Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation - Some Movies Don't Deserve to Be Cult Classics

Yeah, I’m still doing this. I immediately regretted watching all these fucking movies then claiming I was going to write about each one. And I know that literally no one is asking for this, and I could just drop it, but I’m not going to. That written, some of these articles are going to be mercifully short, because I just don’t have much to say about most of these movies. On the bright side, the delays brought on by my life and general laziness have made this series of articles get closer to Halloween, the only time it makes sense to write about these fucking movies. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the one with McConaughey. 

The most recent Texas Chainsaw movie inspired me to watch and write about all of them, but The Next Generation played a factor, as well. I had seen this years ago, and I remember thinking it was better than it had any right to be, but still sucked. Upon revisiting the series, I saw that Shout! Factory (also known as Scream Factory) released a special edition of the film. But just this one. Part 2 and Leatherface hadn’t received this cult treatment. So this one must be special. 

But it isn’t. At least, it isn’t to me. Yes, it had Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey in it, so that’s interesting. McConaughey goes appropriately nuts, and it’s pretty great, but there’s nothing here to make this some underrated classic. 

The most interesting part of the film is the reveal that the crazy family is actually a part of some strange experiment meant to provide a spiritual experience for the victim. But it isn’t explored nearly deeply enough. If the entire film had been about that, rather than dumping in some silly exposition scene at the end in a lame attempt at a “twist,” then maybe this would be worth revisiting. 

For many people, it is enough. The film also seems to be proud of its decidedly non-threatening version of Leatherface, but this is nothing new. Leatherface has been a troubled, child-like monster from the beginning, and he was already made downright goofy in Part 2. The cross-dressing is new, I guess, but in general, no new ground was broken with the character. 

Despite all these issues I had with this just okay sequel, it would have been redeemed for me if it was a fun watch. And it isn’t. For a failed horror sequel to gain cult status with me, there needs to be some honest enjoyment from watching it, and this film gave me none, aside from one goofy ass moment in which a character stops for pizza right in front of some cops while she has kidnapped victims locked in her trunk. A few more scenes like that would have been great. But instead the film wants to be both subversive and derivative, and that just doesn’t work.

Despite my overall negative feelings about this movie, it’s still upper tier in the franchise simply for being a little bit weird. From here on out, the franchise plays it pretty seriously, and I think this should be a little fun after the perfect horror of the first film. This is why I like Part 2 so much even though that movie is a sloppy mess. Hooper knew trying to recreate the shocking horror of the first one was impossible. If only everyone else after him knew that too.

Weird '90s Comedy Trilogy #2: "Glory Daze"

*I write every article under the assumption that the reader has seen the movie, so...SPOILERS.

For part two of my weird comedy trilogy of the ‘90s, I’m revisiting Glory Daze, which was written and directed by Rich Wilkes, the co-writer of The Stöned Age. This film about coming to terms with the end of college could easily have come and gone without notice, but the cast made it stand out, especially as many of them became increasingly famous afterwards. For me, this movie stands out because of a few random moments that my brother and I still quote. Revisiting it, however, made me realize how much I’ve aged since I last watched it.

This movie made me feel old.

I first watched this movie back in the ‘90s, when I was not even in high school, so I just found it to be a weird little college comedy. Now that I’ve gone through college and am now a parent in my mid-30s, I see it a bit differently. It’s still a weird movie, and I like it for that (more on that later), but what struck me the most was how much I hated Ben Affleck’s character this time around. I can’t remember if I found the lovesick, whiny, pretentious, and flat out dick Affleck this annoying originally. I’m afraid I may have found him interesting at best and relatable at worst. This time around, I related more with his father, who is presented here as a soulless art-hating asshole.

It might be the art major stuff that bothered me the most. What was Affleck’s goal? Had anyone ever told him he had talent? He didn’t seem to be passionate about art, since his final project was only mentioned in a couple scenes. He certainly wasn’t presented as an artist in his downtime. He was more interested in just fucking off all day and wanting to do that for the rest of his life. So when his dad yells, “Go out there and see how many people are going to pay you to arrange garbage in neat little piles!” I wanted to go through the screen and high-five him, but I’m supposed to want to punch him.

I think a lot of it has to do with Affleck’s narration, both the content and the delivery. Affleck seems to be really phoning it in, but can you blame him with lines like “I’m Jack, happy-go-fucking-lucky as the day I was born” and “he changed majors more than he changed his underwear”?

Affleck does get called out for his shit multiple times throughout the movie, so perhaps we’re meant to hate him, but I don’t think we’re supposed to hate him this much. I think he’s meant to be a bit annoying but overall a protagonist we relate to and want to see succeed. But I just wanted to see him fail and finally realize what a bitch he’s been. He does sort of realize it by the end, but not enough to my liking.

Affleck aside, I hated most of the rest of the “crew,” as well. Mickey, who inexplicably dresses like Charlie Brown at one point, is just as whiny and annoying. Sam Rockwell’s character is a complete dick to his fiancée. French Stewart is actually more tolerable than I remember, so he gets a pass. The only one who is living an honest life is Slosh, who is presented as the fuck-up of the group. Once again, this is most likely intentional (the fuck-up is actually the guy who has it figured out!), but it seems tossed in like an afterthought near the end rather than getting fully explored.

I’m still young enough to relate to the fears all of these characters, especially Affleck, are going through, but I’m also old enough to want to tell them all to grow the fuck up. Who doesn’t want to just keep partying aimlessly and hanging out with their friends every day? But like Affleck’s movie dad says, “You’ve had four years to be happy and do what you want.” It’s meant to be some old man not understanding the young line, but I agree with it. Also, everyone looks back on those college (or any other carefree moment in life) with rose-colored glasses. Yeah, when you get a job, get married, have kids, etc. life becomes a bit more tame. But there’s something to be said for building a life for yourself and others compared to scrounging up beer money for the weekend and getting fucked up every day. Plus, your body eventually can’t handle that type of drinking all the time, anyway. I’m not saying it’s bad to want to that time of your life to last longer or to revisit it, but it’s not all it’s cracked up to be, either.

I still like this movie for all the little odd moments.

Most of my favorite weird moments will be mentioned in the Random Thoughts section, but I wanted to comment about them a bit in general. I read somewhere (not sure where and how many people are reading this anyway and how many of them are wanting to fact check me?) that this was semi-autobiographical. I’m sure that means Wilkes went through a similar experience, wanting his college days to last forever and perhaps feuding with his parents about going to college for filmmaking or writing. But something tells me that all the random moments in this film are from his experiences in college, too.

There must have been a truck rental dude like McConaughey. He must have seen a man slapping a fish. He probably almost pissed on a dude in the bushes who then asked about a band of orcs and claimed that he, in fact, had not been in the bushes. There must have been some dickhead jokester handing out caps and gowns.

It doesn’t matter whether these moments really happened or not, but their inclusion makes this movie stand out. It’s nothing new to make a film about wanting to cling to your youth; it is something new to devote an entire scene to a miserable truck rental salesman; it’s something new to cut to a man slapping a fish in the middle of a “my parents don’t understand me” scene. That’s the kind of stuff that will bring me back to this movie, even if I do cringe when I see Affleck’s stupid face and hear his pathetic thoughts.

Random Thoughts

Oscar winners in this movie: Affleck, Damon, Rockwell, McConaughey. Crazy.

One of the worst DVD covers ever. And it makes no sense because the poster is okay. I guess they really wanted us to know Affleck was in it, and that he had a stupid face.

McConaughey’s cameo is my favorite part of this movie. “Me and the missus, couple weeks ago come out here in this particular machine. Her mother rode along with us. We got here. Ten minutes later, hell, they hit the road. I ain't seen her since. I don't know. God damn. It's what it’s all about…”

It's hard to be sympathetic for Affleck. The narration is one thing, but we're supposed to care about this guy just because he misses his ex and doesn't want to grow up? There just doesn't seem to be much reason for him to be pissed. Rhys-Davies does call him out on it, but it doesn't make it any easier to like him. He should have gotten over being pissed about being from the suburbs his freshman year, if not sooner.

Subtle touch with Affleck literally stopping the clock during the scene in which he convinces everyone to stay at college another year.

What is with Mickey's wardrobe? Charlie Brown one scene, half buttoned overalls the next? Why would Milano want to get with that?

“I wasn't in the bushes, man.”

Affleck's fucking dog tags…Stolen valor, fucker!

It's all very ‘90s, which I like.

Affleck sort of quoting The Catcher in the Rye. Come on! Although that’s another narrator I dislike more and more with age.

“We're not so happy you got a degree in art.”

“I want to do what I want my whole life.”

What restaurant serves a whole...duck?...to be carved by the diners? Is this some fancy thing I've never experienced?

Brendan Fraser and Leah Remini on the bus are great. “You’re lucky I don’t know karate!”

Also, the bus driver taking Affleck’s shirt is pretty great.

Because of this movie, there is a punk song with Sam Rockwell singing. That alone justifies its existence.

Remember when trailers were considered special features? What an odd trio of previews.

I Loved "Interstellar." Keep Reading to Find Out Why.

Interstellar

Interstellar is a rare film for writer/director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception).  His films are notoriously cold and technical, though they excel when it comes to scope and visual beauty.  Emotion is usually quite lacking in his films.  This is not to say that there is no drama in a Nolan film.  There is emotional drama in everything he has done, but, at least for me, it has never been this effective.  Surprisingly, Nolan has found true emotion in a film that takes place largely in deep space, the loneliest possible environment. 

Interstellar is essentially a father-daughter story about a pilot/engineer (Matthew McConaughey) who missed his chance to go to outer space and his daughter (Mackenzie Foy), who feels abandoned by him when he does get the chance to leave.  McConaughey’s reason for leaving is pretty justifiable, though: he’s going to look for a new planet for the human race.  There are same vague comments about what has happened to Earth in this film (world wars over food, for one), but the real problems are just beginning with a blight that has wiped out most of our food supply except for corn, but corn might not be safe for long.  The film certainly makes Earth look miserable, though it’s done on a small scale.  We never get the broad view of what the world is like.  In fact, there are really only two locations for the film on Earth: a farm and a hidden NASA compound.  While a larger explanation of the status of the entire planet would be interesting on its own, it is not the point.  The film is called Interstellar after all.  You know McConaughey is going to leave; the question of the film is, how long will he be gone?

Leaving a child behind for an uncertain amount of time is emotionally charged already, but when the science of gravity and black holes is added, it becomes downright devastating.  Apparently, gravity near a black can mess with time.  An hour on, say, a planet near a black hole, could last years elsewhere.  (For the record, I have no idea why that is, but scientists claim this is true.)  This possible problem coupled with the fact that McConaughey and his fellow astronauts cannot send messages (they can only receive them) back to Earth makes his absence that much more heartbreaking.  This film, though very much science-fiction, is actually a love letter to Nolan’s daughter (the working title was Flora’s Letter), and you get the impression that going off to make these giant movies might be his version of leaving Earth while his daughter grows up.  It is quite clear that Nolan wanted to tug at the heartstrings with this one and, for me, at least, he accomplished his goal.  How else can you explain why a review of a science-fiction film written by an admitted dork has gone three paragraphs without gushing about visual effects and cool, weird robots? 

The emotional impact of the film was surprising, and it made me care about the characters in a Nolan film more than ever before.  It was truly unexpected.  The great visual effects and general cinematic excellence of the film?  That was expected.  This is what has been troubling me when it comes to reviewing Interstellar.  My first attempt ended up being a bit of a rant about why people should appreciate the movie (read it here if you want), and I explained how annoyed I was with people (critics and film buffs alike) calling the film “ambitious” in both negative and positive terms.  “Ambitious” is far too loaded of a word to use to describe any film (and I will attempt to stop using that word in my reviews from here on out).  It only implies that someone tried to do something.  Well, of course they did.  Interstellar is not an example of someone “trying.”  It is an example of Christopher Nolan and the rest of the filmmakers doing exactly what they set out to do: create an entertaining science-fiction film that adheres to reality as much as possible while also engaging the viewer on an emotional level.  And yes, it all looks great and should be seen on the biggest screen available (full disclosure: I saw it on a regular-sized screen at Tell City and still loved it).  My point is that it has become moot to discuss the technical brilliance of a Nolan film.  Let’s just assume the brilliance and move on.

Interstellar is much more interesting thematically, anyway.  The possibilities of life after Earth stayed with me, and I found, upon reflection, that the film was deeper than I initially thought.  It can be seen as a father-daughter love story, a save-the-Earth space thriller, a plea to stick with film instead of going digital, etc.  Any story that can be viewed symbolically always gets a few extra points from me.  The literal story of the film is more than enough, though.  Exploring deep space has always been more interesting to me on the human loneliness level than the visual level.  Normally, films in which characters are so far out in space are set in a distant future or world in which it is normal to be out there (like Star Wars or Guardians of the Galaxy).  This film keeps it grounded, so to speak, in reality.  Characters have to deal with being away from their loved ones.  This is rarely the focus in such films, and it is refreshing to see here. 

There's quite a bit of this.

Because of the focus on love and loneliness, the cast of Interstellar had a tough task.  They had to cry quite a bit and make the audience care about why they were crying.  To top it off, their characters were slightly one-dimensional in that everyone is simply trying to accomplish the goal of sustaining the human race.  Some would see this as a flaw, but I imagine (or hope) that people tasked with saving all of us would be singularly focused with the task at hand.  Because of this, there’s nothing terribly memorable about each character.  It’s up to the actors to bring their natural charisma to the role to make you care about them.  That said, Interstellar has an amazing cast.  McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, and everyone involved gets the job done. 

This review has been a long time coming because I loved the film on so many levels, and I wanted to see if that wore off a few days after watching it.  It didn’t, but I have still put off writing this in fear of not mentioning everything that was great about it.  Which reminds me: there are these amazing (and hilarious) robots in the film that look like the monolith from 2001.  The main robot, TARS, is actually my favorite character, now that I think about.  I’m sure I’m forgetting some other things, and I know I’m ignoring a lot of issues others have with the film (I will concede that McConaughey’s character definitely showed favoritism to his daughter and largely ignored his son, and that was never acknowledged in a fulfilling way).  It can’t be helped, though.  Interstellar is just such an awesome science-fiction film, and I am an unabashed fan of anything sci-fi.  I’m still trying to digest all of it (obviously), but it’s certainly going to be one of my favorite films of the year, and it’s definitely going to be a film I revisit over and over again.

Interstellar receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

"C'mon, TARS, let's go bust up the robot mafia."

I can't wait for the sequel in which McConaughey and his robot buddy, TARS, travel through the galaxy fighting crime.

Everyone seemed very much okay with Wes Bentley dying, didn't they?

Some have complained about the exposition in this film (and all of Nolan's films), but I like it. Is it weak storytelling?  Oftentimes exposition is, but here I don't think so.  I like that the characters explained the science and their plans every now and thing because that's how the world works.  How often do you do a job in which the manager/planner/whatever simply assumes you know what's going on?  Life deserves explanation sometimes.  Sometimes, it does not.  

Which brings me to all of these 2001 comparisons.  Who said that this was supposed to be just like 2001?  I never assumed that.  And I certainly didn't assume Nolan was trying to be Kubrick here, but many people have.  I suppose that's due to their nature of picking up on implications rather than looking at objective facts.  Nolan is not Kubrick and is not trying to be.  Interstellar is not 2001 and is not trying to be.  We can enjoy both of these directors/movies, by the way.  Just don't bring the same expectations to both.  If I went in to Interstellar wanting everything left to interpretation, I would leave extremely disappointed, and vice versa.  I'll never understand why some people who love one movie in a genre take up some unwarranted fight to crap all over anything else that comes after.  I just really like movies.  I guess I'm simple that way.  This doesn't mean I don't hate some movies, by the way.  Stay tuned for my Dumb and Dumber To review for proof...

An Even-minded (Hopefully) Rant in Response to the Internet's Hatred of "Interstellar"*

*Note: This actually started off as my review of Interstellar, but it quickly devolved into responding to some negative stuff I came across online in videos and IMDb message boards.  I usually only passingly refer to that stuff in a review, but I feel a bit passionate about this movie, so here's 1,500+ words about it.  I'll get around to a review in a bit.  Also, this rant is inspired partly by the message boards for Dumb and Dumber To.  I went to those boards hoping to find the kind of hate I found on the Interstellar boards.  Not to disagree with, but to sympathize with as I thought that movie was abysmally unfunny.  What did I find?  The majority of the posts were defending the movie telling the haters (i.e. me) that we set our expectations to high and should just take it easy and enjoy  the comedy.  I'll explain why that situation is different than this one in my review of Dumb and Dumber To.  But seriously, internet, that's the movie you defend?

Watch out, McConaughey, you might step into one of those mythical "plot holes."

Ambitious.  A technical masterpiece.  Breathtaking visuals. Blah blah blah.  It seems like Christopher Nolan films have now reached a point that the review, positive or negative, has to state these things.  It always surprises me that people who hate his films will praise Nolan’s work as much as people who love them before they turn their sights on the “plot holes” and other “problems” the film has.  Interstellar is seemingly given this treatment simply because Christopher Nolan directed it.  Nolan, to be fair, kind of brings this on himself.  He has this super-serious quality to him (he wears a suit nearly every day on his sets), he is very secretive about his projects (he reportedly would not let some cast members keep a copy of the script before filming), and he has made enormously popular films (The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception).  He’s all but asking people to nitpick his work and hold his films to a higher standard.  That said, I am one of those people who expect a lot from Nolan’s work, and I found “Interstellar” to be one of the best films of the year, on both a technical and emotional level.

Interstellar is labeled as ambitious for multiple reasons.  First, it’s a film about saving the human race.  Second, it mixes complex science with emotion.  Because of this second aspect, many have labeled the film “too” ambitious, implying that Nolan is unable to resolve any questions put forth by this film.  This is incorrect, however, because there are not that many questions in the first place.  The main query of the film is, “How can the human race survive beyond the planet?”  Interstellar provides the answer to that question.  Detractors simply don’t like the answer given or are not following the film closely enough to pick up on other “answers.”  That is fine, by the way, as the answer of the film is arguably cheesy and sentimental.  It’s just annoying to see a word like “ambitious” used to negatively describe something.  If you don’t like it, fine.  Don’t sugarcoat it to the point that it sounds like you can’t make your mind up.  Because, honestly, what film out there is not “ambitious”?  Are the rest of the movies made by a bunch of slackers who don’t ask and answer questions, or who don’t care if their film is successful or not?    

Before I go on, let me explain my defensive posture for this film.  I watched Interstellar over a week ago and loved it.  It did leave my head spinning a bit, though.  The science of the film along with some stuff about five dimensions and whatnot had me a bit confused.  So I decided to check online for thoughts and theories about the film.  I was surprised to find that the internet movie community (at least the loud part of the community) hated the film or were very dismissive of it.  Many people point to “plot holes” as the main reason for the film being “stupid.”  I watched a video by Screen Junkies on YouTube (not the height of criticism, I know, but certainly a good source for the opinions of the internet movie community) in which the majority of the participants (four out of five) disliked the movie (though they all acknowledged that it was very pretty and ambitious).  In that video, one person talks about a “plot hole” involving a character’s evil actions.  This character turning evil was a “plot hole” to him because (SPOILER) that person had been called “the best of humanity” by another character.  So his rationale is that when it is stated on screen by a character, it must be true.  First off, this logic is incorrect because the character is a person, and people are often wrong when judging another’s character.  Second, why do we take one character’s line as gospel, but dismiss other characters’ lines because we think their logic is “stupid”?  So only certain scientists (the majority of the characters are scientists) are to be trusted?  It’s never established which scientists are to be paid attention to and which are to be ignored. 

Am I being nitpicky with my mini-rant above?  Absolutely, and that’s the point.  It is okay to hate a movie, but to judge it based on the director or how it is being presented to the public is ridiculous.  There is no reason why Interstellar should be picked apart to this degree.  Some claim that since the film is serious and asks big questions, then it should be held under a magnifying glass.  I agree if that scrutiny is for the science that the film almost brags about.  But no one is making any substantial claim to the science being wrong (and people like Stephen Hawking support the film).  Instead, they take issue with the plot.  They question why the characters are going to a risky planet, even though the characters discuss such issues at length on screen!  They complain about the blight in the film and wonder why they don’t just fix the blight when the film has established there is no solution (that information they ignore).  The equivalent of this would be like watching Star Wars and taking issue with Luke leaving with Obi Wan after his aunt and uncle are killed.  “Shouldn’t Luke stay home and deal with the funeral and estate of Owen and Beru?”  “Is he really just going to take off with some crazy hermit on a space adventure?”  Both of these are questions you can certainly ask.  You can even dislike the movie for Luke’s decisions.  But you don’t get to claim it’s a “plot hole” that makes the movie stupid.  Disagreeing with a character’s actions is not a “plot hole,” it’s just something you disagree with. 

The other problem (internet) people have with the movie is the time paradox created by the ending.  (SPOILERS, obviously)  So it turns out that the wormhole they go through was actually created by humans in the future, but how do the humans of the future exist without the wormhole?  There is no explanation for this, which is why the word “paradox” exists in the first place.  Nearly every movie with time travel has this element (see Terminator).  It just comes with the territory of science-fiction and time.  But I would argue that this film at least tries to explain it (Terminator never does; we just accept it) with all the fifth dimension stuff after McConaughey goes through the black hole.  He enters a place where time is a physical object that can altered.  Still, how does he get to this fifth dimension without the wormhole?  I don’t know…science?  Seriously, though, when you start nitpicking films that feature time travel/alteration you’ve entered troll land.  It is science-fiction, after all.  Sure, Nolan wears a suit, and his films are usually super-serious, but he’s still not claiming to be making 100% realistic movies.  He’s trying to make entertaining, interesting films grounded in reality and science.  If you don’t find them entertaining or interesting, fine, but don’t spout off about “plot holes” and paradoxes in this film while you sing the praises of whatever Marvel movie comes out next.  Full disclosure, I love the Marvel movies, but they get a pass because they are meant to be “fun,” and Nolan’s films get picked on because they don’t feature enough comedy.  Speaking of which, when is the internet going to turn on the Marvel universe, anyway?  Now that it’s beloved by seemingly everybody, isn’t it time for the internet to despise it?  That seems to be what’s going on with Nolan these days.  He makes a movie the internet loves (The Dark Knight), and his next few movies receive more hatred than any other films in the genre.

To finish up this messy response to internet hatred of a film I obviously really liked, let me just state that maybe we should be more thankful of Nolan’s films and less nitpicky.  Everyone goes on and on about the lack of originality in Hollywood, yet here’s Nolan directing films based on original scripts.  Sure, he is obviously influenced by other films, but at least Interstellar wasn’t a comic book or old TV show first.  I want him to continue to make “ambitious” sci-fi movies about new things that I don’t already know about.  I love all of the comic book movies coming out, but is anyone truly surprised by anything that happens in them?  Were you shocked when the Avengers put their differences aside and saved the world?  I had no idea what Interstellar was really about until I watched it.  I knew the ending of The Avengers before they even announced the movie: the good guys win.  Once again, I’m okay with the Marvel movies, but why heap so much fun-loving praise on them while we try to destroy one of the only big studio film’s not tied to Disney or some other existing property?  As I’ve been saying, it’s fine by me if you hate Interstellar, just hate it for the right reasons (not that I would agree with any of those reasons…).    

McConaughey Solidifies His Resurgence as a Great Actor in "Dallas Buyers Club"

Dallas Buyers Club

Movies like Dallas Buyers Club can easily become preachy, weepy messes.  A true story about the early days of the AIDS crisis.  Amazingly, the film ended up being informative, touching, and entertaining.  Everything about the film combined made it one of the best of the year, but the performances of Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto truly set it apart.

Leto has received the bulk of the praise thus far for playing the transgender Rayon, and he deserves it, but it's McConaughey who gives the most impressive performance.  As Ron Woodroof, the rodeo hustler turned AIDS medication activist, McConaughey gives the best performance of his career.  It's easy to point to the physical transformation he went through as evidence of his commitment, but it's much more than simple weight loss that makes this performance.  Looking the part is only part of it.  McConaughey is believable both as a homophobic cowboy and as a sympathetic, caring activist.  You're sickened by him early on, but you come to love this character.  A bit of that is writing and the true story of it, but a lot of it is in the performance.  

The true story of it all is a major selling point, too.  Ron Woodroof's partying, promiscuous life left him infected with AIDS at a time when a lot of the world thought only homosexuals were susceptible to the disease.  That misconception has, of course, been laid to rest.  Something from the early days of the AIDS scare that might not be apparent (at least it wasn't to me, maybe because I was a toddler during the time period of the film) is that the early treatment for the disease could potentially be more deadly than the disease itself.  Woodroof found this out through his own experience and also figured out a way to turn a profit from it.  The film covers his fight with the FDA as people sought medication in Dallas.  

Dallas Buyers Club was certainly informative for me, but, more importantly, it was entertaining.  Perhaps it's because I expected a true story involving AIDS would be more somber, but I was very surprised how fun this movie is.  Maybe "fun" isn't the right word.  The point is that Dallas Buyers Club could have been some preachy/sobbing downer of a movie, but instead it kept things realistic.

The film has a realistic look to match the tone.  There are no grand shots.  A shot of McConaughey suddenly in Japan is presented in the same way as a shot of him in a parking lot in Texas.  It's how life is.  Just as there are no perfect set scenes in life or dramatic speeches, there are none to be found in Dallas Buyers Club, and the film is all the better for it.  The amazing performances may be getting all the attention, but there's so much more to this great film.

This film gets a: 

The 2013 Indiana Film Journalists Awards

The critics' group I belong to has released our annual year-end awards.  I've included the release in its entirety below, but I wanted to weigh in on some of the selections up here first.

12 Years a Slave won Best Picture, and I am completely okay with that selection.  I thought 12 Years was one of the most effective films of the year (I gave it a Vader), and it was #2 on my ballot.  My #1 was Mud, a film I consider a new American classic.  I was glad to see Mud made it on the top ten list.  My #3 was Dallas Buyers Club, a film that did not make the top ten, but one that I thoroughly enjoyed.  I have yet to write a review for that film (I'll get to it soon), but trust me, it'll be a glowing one. 

As far as the rest of the top ten, I don't have any issues.  There are some on there that I didn't like as much as the rest of the group, but there is not a single film on that list that I think is a "bad" movie.  And I was very happy to see that I'm not the only one who enjoyed Prisoners.  That's a film that I feel is getting less and less attention as the year ends, though it deserves more and more.

Chiwetel Ejiofor won Best Actor, and that's another choice I can easily support.  Once again, Ejiofor was my #2 selection, with Matthew McConaughey as my #1 choice (he was runner-up).  So many good performances this year, and I think we got the top two right.

As for Best Actress, we went with Adele Exarchopoulos from Blue Is the Warmest Color.  This, along with our Supporting Actor award, will turn the most heads.  I have to be honest, I abstained from this and the Best Foreign Film category because I did not get around to seeing Blue, but I am proud of our group for making a unique selection.  And I look forward to watching the film so I can latch onto the group and take credit for making the selection as well.

The Best Supporting Actor award is another one I am proud of (and I had a slight hand in this one!).  Barkhad Abdi, the first-time actor who portrayed a Somali pirate in Captain Phillips, won top honors for a performance that could have easily been one note, but ended up being the most compelling actor in the film.  (No offense to Tom Hanks, who was also very good in the film.)  Abdi was actually my third choice (I did say a "slight" hand in the decision), with Michael Fassbender at #1 and Jared Leto at #2.  I doubt that Fassbender gets much recognition in this crowded category this year, but his performance really put 12 Years a Slave over the top for me.  As for Leto, I think we'll be seeing his name more than Abdi's as more awards roll out.  I'm fine with that, as his performance was great.  

The Best Supporting Actress category went to Jennifer Lawrence in American Hustle.  I was more interested in the the runner up, June Squibb in Nebraska.  She had some great moments that stole the show in the second half of that sad, but funny film.  And that's saying something as Bruce Dern and Will Forte did a fine job in that movie.

That's about all I have to say about the awards this year.  Once again, hats off to the IFJA for making some good, interesting choices.  I'm just glad to be a part of it, hopefully doing more harm than good to each category.  Anyway, here is the write-up and full list of the 2013 Indiana Film Journalists Association Awards.

"12 Years a Slave" wins top honors from Indiana film critics

 

The Indiana Film Journalists Association, an organization of writers dedicated to promoting quality film criticism in the Hoosier State, is proud to announce its annual film awards for 2013.

 

"12 Years a Slave" won top honors, taking the prize for Best Film and earning a total of four awards. Chiwetel Ejiofor won for Best Actor, Steve McQueen won in the Best Director category and Hans Zimmer took the prize for Best Musical Score.

 

"Her," which was the runner-up for Best Film, made a strong showing with Spike Jonze earning the award for Best Original Screenplay. It also won the Original Vision Award, which recognizes a film that is especially innovative or groundbreaking. Eight other movies were named Finalists for Best Film.

 

Adele Exarchopoulos took Best Actress honors for "Blue is the Warmest Color," which also was awarded the prize for Best Foreign Language Film. Jennifer Lawrence earned the Best Supporting Actress award for "American Hustle," while Best Supporting Actor went to Barkhad Abdi for his work in "Captain Phillips."

 

"Frozen" won Best Animated Feature, and "The Act of Killing" took Best Documentary. In their third cinematic go-round together, Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy won the Best Adapted Screenplay prize for "Before Midnight."

 

The Hoosier Award, which recognizes a significant cinematic contribution by a person or persons with roots in Indiana, or a film that depicts Hoosier State locales and stories, went to "Medora," a documentary film directed by Andrew Cohn and Davy Rothbart.

 

IFJA members issued this statement with regard to the Hoosier Award: "In chronicling the plight of a hapless high school basketball team from a tiny, economically depressed Indiana town, Cohn and Rothbart managed to tap into the way Hoosiers are transfixed by their hoops obsession, as well as explore the harsh choices Indiana teenagers often face. In many ways, the film stands as stark counterpoint to the seminal "Hoop Dreams." These players aren't vying for a spot in the NBA, but to win a single game and lay claim to their dignity, both on and off the court. It is a quintessentially Hoosier story told with craftsmanship, unique insight and uncommon grace."

 

The following is a complete list of honored films:

 

Best Film

Winner: "12 Years a Slave"

Runner-Up: "Her"

Other Finalists (listed alphabetically):

"All Is Lost"

"Before Midnight"

"Captain Phillips"

"Frances Ha"

"Mud"

"Prisoners"

"Spring Breakers"

"The Wolf of Wall Street"

 

Best Animated Feature

Winner: "Frozen"

Runner-Up: "The Wind Rises"

 

Best Foreign Language Film

Winner: "Blue is the Warmest Color"

Runner-Up: "The Grandmaster"

 

Best Documentary

Winner: "The Act of Killing"

Runner-Up: "Stories We Tell"

 

Best Original Screenplay

Winner: Spike Jonze, "Her"

Runner-Up: Peter Morgan, "Rush"

 

Best Adapted Screenplay

Winner: Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, "Before Midnight"

Runner-Up: John Ridley, "12 Years a Slave"

 

Best Director

Winner: Steve McQueen, "12 Years a Slave"

Runner-Up: Spike Jonze, "Her"

 

Best Actress

Winner: Adele Exarchopoulos, "Blue is the Warmest Color"

Runner-Up: Brie Larson, "Short Term 12"

 

Best Supporting Actress

Winner: Jennifer Lawrence, "American Hustle"

Runner-Up: June Squibb, "Nebraska"

 

Best Actor

Winner: Chiwetel Ejiofor, "12 Years a Slave"

Runner-Up: Matthew McConaughey, "Dallas Buyers Club"

 

Best Supporting Actor

Winner: Barkhad Abdi, "Captain Phillips"

Runner-Up: Jeremy Renner, "American Hustle"

 

Best Musical Score

Winner: Hans Zimmer, "12 Years a Slave"

Runner-Up: Hans Zimmer, "Rush"

 

Original Vision Award

Winner: "Her"

Runner-Up: "Gravity"

 

The Hoosier Award

"Medora," Andrew Cohn and Davy Rothbart, directors

(As a special award, no runner-up is declared in this category.)

 

About IFJA: The Indiana Film Journalists Association was established in February 2009. Members must reside in the Hoosier State and produce consistent, quality film criticism or commentary in any medium.

 

http://indianafilmjournalists.com