|
Project X
(2012)
by Johnny Web (Uncle
Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
Project X is sort of "Superbad meets Blair
Witch," I guess. It supposedly consists of "found
footage" of the most epic high school party ever thrown,
involving 1500 kids, ecstasy, nudity and flamethrowers.
Reminds me of when I returned to Rochester for my 40th
high school reunion and one of my old buds told me about
a party I wasn't invited to (hey, thanks, high school
classmates). It took place in a rich family's house on
the lake and ended up with everyone getting drunk
(surprise!) and taking out the family's deluxe cabin
cruiser for a little 2 A.M. spin. Somehow the people on
the boat managed to take some guns with them and that,
combined with the fact that they were drunk and had no
idea how to operate a power boat, was a recipe for
disaster. Although they didn't hurt any human beings,
they did manage to sink the boat, forcing everyone on
board to swim back to shore, presumably clinging to life
jackets and the ship's debris.
Firearms, rum and sinking ships? That's not a party.
It's a Johnny Depp movie.
I'm thinking that the kid's dad was probably not happy
when he got home and found that his spiffy boat and his
gun collection were at the bottom of Lake Ontario. I
reckon that the kid is probably still grounded, some 45
years later, and is still checking off chores on his
"pay back" list, praying for his parents to die.
Man, that was not like the parties they invited me to.
It seemed like the boys and girls inevitably ended up
talking in separate groups on opposite sides of the
room, and the only drink was some foul red juice that
was sort of like watered-down Hawaiian Punch.
Thanks again, high school classmates.
Anyway, the party in this film is like the ones I wasn't
invited to.
I guess.
I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure.
Now, I don't have any objection to "found footage"
movies. From time to time spooky films have been very
effective at using putatively real footage to make a
story seem like it really happened, which naturally
makes it seem much scarier than if it had just been some
crap they made up. That's fine for horror films, but
there is an inherent problem in applying the same
technique to youthploitation comedy. Real-life teenagers
don't walk around making witty comments like movie
teens, or getting false ID's with humorous names like
McLovin. The only reason movie teens are funny is that
professional writers agonize for months over their
dialogue. Real teens laugh a lot at their parties, but
it's because they are stoned or drunk and are living in
the moment with people they know. They make fun of
mutual acquaintances or laugh at various
self-destructive antics transpiring around them. I used
to laugh at the same things myself, but those things
don't seem funny when you are (a) an outsider and (b)
sober. Unfortunately, that's us in the audience - we're
the sober outsiders. Ya know, it's just not that much
fun to watch random people get high, throw up, and break
things. That stuff is only funny to the people who know
the other participants, and even then only in the
drunken moment.
So the filmmaker was stuck with a dilemma. If he wanted
to maintain the illusion of reality, he had to have the
kids act like real drunken kids, who aren't all that
funny except to themselves. Mr Auteur ultimately had to
choose between maintaining the illusion and providing
some laughs. In general, he opted for the illusion,
which doesn't seem to have been the right choice, given
that many of the film's events are completely
implausible, so the action doesn't seem that real
anyway.
To sum this all up more directly, the filmmaker ended up
with a comedy, minus the funny stuff.
At least I think it was supposed to be a comedy, but how
would you know?
The film received only 27% positive reviews, but the
film scores a respectable 6.7 at IMDb. Why was there
such a gap between critics and audiences? That's
explained by looking at the IMDb ratings sorted by the
age of the voters.
Under 18 7.8
18-29 6.8
30-44 5.8
45+ 4.8
In other words, grown-ups don't like the film, and film
critics are adults.
But if you're under 18, dude, go for it.
|
|
Our Grade:
If you are not familiar with our grading system, you
need to read the
explanation, because the grading is not linear.
For example, by our definition, a C is solid and a C+
is a VERY good movie. There are very few Bs and As.
Based on our descriptive system, this film is a:
C-
Not popular with adults or critics, but the younger
you are the more likely you are to like it.
|
