Review: Maps to the Stars

by Trevor Kirkendall

★½

I was reading some comments on a celebrity’s photo on Instagram recently. The picture depicted said celebrity at an exotic location relaxing on a beach. The comments came from many different people wishing this person a happy vacation and others saying how jealous they were. (By using a strange shorthand version of the world that I would normally associate with condiment best paired with peanut butter, but I digress.) We are much closer than ever to celebrities, thanks to social media and TMZ’s ever-watchful eye. We vicariously follow their journey through riches and glamour of a Hollywood lifestyle online, and we think we know them like they’re friends of ours. But there’s a dark side to Hollywood that we all know is there, but choose not to think about it.

Director David Cronenberg pulls aside the veil of Hollywood in his latest feature “Maps to the Stars.” Hollywood famously loves movies about themselves, as evident with “Birdman” winning Best Picture a few weeks ago. But the side depicted in “Maps to the Stars” is the side they don’t want you to know about; a dark and disturbed city full of substance abuse, sex abuse, and prima donnas who kick and scream when things don’t go their way. And people just act like it doesn’t matter and that’s just the way the world works.

That’s the setting. As for the plot, screenwriter Bruce Wagner ("A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors") doesn’t give us a whole lot to work with. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The film is pretty easy to follow, but it makes for a difficult time when trying to describe what it’s about. We start with Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), a mysterious girl arriving in Hollywood from Florida. Her intentions here aren’t yet known except for the fact that she’s here to meet her new online friend Carrie Fisher. (Yes, that Carrie Fisher) She’s driven from the bus station by Jerome (Robert Pattinson), an aspiring actor and screenwriter. Elsewhere, we meet teen star Benjie (Evan Bird) who is the face of a popular movie franchise getting set to shoot a sequel. At 13, he’s already had one stint in a drug rehab clinic. His father is Stafford (John Cusack), a new age type of doctor who treats stars such as the legendary Havana Segrand (Julianne Moore). Havana is attempting to star in the remake of a film her mother starred in before her untimely death. And yes, all these people will come together somehow.

I should just go ahead and spoil everything so you don’t have to satisfy your curiosity and actually watch this. It’s not that it’s trash; it’s so wildly erratic and unsettling that it’s best left untouched. If that’s something you’re into, then have at it. Given that Cronenberg directs the film, I should have known what I was getting into. It certainly has his signature on it. Judging from his more recent work, one would have thought he was leaving his weirder side back in the 80s and 90s. Apparently not.

“Maps to the Stars” almost seems like Cronenberg is trying to out-Lynch David Lynch. At times, I was reminded of “Mulholland Drive” thanks to the music and, of course, the setting. Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive” is a mind trip, and that’s simply put. Neither film is really about movies in general, more about the city and the wealthy people who inhabit it. Other than a few Lynchian moments early on, the comparisons between the two films begin and end with the setting of Los Angeles. “Maps to the Stars” is nowhere near the caliber film as Lynch’s masterpiece.

The biggest issue here is the film is barely watchable. There’s no primary protagonist or antagonist. I’m sure a case could be made for any of these characters to be either the good guy or the bad guy, but I don’t want to spend too much more time dwelling on this film. I’ve already crossed the 600-word mark by this point, which means I’ll soon never have to think about it again. I don’t hate this film, and there are a few redeeming qualities. The fact remains that there’s no one to root for and there’s no one to like. You can probably make a movie featuring a cast of unlikeable characters, but you can’t have them discussing incestual relationships every other scene. Yes, this is a huge part of the plot and it’s disturbing to hear every time.

The performances from Moore and Wasikowska are the only redeeming factors I can identify. They share several scenes together and showcase their ranges very well. In real life, Moore is a seasoned Oscar-winning veteran in Hollywood while Wasikowska is still trying to make a name for herself. Everything I see her in, she’s fantastic. She’s no different here. I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to look at her the same way again, especially after this film’s shocking and truly alarming climax. Moore is excellent, as usual. I can’t recall her ever playing a character this deranged and troubled. She’s had better roles before in her career, but never this psychotic.

“Maps to the Stars” should be avoided and forgotten. I expected more from the veteran Cronenberg this late in his career. Fans of Moore may be interested in seeing her in such a dynamic performance, but other than that there’s nothing else to see. It’s far from the worst movie I’ve ever watched, but it’s also far from enjoyable. It’s best that we maybe not see or think about this side of Hollywood if we still want to enjoy our movies. It’s fun to want to peak behind the curtain sometimes, but not like this. Let’s just keep looking at the glimpses of celebrities’ lives they offer to us via social media. But we can stop being jealous of them, especially if “Maps to the Stars” is an indication of what they deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Review: The Rover

by. Joe Moss
★

I must admit that I had some incredibly high expectations walking in to view David Michôd's 2014 Official Cannes Selection "The Rover;" nevertheless, after the 1:46 showing time (which felt like 3 hours), I left severely disappointed. I chalked this move up as a movie that I would have rather

viewed after consuming mass quantities of mind-altering substances--only then may it have been vaguely interesting. 

Since, leaving the theater at 5 pm yesterday, I have tried to allow time for the "poignant message" of the film to seep into my brain--as is stated in other reviews and fan-postings. BUT THERE IS NOT ONE! Others have stated that this film encompasses a type of intensity and cerebral grittiness that passes the normal viewers' mindset... I would like to call BS and state that THEY must have been on a bender while watching this drivel. I am all for cerebral, thought-inducing films...and this is not an example of such. I will say...the double entendre of the title was awesome for about 2 seconds. Then I realized the vague and meaningless point of the movie and thought to myself "WOW...that was IT?"

The film is set 10 years hence in an post-apocalyptic Australia. [NO, this is not a reboot of Mad Max (that would have been wishful thinking)]. Eric (Guy Pearce) has his car stolen and spends the entire film trying to retrieve this car. How does he find it? He lucks upon the mentally handicap brother, Rey (Robert Pattinson), of one of the car-thieves who was wounded in a gunfight with the Australian military. Roy takes Eric across 8-9 hours of the outback to a dilapidated housing outpost where they find the car. At this pint, it almost seems that Eric is about to check out and leave, but then revenge is doled out as an afterthought.

I find the impossibly long takes and lackadaisical direction that Michôd used in this film to be ridiculous. They added nothing to the substance of the film--rather they made the movie drag on impossibly long. Rather than the standard 3 acts of the film, I would argue that there are 4 in this film. 4 Distinct settings and 4 distinct plot movements that are supposed to move the audience toward a deeper understanding. That did occur...SLOWLY. In the 1:46 minutes of shooting time, I definitely feel that the movie would have been better suited to 1:20. That is about the time I looked at my watch and was thinking is the point ever going to happen. 

Joel Edgerton (Warrior, Kinky Boots) developed the story with Michôd adapting the screenplay. And somewhere I feel there must have been some elements lost in adaptation.  Elements...how about the entire dialogue? There is so little plot development occurring that when it does, I was thinking--really..that's IT? Why were we subjected to Rey (Pattinson) having a conversation in Mandarin with a woman and her child? Is this supposed to show us that he is not AS mentally handicapped as previously thought and demonstrated? I understand why we do not find out much about Eric (Pearce) until the last 30 minutes of the film, but why was that element downplayed? Why are we subjected to the long sequence with the Vet...oh, yeah, [SPOILER ALERT] by the end of the film that one is ABUNDANTLY clear... In fact, at the end of the film, you see that is the fore-shadowing event extraordinaire. The film fizzles out at the end, there is not great A-HA moment!

On a POSITIVE note, I will have to agree that Robert Pattinson's performance was a nice stand-out. He does show an innate ability to act after all. I did enjoy the depth of character 'derrière les yeux' (behind the eyes). He was a joy to watch, and for that saving grace alone the film received the 1 star. In fact, he alone summaries the movie in the best delivered line of the screenplay. "Not everything has to be about something"

I pretty much had the anaemic plot worked out by 25 minutes into the film, only to have the ending produce such an anti-climactic event that I thought to myself "self...you should have left the film 45 minutes ago."