i hated this movie. i don’t even have that much to say about it, because i don’t think it’s worth much of the space on this blog to discuss. i only publish necessary criticisms to prevent readers from spending the extra $4 at blockbuster (let’s hope that it won’t cost anymore).
i think molly shannon had potential in this role; she is more talented than her silly, extroverted comedy leads viewers to believe, and she’s very good at playing up emotion. and the character in this film could have been good. unfortunately it was tainted heavily by underdeveloped, extreme relationships: a really, really weird quasi-platonic one with a quasi-gay man (peter sarsgaard, h-band of maggie gyllenhaaaaaaaaaal); an awkwardly brief romantic one with a hick stereotype (the lowest of low for john c. reilly); and a degradingly subordinate one (that i believe had the most potential) with her boss (played by josh pais, the modelizer from this episode of SATC) that seemed to sprout buds of URST (refer to “Once” review for definition).
the film was also grossly aware of its indie-ness, a cinematic mindset that only napoleon dynamite and garden state have been able to get away with. nothing bugs me more than those LOOK AT HOW INDIE WE ARE mid- or head-shots, supposedly brimming with indie meaning about indie life. this one was pretty cool, but it still proves my point:back to the film at hand. dogs were actually kind of problematic in this film. the name “pencil” was pretty darn cute for the primary animal, but SPOILER ALERT its death caused molly shannon’s character to turn into a complete creepy freak. there was no real transition between mental states, nor no delicacy in the portrayal. one minute, she’s researching humane societies on the internet, the next she’s waiting in her neighbor’s closet with a hardcore slasher knife.
i guess, in this case, the bark of the movie is a lot better than its bite, considering all those awards it supposedly won. what the hell were they thinking?