Brushes with Disappointment

Obviously, I've failed my 1 post a day 'til the end of Summer goal, for no good reason. Oh well.

I typically only blog about books/shows/movies that really impress me--or at least aren't complete wastes of time. But I've decided as a public service, to warn my readers away from a few items--all of which are critically acclaimed, I should add, so take my warnings with whatever measure of salt you find appropriate.

First off is Two Lovers, supposedly Joaquin Phoenix's last film. Not the way someone should go out. This was dismal story about a suicidal young man reeling from a broken engagement who falls for a wreck of an inaccessible girl (Gwyneth Paltrow) while being pushed into a relationship by his overbearing, but caring parents. Phoenix's character is a horrible, selfish man who deserves neither of the girls' affections/time. I spent most of the movie wondering if it was morally acceptable to root a suicidal character to succeed in one of his attempts since he's only a fictional character. The indy movie (inexplicably nominated for the Palme d'Or at the Cannes) didn't have the indy ending I expected, but that small surprise was little compensation for this waste of time.

Visioneers is another much-heralded movie that I just don't get the raves for. Set in a distopian near-future where people explode from stress (mostly from not being the happy, productive people that they're supposed to be, I think) . The opening sequence (about 7 minutes is my guess) sets up what could be a great dark satire--what Idiocracy wanted to be, but at least it featured likeable characters. After that, the wheels fall off. This is a movie full of wasted potential--the only attribute of Zach Galifianakis' that was really used to his potential was his bushy beard. On the plus side, the criminally underemployed Judy Greer got some good screen time (where she didn't get to be terribly funny at all, of course)--ditto for James LeGros and Matthew Glave (who, I have to admit, was pretty amusing). I had to wonder if I'd "get" the flick, or at least enjoy it, if I'd been smoking marijuana at the time. But since I have never/would never do that (and I was on duty at a rehab center while watching it), the movie's appeal shall elude me.

Last, and possibly least, let's look at Benjamin Anastas's debut novel, An Underachiever’s Diary (newly republished). The recommendation I read for this called said it "may have been the funniest, most underappreciated book of the 1990s". Really? I remember the 90's having better taste. This is the very colored reminiscences of the lesser of two twins. William is constantly outshone by his brother Clive (despite testing as well as, if not better than) from the cradle onward. Clive's more successful in school, socially, athletically, etc. He's better looking, healthier...better in ever conceivable fashion. William sees this from an early age and determines to keep things that way--to basically excel at not being as good as his brother (or anyone else for that matter). And in that, and in that only, does he find success. There are sentences/paragraphs scattered throughout the novel that almost make it worth the effort, like:

universal LOVE, the failing panacea of my parents' generation: flower children, baby boomers, whatever name you'd like to use. Exactly what had the sexual revolution gained them, after all? Some measure of bodily happiness, a sex instinct unfettered, the herpes virus, the social acceptability of T-shirts and cutoff shorts, but what else? Had they really changed our values and attitudes?

Aside from those momentary displays of authorial talent, there's no profit from spending time with this determinedly miserable character.