Your response to the film will depend on your tolerance for the leads, types who manage no matter the situation to keep their bed-heads tousled perfectly and their Urban Outfittered frames just the right amount of grungy. I liked them well enough though, and thankfully so since the film's more curious in investigating the nooks and crannies of their character developments than it is with being nothing but big beasties on a rampage. Which is a pro, of course. Although when two of the Cthulhus do their glow-worm sex dance it is utterly hypnotic, and the fact that the director made this movie and created such a convincing world for these folks to fall in love among the ruins in for just fifteen thousand bucks is astonishing. A beautifully shot, sometimes touching, sometimes creepy lil' flick.
One thing of side-note: I think we can now officially call 2010 "The Year of The Douchey Hipster-Type Dude With The Douchey Hipster-Type Name In A Low-Budget Indie Thriller Who Shows Off His Tramp Stamp" ammiright? The lead actor here in Monsters, his name is Scoot (groan) and the lead actor in Catfish goes by Nev (pronounced neeev, naturally), and are they are both shown in their underpants in their respective films and they both expose their "this is what I'm looking at when I'm fucking you in the ass" art-works. Mkay. I couldn't find pics of their crack-tats online and I know the number of people who've seen both of these films is probably minuscule but I figured it was only right to ask all the same...
.
One thing of side-note: I think we can now officially call 2010 "The Year of The Douchey Hipster-Type Dude With The Douchey Hipster-Type Name In A Low-Budget Indie Thriller Who Shows Off His Tramp Stamp" ammiright? The lead actor here in Monsters, his name is Scoot (groan) and the lead actor in Catfish goes by Nev (pronounced neeev, naturally), and are they are both shown in their underpants in their respective films and they both expose their "this is what I'm looking at when I'm fucking you in the ass" art-works. Mkay. I couldn't find pics of their crack-tats online and I know the number of people who've seen both of these films is probably minuscule but I figured it was only right to ask all the same...
.
.
Although the correct answer is neither, this is unacceptable.
.
.
Posts
4 comments:
Not that I'm disputing your bestowing of the "douchey hipster" moniker (though I honestly don't know what people even mean by "hipster" anymore, besides "18-35 year old male I don't like"), but isn't Nev exempt from the douchey name thing because it's short for whatever super-Jewishy name he was given at birth? Don't the Jewishes get a pass on that?
As someone who swooned until his eyeballs bled from the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are alone, I always want it to be clear that "hipster" is never an insult when it springs from my fingers. I live and love so much hipster every second. But as to defining the hipster thing, as with the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobellis v. Ohio on obscenity, I just know it when I see it yo.
As for Neeeeeev, no, no free passes for that douche-ball. Adorable fuckable douche-ball whose movie I liked, but douche-ball all the same.
More importantly, what kind of underwear did they wear???
Why brightly colored American Apparel briefs, what else?
Post a Comment