"Why do I watch these movies?" people ask, "especially if you already know the director has a tendency to produce crap!" Simple Answer: there's more to learn from something done badly than something done brilliantly.
The lesson once again is "lack of restraint." If you as an artist find yourself wondering where that invisible line is where things go from "good" to "too much" then I must urge you to pick up one of Boll's films where he boldly crosses that line so you don't have to. And before too long, indeed, we're being introduced to too many characters set in a high school so I bet you can guess the dozen stereotypes before seeing the film. Don't need an introduction, much less any development for these stereotypes, right? Too bad. Not only do you get introduction, but everyone's role gets spelled out so thoroughly that everyone gets that metaphorical name tag. I'm sorry I shouldn't use the word "metaphorical" in a Boll review. It'll give the false impression of sophistication and subtlety both of which the director lacks.
And since these characters lack sub-text, Boll attempts to create interest by cutting away from a scene prematurely not unlike those hack-storytellers whose narrative goes something like this: " the girl reached the dark and creepy door at the end of the spooky corridor, she reaches for the handle and THEN meanwhile, Billy up the street " And not only do we get a full entourage of characters who need no introduction, we also get full blown back-story on a number of them complete with black & white flashbacks haphazardly intercut with the present narrative. Take for example what should be a powerful flashback when the typical class losers are subject to humiliation and harassment from the bullies. This is intercut with the painfully long and monotonous series of shots of our loser/shooters walking and walking and walking. You could almost almost stick it in a comedy, and it could be a joke about how long it takes the character to get from point A to point B (you know, cut to a wide shot and show that it took him an hour to go five feet.) That said, it's amazing both how much and how little power remains in the film. The power that is there is, no doubt, attributed to the relevance of school shootings in American society. It's simply inherent to the subject matter just as a movie about Pearl Harbor would have been in 1942 or a movie about 9/11 released in 2002. Not even Boll's passion for ODing good concepts on steroids until they become hideous freaks of nature like Barry Bonds can't completely drain the power. That said, given the subject matter and the time spent building up to the actual shooting, it's amazing how little impact the film's climax has.
Perhaps one reason lay in the contrived "surprise" that the film spoils almost from the opening scene. A kid wakes up to a phone call. "It's the last day of school. Don't punk out on me." And he immediately powers on his computer so the same things can be exchanged in an IM. Why? Because it's easier to hide the identity of the last shooter if communication is only shown via computer screens. As the lead shooter is getting the guns, he looks up to his off-screen accomplice and smiles, "I knew you wouldn't punk out on me." And I'm left wondering, "Gee, Boll is going through great pains to not show someone's face I wonder which of these spelled-out characters it could be?" Just like many films of this nature, the ending features a superimposed paragraph (which gets read to us by an unseen narrator) about a real school shooting then another brief paragraph about another real school shooting then another and another and another. Once again, a nice ending spoiled by the fact that Boll doesn't know when to quit and his knack for taking good ideas to a ridiculous self-parody caliber extreme. And that, dear readers, the upcoming film Postal just might work.
The lesson once again is "lack of restraint." If you as an artist find yourself wondering where that invisible line is where things go from "good" to "too much" then I must urge you to pick up one of Boll's films where he boldly crosses that line so you don't have to. And before too long, indeed, we're being introduced to too many characters set in a high school so I bet you can guess the dozen stereotypes before seeing the film. Don't need an introduction, much less any development for these stereotypes, right? Too bad. Not only do you get introduction, but everyone's role gets spelled out so thoroughly that everyone gets that metaphorical name tag. I'm sorry I shouldn't use the word "metaphorical" in a Boll review. It'll give the false impression of sophistication and subtlety both of which the director lacks.
And since these characters lack sub-text, Boll attempts to create interest by cutting away from a scene prematurely not unlike those hack-storytellers whose narrative goes something like this: " the girl reached the dark and creepy door at the end of the spooky corridor, she reaches for the handle and THEN meanwhile, Billy up the street " And not only do we get a full entourage of characters who need no introduction, we also get full blown back-story on a number of them complete with black & white flashbacks haphazardly intercut with the present narrative. Take for example what should be a powerful flashback when the typical class losers are subject to humiliation and harassment from the bullies. This is intercut with the painfully long and monotonous series of shots of our loser/shooters walking and walking and walking. You could almost almost stick it in a comedy, and it could be a joke about how long it takes the character to get from point A to point B (you know, cut to a wide shot and show that it took him an hour to go five feet.) That said, it's amazing both how much and how little power remains in the film. The power that is there is, no doubt, attributed to the relevance of school shootings in American society. It's simply inherent to the subject matter just as a movie about Pearl Harbor would have been in 1942 or a movie about 9/11 released in 2002. Not even Boll's passion for ODing good concepts on steroids until they become hideous freaks of nature like Barry Bonds can't completely drain the power. That said, given the subject matter and the time spent building up to the actual shooting, it's amazing how little impact the film's climax has.
Perhaps one reason lay in the contrived "surprise" that the film spoils almost from the opening scene. A kid wakes up to a phone call. "It's the last day of school. Don't punk out on me." And he immediately powers on his computer so the same things can be exchanged in an IM. Why? Because it's easier to hide the identity of the last shooter if communication is only shown via computer screens. As the lead shooter is getting the guns, he looks up to his off-screen accomplice and smiles, "I knew you wouldn't punk out on me." And I'm left wondering, "Gee, Boll is going through great pains to not show someone's face I wonder which of these spelled-out characters it could be?" Just like many films of this nature, the ending features a superimposed paragraph (which gets read to us by an unseen narrator) about a real school shooting then another brief paragraph about another real school shooting then another and another and another. Once again, a nice ending spoiled by the fact that Boll doesn't know when to quit and his knack for taking good ideas to a ridiculous self-parody caliber extreme. And that, dear readers, the upcoming film Postal just might work.