The dialogue, plot, and characters are all rediculously over the top in way so that if they had held back even a little bit it would not have worked at all, but they didn't hold back and it is spectacular.

    Based on the book by the same name, John Dies at the End starts off with our main character Dave (Chase Williamson) sitting in a chinese restaruante monologuing to himself about how crazy his story is and how the man he is waiting to meet will not believe it. Arnie (Paul Giamatti) a newspaper reporter shows up and, what do you know, doesn't believe him at first. This sets the stage of feeling a little dry, but things start getting interesting  after he gives Arnie the standard run of showing of some of his powers to prove his story. From here the story is mostly told as flashbacks while Dave tells Arnie what happened.

     From here on the film really catches its stride as it shows one of Dave and John's(Rob Mayes) ghost hunting "jobs" and then the story of how they got their abilities, refered to in the film as effects and side effects. The film really shines here as it explains just enough about the source of these ablities, a drug called "Soy Sauce", for the audience to be able to understand its effects, but not enough to understand anything else about the drug. This lends some element of mystery and confusion to this movie, which in any other movie I would consider a flaw, but here it really fits the schitzophreic tone of the film. The way in which this drug is introduced also follows the theme of mystery, as the only link to where the soy sauce came from, a rastafarian drug dealer who only identifies himself as Robert Marley(Tai Bennett) soon disapears, along with any chance of its origins begin explained. Most of this part of the movie consists of Dave attempting to understand what is going on with the soy sauce, but here the film goes a very interesting angle. Instead of giving Dave the answers he wants it becomes more and more clear that the answers do not exist, forcing him to change his mindset from trying to make sense of everything to simply rolling with whatever situation he gets into over the course of the whole movie.

     The climax of this movie is when it goes into full cheese mode, while still holding on to the tone from the rest of the movie the main characters now must stop an evil biological computer from another dimension named korrok by dropping a bomb full of hallucinogenic drugs into its core. If that last sentence does not sum up this movie then i don't know what does. This movie embraces its roots in pulp sci-fi, and runs with it non stop, enough to really take it to 11.

     The one thing that really makes this movie work is its sense of style. Just like other stylized films like other extremely stylized movie such as 300 or V for Vendetta, this movie only really works as a whole. Everything from the dark lighting to the unconventional story structure really makes this movie more than the sum of it's parts. Special mention must be made for Dr. Marconi (Clancy Brown) whose casting fits this role perfectly.

     All in all, this is not a movie for everyone, it only barely holds together and only works with suspension of disbelief. But this movie was for me and i was able to let go and enjoy the style over the substance. I give it 4 Pluses and 3 Minuses

Plot	-
Characters	+
Acting	-
Music	=
Cinematography	+
Effects	-
Style	+
Personal enjoyment	+

 

TRAILER:

 

    

Review of the Reviews

 DONNIE DARKO

Rodger Ebert:

    The first review I look at was by one of the most famous film critics of all time Rodger Ebert. His review, simply titled Donnie Darko, while by not means bashed the film was decidedly negative giving it 3 1/2 stars. he start the review by going over key characters, setting and plot, then begins to move into more specifics, revealing more of the interworkings of the film. He focused mostly on character and story elements, although he did give several nods to some of the actors in this film, namely Jake Gyllenhaal. He gave praise to several of the movie's unconventional story elements, such as the mystery jet engine and have Donnie come from a functional home.
      His main critisism for this film seemed to be that while the stories set up and mood were phenominal, the ending simply did not work and seemingly feel apart, as the movie got to complicated for it's own good. He references the Usual Suspects as the right way to give unsatasfactory answers, pointing out the Donnie Darko needed to at least make it seem like it was revealing all the answers. All in all, this review had a feeling of optimistic disopiontment. Gave much credit to this movies first time Writer-Director Richard Kelly, and said that he looked forward to seeing what he will go forward to do, but at the end of the day he believe that this simply did not work.
Desson Thomson:

      The more positive review that I have chose was written by Desson Thomson, a film critic for the
Washington post. While this review, Donnie Darko': Darker Than Ever, is actualy a review for the directors cut of this movie, I don't believe this will cause to many problems as i have seen both forms of this movie. This review seems to mostly focus on the characters, style and mood over the story writing, although it does still spend some time on these. The review starts by going over the differences between the original and the directors cut, before spending some time to establish the historical and cutlural context of the setting of this film. From here it introduces the characters and story premise, while giving some comentary on the way these flow in the film. At this point it compares this movie to The Graduate, commenting on their similar themes of suburban angst. while this is an interesting comparison, the ending of the review focus on the stories circular nature. This layout gives this review a more energetic and positive tone, as well as a more open feeling.

Me:

     While i cannot say that I completely agree with either of these reviews, there is a fair amount of truth to each of these reviews. I the first review I talked about one line that definatly rang true to me was "I could tell you what I think happens at the end, and what the movie is about, but I would not be sure I was right.". This movie does certinly end in a way that is open to a lot of interpritation, and I can definately see how this may in some eyes not work. Even though I personly though that this ending worked, even if it left much unanswered, I still see this as a very valid critisism. The latter review I found myself agreeing with more, especily when it decribes the setting of the book as "a sort of post-"Blue Velvet" perspective on suburban existence, book-burning parents and self-help evangelism ". One of the main themes of this film was the sheding of these ideals as a part of growing up, as well as the foolishness of holding them to close. Both of the reviews contain some very useful insite into these movies, and as such is valuable in its own right.
      One aspect that is some what easy to over look in a review if you have seen the movie, is that of persuastion. Although usually not the main focus, this is still an important piece. Of these two reviews I would say that the more convincing is the prior for several reasons. The first, and most important in my opinion, is the feeling of being grounded that the first one possessed. The first review was very simply composed and solidly structured, while the second one had much more colorful language, it gave the review a less relatable feeling. Another factor was crediblity of the author. While I have nothing against Desson Thomson, Rodger Ebert is a critic that is not only more well known, but also one that I have read several trustworthy reviews by him before. All in all, if i had not seen this movie I would have most likely believe the first review.
     From reviewing these articles I have come across some of the pieces of what makes a good review. Were i writting my own review I would start with some context around the release of the film if. From there I would go into the setting and plot, intorducing characters as they come up. After I would go into some of the things that do and don't work about a movie, and finally, analyse the movie as a whole. I would also make sure to leave out as much decorative writing or fluff as possible. This seems to be the best way to get across good information and review, while remaining simple and grounded.