A film, by its mainstream nature, is at the mercy of its audience. In an ideal world a movie will be judged by its merits as opposed to mob mentality, fickle flavor-of-the-week filmgoers, or marketing overexposure. So, it’s fairly common that a movie attains a status ascribed by a zealous film-going public that can range form massively overhyped to criminally underrated. While each end of the spectrum has its own pro’s and cons, they both lose a resemblance of what the film was originally intended to exist as. The subject of this ponderance(I’m pretty sure this isn’t a word) is far more rare than simply being over or underrated, but more as a look at movies that manage to be overrated as well as underrated at once. Disclaimer: technically, cult films such as Evil Dead, Death Race 2000, or Monster Squad fall under this category, I don’t particularly feel they exist in a cinematic purgatory(I suppose they live in cult heaven). The two movies at the center of this article are The Crow and Garden State.
The Crow
Far and away, the most criminally overlooked comic book movie is The Crow. This can most certainly be attributed to the massive effect that it had on the(and I cringe as I type this) mid-nineties goth culture. Simply the sight of a gaggle of teenagers desperately trying to cope with their emotions by emulating the aesthetic appearance of an undead avenger can have a pretty strong effect on a movie’s legacy. So much so, that I would say this has left a stronger impression on the film’s legacy than Brandon Lee’s death, which is terribly tragic to say the least. Although the stigma can’t entirely be attributed to goth culture, but regardless, a person is more likely to run into a crow poser than a conversation about Brandon Lee’s death, but I suppose that’s just how it goes. The goth culture is one of the few explanations as to how the mention of this film is either met with indifference or a condescending smirk. Needless to say, the movie deserves far more than that.
The Crow is a movie that requires a revisit, particularly as a contrast to the current funny book film explosion. In terms of mood and set design for a comic book film, it doesn’t get much more evocative of the source material than this movie. The story, by and large, is rock solid, except for the ending(which I’ll get to). What really elevates the Crow, aside from it’s astounding visuals, is the uniformly great acting. Aside from the fantastic character actors, the true revelation is Brandon Lee’s performance. What makes his portrayal so stunning is the range and charisma that he brings to the character. Even more astonishing is that his greatest previous acting achievement was a co-starring role in Showdown in Little Tokyo along with straight-to-rental stalwart Dolph Lundgren.
A common criticism is its moments of melodrama, but I find it difficult to fault this movie for recognizing its emotional sensibility and playing up the tragic aspects of the story, whether it revolves around the supporting characters themselves or its protagonist. I suppose it comes down to whether you buy the story of a zombie avenger or not. The true Achilles’ heel to the movie, which is common to most movies dealing with the mystic, is its ending. The flimsy conclusion involving the protagonist’s vulnerability in churches and the incredulous epiphany by the antagonists to realize it feels unnecessarily arbitrary. Even though we’re supposed to accept supernatural crows resurrecting dudes and a villain’s epiphany seems entirely plausible by comparison, the epiphany comes across as a means to arbitrarily conclude the film. Although the brunt of this plot stretch could’ve been softened if the movie hadn’t been significantly weakened and grinded to a halt three quarters into the movie. The main driving force of the film is The Crow’s quest of vengeance against the four men that raped and murdered his fiance. It’s not only the meaning behind his revenge against them but his interaction with them that carries the movie. So when he achieves his vengeance and moves onto the big boss man that is indirectly tied to the murder, the movie loses a majority of its momentum and it’s emotional resonance(although his means of defeating this villain is particularly righteous).
Essentially, this was my long-winded way of saying that this is a great, but flawed movie(I can’t help but resist the term flawed masterpiece) that seems to be remembered for all the wrong reasons and I urge anybody to revisit it with an open mind.
Garden State
The reason behind how a movie like Garden State can evoke such diametric responses to it can be attributed to whether you “get” it or not. Now this is not to say that people who don’t “get” it are mentally deficient or that those who do “get” it have a more developed sense of taste, but simply that the enjoyment of the movie is entirely dependent on whether you can fully identify with the movie. Since the movie is so hopelessly over sentimental and personal(at least in terms of attraction and emotional sensibilities), it either comes off as a godsend or extremely self-indulgent. Bear in mind, there’s no real way to know for sure as to whether Braff intended for the movie to be personal, but the content seems to suggest otherwise.
Although, at the end of the day, what should be made of the film, outside of whatever emotional baggage you bring to the film? The most significant fault in Garden State is the underdeveloped subplot/relationship involving Braff and his father. The amount of time dedicated to this aspect is far too much to be considered an afterthought and too little to offer any substance, and in turn, just serves as a distraction slows the movie down tremendously during those scenes.
One of the stranger aspects of the film is its sense of humor. For a movie that succeeds so well with a visual gags and a less-forced form of comedy, it’s very strange to note that the movie resorts to dog-humping and balls being written on someone’s head. While I have not personal issues with this range, it is tonally inconsistent. Although, the contradictory subject of humor seems to bolster the idea that this movie was a self-indulgent exercise since it’s not entirely abnormal for someone to dig fart jokes as well as a slightly less crass form of humor. The humor was not consistent because it was not a film independent of its filmmaker(but I suppose a film’s independence from a director is a different discussion altogether).
The acting is strong throughout and is highlighted by Braff and the always reliable Stellan Skarsgard. Portman does what she can with the character and comes off as either endearing or terribly annoying; it all depends on your aforementioned baggage.
All in all, Garden State marks a very impressive debut for a young director and is a sure sign of good things to come after his Scrubs days. What truly hurt the movie was its personal content and prevented it from being looked at by its own merits and led to it being embraced by a narrower , more impassioned fan base. Which, if this was Braff’s intentions, then I say more power to him.
- Jacob