The Exorcist: Believer

Despite almost fifty years have passed since “The Exorcist” was released theatrically, it still is there in our memories. Every year, this famous film comes up in conversation, trending topics, or on top of a recently-watched list on streaming platforms – especially during Halloween. Adapted from William Peter Blatty’s best-seller, “The Exorcist” dominated the box office, earned 10 Academy Award nominations, and is the first horror film to be nominated for Best Picture. Kit Stone said in her review, “We still discuss the visceral reactions of first-time viewers of the film: people fainting in the aisles, becoming nauseated and being shocked by the on-screen terror. What wasn’t intended to be the epic horror it became is now a mainstay in horror curriculum.” Now, trying to build on and continue the legacy, director David Gordon Green tries to continue the franchise with “The Exorcist: Believer,” released in 2023.

Lesli Odom, Jr. stars as photographer Victor, a single dad who lost his pregnant wife, played by Tracey Graves, in an earthquake in Haiti thirteen years ago. His daughter Angela (Lidya Jewett) survived, and now with the help of her friend Katherine (Olivia O’Neill), wants to try to get in touch with her late mother through a séance in the woods. The girls are missing for three days and appear with no memory of what took place over that period, which to them was only a few hours.

Stone mentioned, “The film’s pacing and narrative up to this point are impeccable. Many horror movies hastily bridge to the sinister parts, occasionally leaving potential storylines unexplored. This film’s beginning, detailing the girls’ disappearance and the resulting parental despair, masterfully sets the stage for their eventual return. However, this is where the film stumbles: after reaching this high point, it stagnates instead of intensifying.”

Angela and Katherine are tested at the local hospital, and it doesn’t take long for their behavior to show that something uncertain has happened. Angela attacks her father, and Katherine has a meltdown in the middle of Sunday service. Victor, along with Katherine’s parents, Miranda (Jennifer Nettles) and Tony (Norbert Leo Butz), don’t know how to help their daughters. Victor’s neighbor Paula (Ann Dowd), who also works at the hospital as a nurse, believes that he contacts someone with experience in this area: Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn).

Stone said, “As the possession acrobatics begin, we anticipate things escalating, culminating in a final attempt to exorcise the spirits from the girls. However, the film’s pacing feels less like an ‘ebb and flow’ and more like an ‘ebb and slow,’ leaving certain narrative elements wanting.”

One element that seemed out of place was the language used during the exorcism and the ritual’s execution. The film’s inclusive approach was expected, given the modern cultural landscape. However, it felt as if there was a purposeful effort to keep God at a distance, despite such a presence is essential to possession horror films.

The absence of the old and young priests we expect in these films was famous. Stone said, “Despite this fresh take, the narrative didn’t sufficiently delve into the spiritual aspects to align with the story. Expanding the world is fine if the worldbuilding is comprehensive. Asking audiences to detach from the source material in a film intended to broaden the existing franchise is arduous.” Certain risks taken in a movie that hurts the story of “The Exorcist” and the possession subgenre have to be done without mistake.

Near the end of the film, Dowd’s character gives a semi-monologue highlighting strength, flexibility, and persistence. Yet, this sentiment is not endured. What strength did we see? The film’s second half doesn’t have substance. The narrative doesn’t give us enough opportunities to resonate with the story or characters, so the emotional impact was weak when disclosures extended.

“The Exorcist: Believer” has a few problems that can’t be ignored. David Gordon Green shows his talent with great scenes and even a few jump scares. Unfortunately, any good feel that the first half of the film left was taken by inconsistent pacing, unfinished creation of the environment, and a splitting conclusion that might make some drawing away from the franchise completely.

This is another bad entry in the franchise. It may not be bad as some of the others, but it is still pretty bad. It’s like the magic that they try to recreate from the original always seems to be attempted, but it fails. Maybe because that was only something that can be done once and you can’t capture lighting in a bottle twice. They were trying to make another trilogy, but now everything has been scrapped, which is a good thing. I think I saw this on Peacock, but it is currently streaming on Prime. Don’t see it because you will not like it, I assure you.

Look out this Friday for the continuation of “Candyman Month.”

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh

We now come to the 1995 bad Bill Condon sequel to one of the scariest horror movies ever made. “Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh” has more of the tragic horror icon with a hook for a hand. Once a slave who was lynched for having an affair with a white woman, he appears for murder every time someone says his name five times in a mirror.

A direct sequel to the first film, a local author (Michael Culkin) is murdered by Candyman (Tony Todd) in a bar bathroom, and his attacker, Ethan Tennant (William O’Leary), the son of a Candyman victim (Michael Bergeron) is blamed. His sister, Annie Tarrant, played by Kelly Rowan, is a normal school teacher in New Orleans who is insistent that he didn’t commit the murder, but Ethan just wants to take the blame for Candyman. Felix Vasquez said in his review, “Convinced otherwise, she begins investigating, despite his objections, and unfolds a humongous mystery that I wish were interesting.” For some reason, more of the originals of Candyman are revealed, as he’s given a tragic story, as well as a reason for being called from the mirror. You would think he’d only really murder the people that call him from the mirror but sure enough he just needs to be called by anyone at any time even playfully.

Vasquez said, “The Cenobites needed a puzzle solved.” Demons needed a book to be read. Deadites needed an incantation. But you could be somewhere, say his name five times, and sure enough he’ll appear and murder viciously. There’s just something that explains the character where he can come around to kill you at any time. Sure enough, despite being warned about the Candyman, and knowing about the mysterious hook-based murders, Annie begins putting herself in danger. She finds changes to the Candyman, she enters into dark isolated mansions, and all just because of a guess. Even when it becomes evident that the Candyman is real, Kelly Rowan’s performance is fine, but the rest of the movie drags with a slow pacing that completely removes any mystery that the writer tries to invoke.

Vasquez admitted, “Granted Tony Todd’s performance is fantastic as always, but rather than uncover Annie’s past, I just wanted the movie to get to the darn point, and figure out what Candyman wanted with her and her mother (Veronica Cartwright).”

I cannot believe that they would make a sequel that would be so awful. The way they ended the first movie, I would have been happy with the direction it could have gone in, but they threw that out the window. This sequel is just terrible. Currently, it is streaming on Max, but do not make the mistake of seeing it because you will be questioning the movie every minute. If you loved the first movie, then don’t see this one at all.

Next week we will be continuing the torture by looking at a worse sequel in “Candyman Month.”

Joker: Folie á Deux

Today I went and saw “Joker: Folie á Deux,” which came out four days ago. I was surprised to see that they were making a sequel to “Joker,” as I thought that film stood well on its own. However, when I saw the trailers, I thought it was going to be good. Did it hold up to the expectations of the trailer?

Two years have passed since Arthur Fleck, reprised by Joaquin Phoenix, put on the clown make-up, murdered several people, and became a folk hero to the broken people of Gotham City. He’s allowed witness to none of these rebellions he’s supposedly inspired, having spent the short-term period behind bars in the dilapidated Arkham Asylum. With his trail coming up and the district attorney, Harvey Dent, played by Harry Lawton, insisting on the death penalty, there is little bit of hope. That is, until he sees Lee, played by Lady Gaga, who has a song in her heard and stars in her eyes.

Kayleigh Donaldson said in her review, “Director Todd Phillips had sold 2019’s Joker as a one-off experiment for Warner Bros. and DC to allow their tightly controlled superhero franchise the chance to shake things up in an ‘artsy’ manner. But, after grossing $1 billion worldwide, winning two Oscars, and taking home the top prize at the Venice Film Festival, there was no way the studio was going to leave it there. Joker: Folie a Deux comes to us with a reported $200 million budget, but also far more tepid reviews. Audiences don’t seem as thrilled with the prospect of a musical drama twisted romance courtroom tale. That’s not their Joker, at least that’s what I’ve seen his die-hard fans proclaiming on social media.” They’re not wrong there. What proves most fascinating about “Folie á Deux” is how it tells those supporters to screw off.

Donaldson admitted, “Folie a Deux is a very mean movie, and I say that as a compliment. The biggest issue with the first film was that Phillips was too timid to make it as nihilistic as he believed it to be. The bleak perspective of a story about a mentally ill loner being elevated to god status through violence was diluted by his enamoured perspective for that idea of the anti-hero.” He believed a little too much what Arthur was selling, and so did his fans. That inspired some really overdone address about the film being ‘dangerous’ that it never deserved. “Folie á Deux” comes far closer to diving into complete anarchy.

Arthur’s lawyer, played by Catherine Keener, has made her defense on the idea of him having a ‘split personality,’ one that turns into ‘Joker’ when triggered by the traumatic memories of his abusive childhood. Donaldson said, “To make that case, and do so for a camera-packed trial that’s being broadcast live, she has to sell him to the masses as a pathetic mess with no control over himself. It’s not untrue either, but standing by that defence disempowers Arthur, and his conflict over that is intriguing. If he gives the braying crowds what they want, isn’t there some dignity in that? But Arthur is not his own creation, and the act he puts on in his own defence (allowed by the most lenient judge in all of Gotham, apparently) is cringe-inducing.” He’s not funny, he’s not charismatic, and he’s not the clown prince of crime. However, none of that matters more than the imagination built up by those who want him to be more. Donaldson admitted, “To make that case, and do so for a camera-packed trial that’s being broadcast live, she has to sell him to the masses as a pathetic mess with no control over himself. It’s not untrue either, but standing by that defence disempowers Arthur, and his conflict over that is intriguing. If he gives the braying crowds what they want, isn’t there some dignity in that? But Arthur is not his own creation, and the act he puts on in his own defence (allowed by the most lenient judge in all of Gotham, apparently) is cringe-inducing. Why would you want to be those jerks? Something tells me that DC won’t sell as many Joker Halloween costumes this year.”

However, there are positive aspects here. Honestly, there are many things appreciate: the Looney Tunes animated opening given by the legendary Sylvain Chomet. Donaldson noted, “Laurence Sher’s cinematography, blending ’70s grime with golden age musical sheen.” Steve Coogan playing a creepy TV host who he clearly based on Piers Morgan. Brendan Gleeson as a cruel prison guard who thinks he’s Sinatra. Finally, a really disappointing ending. Phoenix and Gaga have a weird and disorganized chemistry that makes sense as the creation of total fantasy, and both of them can dance nonstop. Leigh Gill returns from the first film and steals the show.

Just like everyone else has been saying, this is boring. Donaldson said, “Phillips has somehow managed to take the idea of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest crossed with Pennies from Heaven and sap it of its verve and movement.” The musical segments aren’t directed right, with many of them shot in close-up. It’s too long but the important moments of realization are rushed. Gaga’s character is not there for a lot of the second half, even though she’s necessary for the story to work. We don’t see anything outside of the prison or get an idea of the amount of Arthur’s support. Just like the first film, the problem stays the director. Donaldson said, “He’s not up to the task, not nervy or skilled enough to match his own ambition. Folie a Deux cries out for someone who knows how to shoot choreography, a filmmaker with a knack for bone-dry dark humour and a foot within the realms of the unreal.” You can see every way this movie’s supposed to work and it doesn’t do any of that. By the end, you’re frustrated more than anything else.

In many ways, “Joker: Folie á Deux” is a better film than the last. It’s at least more willing to disrupt expectations. Yet the weaknesses can’t be brushed aside and Phillips cannot help but blame himself. Donaldson ended her review by admitting, “Believe it or not, dude, but I was rooting for you.”

As everyone knows, I really loved the first movie. That was one of the darkest look at a DC character I had ever seen. I wasn’t expecting it and I thought it was well done. However, the sequel just ended up being a disappointment. All of the good stuff was in the trailers, and even those segments ended up fooling you. I fell asleep at one point for a little bit because it was that boring. The direction the film went in ended up being a disappointment. This is one of the most boring sequels I have seen in a long time. Don’t go to the theaters to see this because it will not make you happy.

Thank you for joining in on this review. In the meantime, I have to recover from this boring film and I’ll see everyone this Friday for the continuation of “Candyman Month.”

Insidious: The Red Door

With this year’s “Halloween Month,” I am thinking of doing something similar to what I did a few years ago. Since I said that Friday’s will be “Candyman Month,” I will post a review on a new horror movie on Mondays. This Monday will be “Insidious: The Red Door,” released in 2023.

With only a few exceptions like “Halloween,” “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “The Conjuring,” “Friday the 13^th,” and so many more, rarely do horror franchises manage to keep a strong and consistent amount of success for more than a few sequels. The pattern looks like tow or maybe three major hits, then a huge downward dive into garbage.

Frank Wilkins said in his review, “Another outlier, though it sagged a wee bit in its middle installments, was the Insidious franchise which bucked the trend of grotesque horror porn in favor of paranormal creeps and crawls which have haunted our dreams since 2008. And no, not even the bold stroke of reuniting the original cast for Insidious: The Red Door, is enough to deliver a satisfying experience.”

About fifteen minutes into the movie, it is evident there’s something missing from this new sequel. This is the first “Insidious” film not written by Leigh Whannell, and you can see that. Despite having the look of an engaging storyline, and the return of Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, and Andrew Astor, the film uses too many boring clichés and weak scares. The result is a boring and forgettable sequel for everyone.

The failure of this film isn’t completely all on director Patrick Wilson. Wilkins notes, “This is Wilson’s first time in the director’s chair and though he does well enough, he often struggles with the film’s haphazard pacing, and poorly executed transitions that leave us grasping to follow the story’s intentions.”

Scott Teems writes the story and Whannel gets a small amount of credit. When we last saw the Lambert family at the end of “Chapter 2,” astral projectors, Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Dalton (Ty Simpkins) were still recovering from so many journeys into The Further, a type of purgatory dimension filled with tortured spirits of the dead.

Kidnapped by a demon and rescued by his dad, Dalton watched Josh become possessed by a ghost which made him go insane through the house, trying to kill the entire family. Dalton went back into The Further trying to rescue Josh.

In the latest sequel, we see Dalton and Josh trying to get on with their lives. Josh is now divorced from Renai (Rose Byrne) and Dalton goes to an east coast art school where an aggressive art teacher (Hiam Abbass) encourages Dalton to explore the connection with light and dark so he can develop his own type of art. Dalton makes a big mistake to take that literally. There are some really dark things that are inside Dalton’s psyche since being hypnotized to forget what happened to the Lambert family ten years ago.

These are themes which become the main themes look at by Teems’ script. The value of family, dealing with trauma, understanding the relationship between light, dark, and balance are all aspects that were seen in the first film. Unfortunately, those aspects don’t work in this new sequel.

Another problem with “Insidious: The Red Door” is the lack of scary moments through the duration of film. Wilkins pointed out, “The original Insidious film was celebrated for its ability to generate genuine terror and tension, but The Red Door falls way short. Whenever the soundtrack goes silent, that’s when something is going to jump out. Wilson, as a director, clearly hasn’t yet perfected the art of effective atmosphere and well-timed jump scares. Loud noises and shock value aren’t enough.”

Sadly, “Insidious: The Red Door” doesn’t hold a candle to the previous films. With a difficult story, weak scares, underdeveloped characters, poor performances, boring cinematography, and a disappointing conclusion, this film fails on just about every level. Everyone can guess that this film is a forgettable entry to a series that already was going downhill. It’s time to stop with this franchise.

If everyone remembers, I thought the first two entries were hilariously bad, but afterwards the franchise just kept getting worse. This one is no exception. I seriously don’t know what they were thinking with this awful sequel. Please do us a favor and stop with this franchise. This is a terrible franchise and I don’t understand why they feel like they should keep making sequels to this. Just stop already!! This is streaming on Netflix so don’t make the mistake of seeing this awful sequel.

Look out this Friday for the continuation of “Candyman Month.”

Candyman (1992)

For this year’s “Halloween Month,” I will be looking at a franchise that I first heard from James Rolfe when he did “Monster Madness” a few years back, the “Candyman” franchise. Let’s get started with the first in the franchise, “Candyman,” released in 1992.

Budd Wilkins started his review by saying, “One of the most significant alterations that writer-director Bernard Rose made to Clive Barker’s short story “The Forbidden” when adapting it for the screen was the switch in setting from a council estate in Thatcher-era Liverpool to the Cabrini-Green housing project in early-1990s Chicago. This brings thorny issues of both class and race into sharp focus.” Rose also changes the protagonist’s location of academic review from the study of graffiti to the sources of urban legends. “Candyman” thus clearly becomes a horror story about the power and fascination of horror stories.

Wilkins said, “Rose adopts a slow-burn approach, taking us through the researches of grad student Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) into the titular hook-handed bogeyman, who can only be summoned by repeating his name five times in front of a mirror.” An early look of the Candyman legend – but not of the man himself – turns out to be a story being told to Helen by one of her informants, played by Ria Pavia. Another 40 minutes go by before Candyman, played by Tony Todd, makes his first appearance. Wilkins notes, “This deliberately incremental approach may put off viewers more accustomed to contemporary techniques in pacing and editing, but it definitely pays dividends when it comes to establishing an atmosphere of mounting dread.”

A tip from a university janitor (Sarina C. Grant) takes Helen and her research partner (Kasi Lemmons) to the Cabrini-Green projects, the location of all the real urban horrors. Rose is known to trace some of the sources to poverty, the curse of drugs, and isolation from the surrounding society. Several murders are connected to the Candyman, but it’s not until Helen is attacked by a drug dealer calling himself the Candyman (Terrence Riggins) that the police (Gilbert Lewis) take action.

In an interesting side note, it’s shown that the apartment Helen shares with her professor husband (Xander Berkeley), was originally meant for a housing project identical in layout to Cabrini-Green. However, there weren’t the same public boundaries that separated it from Chicago’s rich Gold Coast, so it was changed into condos instead. Wilkins said, “This doubling between structures is just one instance of literal or figurative mirroring that runs throughout the film.” Here going through the looking glass takes you into the area of lore and legend.

Wilkins speculates, “One way of reading this gratifyingly ambiguous film would have it that there’s no Candyman at all—that his horrors are all taking place inside Helen’s increasingly disordered mind. Sudden shifts in time and location could well represent fugue states. Murder weapons have a peculiar way of finding themselves in Helen’s hands. Even the scene where the Candyman intercedes to free Helen from her restraints in the psychiatrist’s office could simply be a delusion on her part, where she somehow manages to struggle free from shoddily fastened cuffs. The film thus teeters on the threshold between what literary critic Tsvetan Todorov calls the uncanny and the marvelous, the illusory and the actually occurring.” This gives a whole new meaning to the writing on the wall in the final scene: “It was always you, Helen.”

I have to agree with James when he says that “Candyman” is a legitimately scary movie. All of the murders that Candyman does make you really scared and cringe, especially with the bees involved. Also, when you see everything that happens to Helen, you feel really sad for her. Because at first, everyone is on her side and wants to help her, but when Candyman starts murdering everyone around her and everyone that was once on her side turn against her, you feel sad at how quickly everyone changes sides. I give this movie a high recommendation. If you haven’t seen it, watch it on Peacock. This film really fits the Halloween season.

Next week, we will be looking at the first sequel in the franchise in “Candyman Month.” Sorry for the late posting. I didn’t notice that I had fallen asleep from being so tired from work.

Baby Driver

Michael J. Cinema started his review by saying, “There is a scene roughly halfway through Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s 1948 backstage masterpiece The Red Shoes where Ballet Russe impresario Lermontov comforts his understandably nervous principal dancer, Vicky Page.”

“Nothing matters by the music,” Lermontov assures her.

Cinema continued, “He hums the notes and Page relaxes, the steps have returned to her mind and her body regains confidence. Without the music, she’s just a bunch of limbs failing about; with the music, her body and her movements become a work of art.”

Maybe a post-war tragedy about that undying desire to create isn’t the most obvious connection to “Baby Driver” – the 2017 heist/getaway film from British writer/director Edgar Wright – Cinema noted, “but neither is Rouben Mamoulian’s 1931 musical comedy Love Me Tonight. Or the candy-colored costuming and fluid choreography of Jacques Demy’s romantic French trilogy. Yet, there they are; up on the screen, alongside Walter Hill’s The Driver, Richard Rush’s Freebie and the Bean, and Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde. Much in the same way the French New Wave blew a breath of fresh air into gangster pictures, Wright makes a mixtape musical—a “rock opera” in his words—and brings the ghosts of the past to life.”

However, “Baby Driver” is more than just a summary of its reference points. It is an energetic race down the crime-ridden streets of Atlanta and up freeways of young love. Unknown to his girlfriend (Lily James), the protagonist Baby (Ansel Elgort) is a slave of a wheelman for crime boss Doc (Kevin Spacey). Budd (Jon Hamm) and Darling (Eiza González), lovers who steal for their drug habit, and Bats (Jamie Foxx), a stick-up man with, as Cinema described, “a proletariat ax to grind, round out the remainder of the crew.”

Sultry, sleek, and stylish, “Baby Driver” is more than just an exciting take on a familiar genre. It’s a great combination of music and movies. Pre-recorded rock ‘n’ roll, pop, jazz, R&B, and rap are no strangers to mainstream cinema, but few filmmakers have found ways to use it as cleverly. The songs are not here to carry the story when it drags or insert energy where there isn’t any. They are here because they are just as important to Wright’s work as the images. They collide against each other, fuse into one another, and drown out Baby’s tinnitus – a constant reminder of the car accident that killed both of his parents.

However, Baby doesn’t just listen to the music, he moves to it. He mouths the words, sings to himself and others, and, most importantly, he creates it. The songs he selects for each job are carefully crafted based on the energy and timing needed. In one robbery, a bit of improvising from the criminals delays Baby long enough that he has to restart his getaway song to get the timing right. Nothing matters but the music.

After hearing so much praise about this movie, I checked this out a few months ago on Amazon Prime while exercising. You can see this on Netflix and I highly recommend it. If you have loved Edgar Wright’s previous works, you will love “Baby Driver.” The car chases, the music, the action, everything is an adrenaline blast from beginning to end. I cannot do the film justice with this review. You have to see the film to believe it. I give it a high recommendation.

I was surprised to see that there is going to be a sequel to the film. I thought it ended off fine, but if this is going to get a sequel, great. I would love to see a sequel to this film and see what Wright has in store for his fans.

Alright, we have now reached the end of “Kevin Spacey Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it and saw the films I recommended. I know that Spacey is not respected after all the allegations against him, but his films were still great. Wait a minute. Next month is October. You know what that means…HALLOWEEN MONTH!!! Stay tuned to see what spooktacular franchise I will be reviewing next month.

American Beauty

“American Beauty” is a 1999 comedy because we laugh at the strangeness of the protagonist’s issues. This is also a tragedy because we can relate with his failure – not the specific details, but the general feeling.

The movie is about a man who is afraid of growing older, losing the hope of true love and not being respected by the ones who know him best. If you have never related to these things, then people will want to take lessons from you.

The protagonist of the film is Lester Burnham, played by Kevin Spacey, who is a man who is not loved by his daughter, ignored by his wife, and superfluous at work. “I’ll be dead in a year,” he starts the movie saying. “In a way, I’m dead already.” The movie is the story of his uprising.

We meet his wife, Carolyn, played by Annette Bening, so perfect her garden shears are at the same level as her footwear. We meet his daughter, Jane, played by Thora Birch, who is saving up for chest implants even though she clearly doesn’t need them. Maybe her reason is not to attract more men, but to make them feel pity for what they can’t have.

“Both my wife and daughter think I’m this chronic loser,” Lester complains. He is right. However, they have their reasons. At a terrible family dinner, Carolyn plays Mantovanian music that pokes fun at every ration. The music is luxurious and reassuring, and the family is angry and silent. When Lester criticizes his daughter’s behavior, she points out correctly that he has hardly spoken to her in months.

Everything changes for Lester the night he is forced by Carolyn to see Jane’s cheerleader performance. There in the gymnasium, filled with a sub-Fosse tassel routine, he sees Jane’s high-school classmate, Angela, played by Mena Suvari. Is it wrong for a man in his 40s to get attracted to a teenage girl? Any honest man understands what a complicated question this is. This is wrong morally, certainly, and legally. However, as every woman knows, men are born with the feeling that goes directly from their eyes to their privates, bypassing what their brain says. They can disapprove of their thoughts, but they cannot stop themselves from having them.

Roger Ebert noted in his review, ““American Beauty” is not about a Lolita relationship, anyway. It’s about yearning after youth, respect, power and, of course, beauty. The moment a man stops dreaming is the moment he petrifies inside and starts writing snarfy letters disapproving of paragraphs like the one above. Lester’s thoughts about Angela are impure, but not perverted; he wants to do what men are programmed to do, with the most beautiful woman he has ever seen.”

Ebert continues, “Angela is not Lester’s highway to bliss, but she is at least a catalyst for his freedom. His thoughts, and the discontent they engender, blast him free from years of emotional paralysis, and soon he makes a cheerful announcement at the funereal dinner table:” “I quit my job, told my boss to **** himself and blackmailed him for $60,000.” Has he lost his mind? Not at all. The first thing he spends money on is actually understandable: a bright red 1970 Pontiac Firebird.

Carolyn and Jane are going through their own relationship problems. Lester finds out Carolyn is cheating when he sees her with her lover in the drive-through lane of a fast-food restaurant (where he has a job he likes). Jane is being videotaped by Ricky, played by Wes Bentley, the boy next door, who has a strange look to him. Ricky’s dad, played by Chris Cooper, is a farmer Marine who tests him for drugs, taking a urine sample every six months. Ricky plays along so nothing bad happens until he can leave home.

All of these emotions come together during one dark and stormy night, when there are so many bizarre misunderstandings they belong in a screwball comedy. Ebert notes, “And at the end, somehow, improbably, the film snatches victory from the jaws of defeat for Lester, its hero.” Not the kind of victory you’d get in a feel-good movie, but the kind where you prove something important, if only to yourself.

Ebert noted, ““American Beauty” is not as dark or twisted as “Happiness,” last year’s attempt to shine a light under the rock of American society.” It’s more about sadness and solitude than about cruelty or viciousness. Nobody is really bad in this movie, just made by society in such a way they can’t be themselves, or feel joy.

Every performance walk the line between parody and simple practicality. Thora Birch and Wes Bentley are the most grounded, talking in the tense, flat voices of kids who can’t wait to get out of their homes. Carolyn is a real estate agent who says self-help slogans, confuses happiness with success – bad enough if you’re successful, depressing if you’re not.

Spacey is an actor who takes on intelligence in his eyes and voice and was the right choice for Lester Burnham. He does reckless and foolish things in this movie, but he doesn’t cheat himself: he knows he’s running wild – and chooses to, destroying the future years of an empty lifetime for a few moments of freedom. He may have lost everything by the end of the film, but he’s no longer a loser.

This is definitely quite a comedy. You should see it just to see what kind of film it is. Especially with that empty white plastic grocery bag flying around. People who see this could relate to this type of lifetime, but that is the beauty of it being a comedy. There might have been those who have tried this before, and if you see it, you’ll know what I mean.

Next week, I’ll be ending “Kevin Spacey Month” with another comedy from a great director that I saw earlier this year and I had been hearing great things about. Stay tuned to find out because you will love it, I promise you.