moviedodd

What is it that we love so much about drug movies (and by “we” I mean “I”)?  In the year 2000, a little movie called Requiem for a Dream made moviegoers cry, vomit, and hate their lives all at the same time.  Yet, despite the depressing tension of watching characters throw their lives away for pills and needles, I found myself watching Requiem over and over again as if I were an excited kid watching The Goonies for the umpteenth time.  I have found that depressing drug movies, such as Requiem, serve that fine purpose of allowing addicts to reflect on their wrecked lives, and allowing non-addicts to revel thankfully in their sobriety.  What can I say?  I love good, miserable movies about addiction!  Not only are they the types of effective films that guidance counselors should be showing high school students, but they are sometimes full of rich storytelling and detailed character studies.  One notable example is the indie drama Clean.

 

Emily Wang (Maggie Cheung) is a rock musician who jumps between various motel rooms and rock venues with her husband Lee (James Johnston), who is also a rock musician.  Unsurprisingly, both Emily and Lee are addicted to drugs and shoot up on the good stuff after a night of playing gigs or rubbing elbows with the right promoters.  It is also unsurprising that Emily walks into her room one evening to find that Lee has overdosed on the heroine that his wife bought for him.  After being caught in possession, Emily is sentenced to 6 months in a penitentiary.

The news of Lee’s death and Emily’s imprisonment is heartbreaking news to Lee’s father, Albrecht (Nick Nolte).  Not only has he lost his beloved son, but he and his wife have been caring for the couple’s young son Jay (James Dennis).  Even when Maggie is released from prison, custody of Jason remains in Albrecht’s favor until Emily can sober herself up.  To do this, she flies to Paris where she once lived to clean up, reconnect with old friends, and start anew with her musical career.  The question remains: Once an addict always an addict?  It is up to Emily to come to terms with her problems, and make herself a fit and responsible person before she can reclaim Jay.

 

Now there have been plenty of drug movies that have impacted me in ways that Clean did not even reach.  However, I am referring to films with an agenda to make me feel excruciating pain and suffering.  Clean plays a more subtle cord that moves slow at times, but it is still an effective human drama.  This is a film about the drug recovery process and how such horrible addiction can pull us into a rut.  Rather than focusing more on Emily’s relationship with drugs, Clean lets us witness her struggle in the work world as she tries to undo the damage left on her by drug use.

Playing a drug addict is one of the most challenging and Oscar-worthy jobs right next to playing someone gay or of the opposite sex.  Maggie Cheung brings a little something different to the table in her performance as Emily.  Rather than screaming and writhing from the pain, she plays things rather quietly.  However, that inner torment still remains in her eyes as she gets by working at a Chinese restaurant simply because she knows she has to degrade herself to get back in line.  It is difficult to like this character, but it is also difficult to dislike her.  While an irresponsible addict, she recognizes her problem and quietly accepts her son’s custody decision.  Nick Nolte is also wonderful here as Emily’s father-in-law.  As an actor in his 60’s, Nolte has wisely accepted roles that fit his age.  The gruff actor is actually a warm and compassionate character here.  This is mighty impressive because it is difficult for me to get the wretched mug shot of the actor out of my head from his DUI arrest years ago.

 

Clean is not a life-changing drama, but it is a mentionable independent film with strong performances.  This is more a story about starting over rather than about drug use, and it focuses more on Emily’s struggles.  For anyone searching for underrated cinema, this definitely begs to be rented.

Sometimes I find it amusing to reflect on the world’s obsession with death.  I am even more intrigued by the utilization of death in the suspense thriller.  There is nothing people are more frightened of than the idea of losing their own lives.  This is precisely why the knife-wielding psycho or the murderous gunmen make us cringe whenever we sit down to enjoy an intense film.  However, at the same time we are entertained by these murders because it is the characters experiencing a bloody fate while we clench onto our lucky souls as spectators.

 

Every week thrillers are released, but they are sometimes so gratuitous and hollow that they fail to focus on death as the ultimate fear in life.  However, there are some films that truly force its audience to watch in anticipation and dread.  One recent example of this is the French nail-biter 13 Tzameti.

 

This overlooked film does not begin with much intensity.  It takes its time in introducing its protagonist, Sebastian (George Babluani).  Sebastian is a mild-mannered handy-man who respectfully minds his own business while desperately trying to scrape by on table scraps from the wealthy.  While fixing the roof of a disturbed rich man, Sebastian stumbles upon an invitation-only opportunity that could yield profit.  After finding the opportunity to get his hands on an invitation, he pursues this secret event.

After following specific instructions, Sebastian travels from one place to another until he is hardly aware of his own location.  However, he does reach his destination.  What Sebastian does find is indeed a profitable venture, but not an easy one.  In order to take home big money to support himself, he must first test his own courage and stare death directly in the eye.

What Sebastian discovers occupies at least the second half of 13, and it would be a sin as a film critic to reveal what exactly it is that the protagonist finds.  Though, it would also be fair to briefly summarize it as the infamous Russian roulette sequence from The Deer Hunter on speed.  It is Sebastian’s unfortunate finding that contributes to the effectiveness of 13 as a truly convincing thriller.

Shot in crisp black and white from start to finish, this is a film that relies on colorlessness to convey its tone.  This is not a picture that eventually gives into colorful resolutions, finding lost love, and puppy dogs.  Instead it only wants to emphasize the drabness of living in poverty, and the lifelessness of coming into contact with death.  13 does not promote a positive agenda through its appearance or storytelling.

While not positive in nature, it is important to remember that this is not a boring film.  While 13 starts out slow with a very necessary character introduction, it ends up being a rather disturbing, attention-grabbing thrill ride.  Most of this is psychological in nature as it takes its time portraying the fragility of life, and forcing the audience to watch this at a slow and repetitious pace.  This is not even kosher for the adrenaline junkie that thrives on thrillers.  This thriller that is colorless and disturbing in nature is not for everyone, but it will certainly appeal to cinephiles who desire more gripping realism in their movie-going experience.

 

I wouldn’t hail this as a masterpiece, but I very much enjoyed 13 Tzameti.  This is a thriller that knows how to rile up its audience while being subtle and conscientious of its aesthetics.  After a slow start, this film picks up the pace.  Rarely does a thriller hold my attention and force me to empathize with its characters so much.  I wouldn’t go so far to suggest a blind buy for this bad boy, but a rental is definitely in order.

When exploring cinema from abroad, I am particular intrigued by Australian cinema.  While doing my recent time in film school, I managed to take in quite a few films from Down Under.  Something that always stuck out to me was the emphasis on Aussie masculinity.  Not only do you have the Crocodile Dundee stereotype, but many other films depict the laid-back, beer-guzzling nature of Australian men.  Take for example Aussie actor Bryan Brown in the film Two Hands as a Mafioso gang leader who chooses sweaty rugby shirts as his attire.  Keeping the prominent idea of masculinity in mind, I was even more intrigued to see a film like The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert for the first time.  After familiarizing myself with the macho depictions of characters in Australian film, I was now able to see things through the eyes of queer characters, and this turned out to be one wild and entertaining ride.

Priscilla was released in the United States in 1994 with a cast of primarily unknown actors.  However, Terence Stamp is an exception.  The tough guy actor better known for swinging projects out of the psychedelic era such as Billy Budd stars in Priscilla as a transvestite named Bernadette.  After losing his/her life partner, Benadette is down on the dumps.  This is when Tick (Hugo Weaving) suddenly calls and asks him to accompany him through the desert to do a drag cabaret show in another territory.  Looking for an opportunity to get away, Bernadette and Tick load up with their obnoxious co-performer Adam (Guy Pearce) on a bus that they officially christen, “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert”.

 

The rest of the film follows the three…eh…men as they drive through the Australian Outback and work through their conflicts with one another.  Most of the problems particularly come from Adam, whose immaturity and decadence gets to be much for the mourning Bernadette.  On their trip, the three friends encounter love and bigotry with the people they meet.  They also pick up an aged mechanic named Bob (Bill Hunter), who manages to connect with the similarly-aged Bernadette despite his upbringing in a narrow-minded world.  So much drama occurs for this group of drag queens simply so they can look fabulous for a brief hotel stint.  Or is that the only reason?  It turns out the soft-spoken Tick has a hidden agenda for the road trip that may change the way his queer comrades see him.

 

There is something appropriately timed about the Special Edition release of this film in 2007.  When the film was released in 1994, it certainly sent a shockwave through the minds of film buffs.  Terence Stamp, a symbol of masculinity from the 1960s and 1970s, convincingly plays a heart-broken gender bender.  His excellent performance overthrows any assumptions about the actor and the roles he can play.  However, the same thing can be said for Stamp’s co-stars in 2007.  The then relatively unknown Pearce and Weaving have since gone on to establish themselves as charismatic leading men.  Weaving is most remembered as the evil Mr. Smith in The Matrix and the title hero in V for Vendetta.  Pearce has earned a reputation himself as the star of Memento and The Proposition.  Seeing all three of these men embracing their gay sides is quite a treat; the men get into their characters so much that they are virtually unrecognizable even without drag.

With the performances aside, Priscilla is simply an enjoyable road trip film decorated with flamboyance and flare.  We’ve all seen the standard road trip film where goofy hi jinks ensue.  For these men, an eventful adventure includes dressing in the most flamboyant costumes possible, and climbing a high desert mountain in their heels and fish stockings.  With the exception of a few scenes that demonstrate homophobic tensions between the rugged men of the Outback and the drag performers, the film has a light tone that carries the plot from start to finish.  Whether these men are bickering on the bus, or doing elaborate lip-sync renditions of ABBA, they are fun characters that do not take look to empathize.  Terence Stamp is particularly on his mark as an exhausted queen who has seen it all.

It seems clear to me that Priscilla was the inspiration for the very crappy drag queen American film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar.  It is just unfortunate that the latter is what I caught in theaters in the 1990s.  Priscilla does not meet my standards of a classic comedy, but I certainly enjoyed this unusual road trip film.  Much credit goes to Terence Stamp for leaving his tough guy at home to become all woman.  Fans of the film are encouraged to pick this up, and those unfamiliar should definitely rent this to visit an overseas treasure released over a decade ago.

It is truly saddening when high quality films are treated like excess garbage. Let's take The Fountain for example. After directing his druggie masterpiece, Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky set his sights on another enigmatic project that would embrace his dazzling vision. The Fountain was set to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in a tale of two lovers set in three different time periods. After considerable budget was poured into the project, the megastars backed down, and the The Fountain's story of eternal life was left for dead. This was until it was resurrected once more with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz filling the shoes of Pitt and Blanchett. Film aficionados and Aronofsky fans anxiously awaited the film's Thanksgiving week release, only to see it fail considerably with negative reviews and low box office numbers.

It is easy for me to comprehend why The Fountain was not received by the movie-going public. Despite its stunning array of aesthetics, the film is packed with more questions than answers, which is rarely appreciated by audiences. However, what I fail to understand is why this film was slammed by so many critics. Various indie films have proven to be too "out there" for the mainstream, but generally seek refuge in the arms of understanding film critics. The Fountain is a film that seems to have hit theaters at the wrong time, perhaps confusing the critics who were reveling in the Thanksgiving blockbuster goodie baskets. Despite its bad reputation, I not only give The Fountain accolade for being a great film, but possibly the best film of 2006.

Tom (Hugh Jackman) is a research scientist who is married to and madly in love with Izzi (Rachel Weisz). In the midst of their happiness, Izzi is inflicted with cancer. This leads Tom on an obsessive quest to discover the cure for disease and pain; he is on a mission to discover the serum for eternal life. Meanwhile, we frequently see Tom in the future where he is speaking to a tree and encapsulated inside of a globe-like atmosphere. Like Izzi, there is something about the tree that Tom holds sacred and sees as the key to eternal life. On top of "Present Tom" and "Future Tom" we also meet Jackman in the early 1500s as conquistador Tomas who is on a mission under Queen Isabel (Weisz) to find the Tree of Life.

Yes, The Fountain is clearly a film that is difficult to summarize. It is certainly not easy to cram into a Hollywood pitch. Many critics claimed they did not enjoy the film because they simply didn't get it. What I do not understand is that these same critics that admire the mind-boggling smorgasbord of David Lynch suddenly give up on a film because they do not get it. Upon seeing The Fountain in the theater for the first time, there was not a sense of closure. How the characters in the three different time periods were connected was not entirely clear to me. However, the film exhibited a sense of mysticism that called for a second viewing the following week. During my second viewing, I saw The Fountain as an entirely different text. Rather than focusing solely on the central plot, I was able to make more connections, and appreciate the film for its aesthetics. In addition to a simple storyline, there is a tear-inducing score from composer Clint Mansell, unforgettable visual effects, and the skilled cinematography of Matthew Libatique. While still not entirely sure about the intricate workings of the plot, I identified The Fountain as a film that simply is what it is. We are not meant to follow a straight plot line, but instead use our imagination with the pieces laid before us by director Aronofsky.

Of course, there remains the question as to whether or not Jackman and Weisz are worthy replacements for Pitt and Blanchett. While never getting to see the previous actors in this role, I whole-heartedly bought the performances by the talented performers. Hugh Jackman really exercises his versatility by playing three different characters obsessed with the mystery behind eternal life. The Fountain is essentially a morality tale that stresses the importance of enjoying our short lives, and this point would not be clear without Jackman's performance. As men who make too many mistakes in their impossible journeys, Jackman gives one of the best performances of the year. Following her Oscar-winning turn in The Constant Gardner, Weisz is also on target as his wise love interest going through the stages of death.

 I cannot stress enough my recommendation for The Fountain. This is not standard, popcorn-munching fare. It is pertinent to stress that this film is ambiguous and caters to those who don't mind exercising the noggin. I do suggest buying this film, because it is intended to be seen more than one time. The film and special features are outstanding and get my solid stamp of approval.

Ask any true movie buff and they will tell you that films are not what they used to be. I must say that I agree with this to a certain extent. Being that Wild Hogs debuted in the #1 spot this weekend, it is no wonder that more crap is consistently churned out as audiences keep asking for it. However, it is imperative that I do acknowledge the filmmakers out there who still strive to craft quality cinema. Like the subversive and ground-breaking directors of the French New Wave or the American Golden Years of the 1970's, these filmmakers are more concerned with paying homage to the masters before them while introducing their own signature styles. One of these directors happened to have a film debut this weekend against Wild Hogs. That man is David Fincher and the film is Zodiac.

Many may affiliate Fincher with his previous thriller Se7en, or his cult action piece Fight Club. Both of these films are memorably gritty and violent, and this has contributed to Fincher's still-growing fan base. After announcing that his next project would focus on the still-at-large Zodiac killer, it was assumed that the director would construct a graphic masterpiece of blood, twists, and slick camera effects. These are, after all, motifs from his prior classics. However, instead of giving audiences what they expect, David Fincher has done something entirely different. Clocking in at 2 hours and 40 minutes, Zodiac is a detailed and dialogue-heavy crime film that pays tribute to classic crime films of the 1970's while making room for Fincher's modern direction techniques. The result is, hands down, one of the best films of 2007.

It is the 1970's, and the San Francisco Bay area is riled up over the Zodiac killer. The faceless man has claimed the lives of several victims in the area, and has not left nearly enough evidence for identification. To make matters worse, he continues to taunt authority figures by sending letters and making phone calls to the San Francisco Chronicle.

How could a man who commits spontaneous killings and pursues the attention of the police be so hard to bag? This is exactly the question that the main characters ask themselves. Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a cartoonist for the Chronicle who takes an interest in the killer after decoding some of the cryptic letters that he sends to the paper. Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) is a wiseass reporter for the paper who also wishes to get to the bottom of the killer's identity. Meanwhile, police inspectors Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) also neglect their real lives to put an end to the murderer's reign.

Rather than following a single protagonist, Zodiac revolves around these four main characters. Toschi and Armstrong frustratingly work with other police jurisdictions where the Zodiac has left behind corpses. While they receive numerous tips and leads, the cops repeatedly find themselves in the dark when one small piece of evidence doesn't factor into the equation. Avery and Graysmith also open up their own investigations, with Graysmith sometimes digging up more than the cops could salvage.

All four of these men set their sights on the Zodiac and become fascinated with his elusiveness. Their interests turn into life-consuming obsessions, which become the basis for this film. Zodiac may be a film about the notorious killer, but it is primarily about how some things in life tend to hold on and never let go. While watching these men become consumed by the Zodiac case, I could feel their unrelenting fixation from start to finish.

Zodiac could be categorized as many things. Sometimes the audience bears witness to the grizzly murders committed by Zodiac, which makes the film a definitive horror film. Other times, we follow the main characters, as they jump through every investigative hoop from matching handwriting samples to identifying fingerprints. Much police procedure is involved here, but do not expect an episode of CSI. Fincher does away with "look-at-me" camera trickery to create something more detailed and psychological.

One of the major highlights of the film are the performances from its main characters. Robert Downey Jr. comes through as...well...the same scenery-chewing character that Downey Jr. has portrayed over the last few years. Yes he is predictable, but I still can't get enough of the man. Jake Gyllenhaal does some growing up here as Robert Graysmith, who penned the novel on which this film is based. The actor still brings with him a boyish naivety, but he accurately portrays obsession well. The same can be said for Mark Ruffalo as a conflicted cop who, even after closing the book on his investigation, can still not sleep at night.

While most critics favor this film, I heard moans and groans from certain audience members who clearly anticipated a slash-em-up package from the Fight Club auteur rather than a lengthy crime saga. The film does require patience, but it is worth every minute. I realize that viewers eat up every clichéd Hollywood moment where the cop always gets his man, or the killer is unmasked in a clever twist ending. Zodiac is neither of these things. It is both drawn-out and ambiguous, and that is exactly what makes it work. What makes serial murderers so frightening is that they sometimes never give a sense of closure. They continue to prowl the streets while law enforcement obsessively wonders where they will strike next. Considering that the Zodiac was never nabbed, the format for this film is quite fitting. If you can handle an intelligent, chilling, and precise crime film, then I strongly urge you to see Zodiac. David Fincher has once again proven himself as one of the most innovative filmmakers today.

The imagination is an enigma of sorts that is not explored nearly enough in cinema. Every human in the world has dreams and nightmares that make for great conversation pieces, yet never make it into movie scripts. Some have said that film is a magic medium that can make the impossible and fantastic unfold on the big screen. While many producers do not use their heads by relying on the simplest of conventions, director Michel Gondry does the complete opposite. He not only uses his head, but he explores every crevice of it for the psyche's deepest fears and desires. After successfully depicting the power of memory as director of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Gondry has taken the helm as both scribe and filmmaker in 2006's The Science of Sleep.

Stephane (Gael Garcia Bernal) is a man who is childish at heart. Of course this is not a Michael Jackson brand of strange. Instead Stephane is a person who wants to experience the joys of life, but is instead bogged down by the restrictions of adulthood. After moving to Paris, he wishes to become an artist since his vivid imagination comes out in various drawings. However, he is stuck with a redundant print job with a calendar-making company.

How does Stephane escape harsh reality? Through his dreams of course! The bleak world around him is suddenly transformed into a childlike play place where he hosts his own television show, smacks around his shallow-minded boss, and lives like a king.

Stephane's method of escapism is cut short when he meets his neighbor Stephanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg). Awkward and immature, Stephane only knows how to be himself in front of his neighbor. While Stephane clearly harbors a crush, Stephanie is not quite sure how to handle her newfound friend who baffles her and intrigues her simultaneously. Stephane pursues the object of his affection all while drifting between dream world and reality out of sheer habit. But will his foolish imagination stand in the way of being the real man Stephanie desires?

Science of Sleep is a piece of visual bliss, and this is no surprise from Michel Gondry. In addition to directing Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the French director has created a mass quantity of music videos and short films that combine slick animation with surrealism. Serving as both writer and director for a feature-length film, Science of Sleep is intended to be his long-awaited masterpiece that explores the filmmaker's never-ending supply of ideas.

Unfortunately, Sleep is a fantasy/drama that overstays its welcome. The visualizations are amazing, the story is sweet, and the performances are winning from Bernal and Gainsbourg. If this could be condensed to a 20-minute film, it would be a masterpiece. However, Gondry's mind runs wild for 105 minutes, as does Bernal as the stubborn Stephane. It is frustrating to watch Stephane go from a somewhat likeable lead, to a nerve-grating man-child in the span of the film's runtime. As Stephane mopes between dream and reality, it becomes clear that the film can't get a grasp on anything from its storyline to its characters. While the fickle pace is likely an intentional choice by the filmmakers, it still does not know when to quit. In the end, I was somewhat relieved to wake up from Stephane's dreams of whiny indecisiveness and irresponsibility.

The Science of Sleep at first shows potential with its imaginative visual effects and winning comedy. However, it begins to derail as the characters and the storyline go on an emotional and confusing roller coaster. As a fan of Michel Gondry's prior work, I was disappointed in this semi-frustrating tale that would have been better served as a short film. However, I will point out that film does have its admirers. I can't suggest buying this DVD, but fans of cerebral comedy should give it a rental.

In case you do not know at this point: fast food is bad for you! After many years of submitting to the manipulative clown better known as Ronald McDonald, the entertainment industry has decided to take a look beneath the bun in the greasy world of fast food. With obese children running amuck and Jared Fogel taking over the airwaves, it is no wonder the public has taken a sudden interest in food. After all, it is what we eat! It was only yesterday when Morgan Spurlock regurgitated a burger in Super Size Me and forever changed the way some of us looked at the Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese. However, another man, Eric Schlosser, produced another fast food expose that had the world talking.

Fast Food Nation, published in 2001, is Schlosser's best-selling, non-fiction novel that reveals the dark side of the beloved fast food industry. Everything from the mistreatment of workers, to the creation of artificial flavors, to the manipulative marketing towards children is uncovered in all its sinister glory. It only makes sense that a book with this much popularity and true-to-life content would be adapted into a documentary. However, Fast Food Nation's long-anticipated transition to the screen is surprisingly reproduced as a fictional film, and is done so by renowned Texas filmmaker, Richard Linklater.

So how does one take hard-hitting documentation and make it into a fictional movie? While Schlosser's novel is the author's personal exploration of inner workings of the fast food industry, Linklater and Schlosser's re-vamped script cuts out the first-person investigation all-together. Instead, it gathers various findings from the novel, and integrates them into a multi-layered script that is strikingly familiar to the interconnectedness of Traffic and Crash.

The film sets up multiple storylines in multiple locations that attempt to reveal how each and every person is affected in this artery-clogging world of fast food. The audience is taken to the top where Don Anderson (Greg Kinnear) charismatically comes up with marketing ploys for a popular fast food chain known as Mickey's (coincidence?). Don is forced to leave his cozy seat in the boardroom to investigate a meat-packing plant in Colorado. Apparently the meat patties at Mickey's have been turning out a high fecal count (or as it is commonly stated in the film, "There is sh*t in the meat").

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, Raul (Wilmer Valderrama) and Sylvia (Catalina Sandino Moreno) have traveled illegally from Mexico and have landed jobs at the aforementioned meat plant in Colorado. As imagined, the non-English speakers experience the harshest of treatment at their new job. While top-notch executive Don is shown the most sterile sector of the meat plant during his investigation, Raul and Sylvia are placed on the killing floor where they are forced to spray away blood, hair, and feces. As you have probably guessed, this is indeed the "sh*t" that goes into the meat.

As if these characters are not enough to drive this two-hour film, we are also introduced to high-schooler Amber (Ashley Johnson) who spends half the days of her youth making minimum wage at the local Mickey's. However, after a surprise visit from her outspoken, liberal uncle (Ethan Hawke), young Amber must decide whether she should hold onto her financial security, or quit her disgusting, part-time profession.

Believe it or not, there are still plenty of characters that I have failed to mention. There is the sadistic slaughterhouse supervisor that forces illegal immigrant women to sleep with him (Bobby Cannavale), there is the innocent ranch-owner who knows the evil agenda behind the fast food industry (Kris Kristofferson), and there is the money-grubbing business negotiator who thinks feces should be eliminated from burgers by simply cooking them (Bruce Willis).

Fast Food Nation is an ensemble film that feels like it is about to explode from its insistence on so many storylines and characters. Being that Schlosser's book was intended to awaken the activist inside us, it is no surprise that the film's full agenda is pushed even further by its preachiness. The film quite humorously proves its objectives when Richard Linklater daringly takes stabs at actual franchises such as Wal-Mart and McDonald's. Unfortunately, these gags do not know when to quit beyond the first 20 minutes of the film. To put the icing on the cake, Ethan Hawke makes a pointless appearance mid-way through the film and annoyingly explains to the audience (as if they have not figured it out already) that fast food is a nasty, corporate machine that consumes small-town America.

Yes, Fast Food Nation is blatantly preachy. In serving as an informative mouthpiece about the fast food industry, it fails. However, Fast Food Nation does manage to succeed as another terrific character exploration from the always-reliable Richard Linklater. The reason I did enjoy this film is because of Linklater's ability to direct actors. As the filmmaker best known for capturing loose conversations in a 24-hour time period ( Dazed and Confused, Tape), Linklater does include his signature eavesdropping technique. One minute we are listening to a teenage fast food worker explicitly describe how he would rob Mickey's. The next minute we observe Greg Kinnear's businessman as he dresses himself while simultaneously watching hotel porn. While Linklater is not the best persuasive storyteller, his characters here are rich as always.

Fast Food Nation really is a film that dishes out a fair amount of flaws. It is understood why Richard Linklater's long-awaited take on the best-selling book falls short for some critics. So many raw and revealing facts are not justified properly in this script. However, looking past the film's ability to convey the truth, I very much enjoyed watching it from start to finish. Richard Linklater is one of the more impressive filmmakers to come out of the new millennium. Despite a possible weakness in plot, he still manages to impress with his easy-going direction and vivacious characters. Would I recommend Fast Food Nation? Sure. However, if you are looking for a convincing revolt against the fast food industry, I highly suggest curling up with the book instead.