← Back to Reviews

Spring Breakers

Director: Harmony Korine

Where do I start?

The first time I watched this movie, I got into an argument with someone over it. I didn't like it, and he would not let up on me after I informed him of this, as politely as I possibly could. I thought the film would just do more damage to society because there's a lot of very stupid people who would think this film champions the attitude and lifestyle portrayed. My friend tells me "you just need to lighten up. It's not that serious."

OK, Spring Breakers is not that serious then. Now let's talk about it without being too serious. Harmony Korine, a NYC art hipster film maker decides to make a technically well crafted film with a loose narrative involving sex, drugs, gang violence, and combine it with an overshadowed morality that deals with faith, love and friendship. Ah hell, I guess I can't lighten up. Not if I'm going to barf back up what is so obvious the intention of this movie.

What's happened is that we get a director who isn't even in touch with the world he's making fun of. As soon as the drama starts to tighten its grip by the 2nd act of the film, with dark synth pads acting as a sort of drapery companion for the endless montage of telephone calls home, we know this movie is not only silly and worthless, but it's also predictable and boring, and that's bad news for any movie.

I don't care how many different colored gels you put in front of your lights, or how many diffusion and star filters you use to shoot driving street scenes at night, when you fail to engage a viewer past some questionable crotch shots of girls who look younger than 17, you're only really making soft core porn. So why bother with the dramatics? If I wanted style, I could turn on a dog food commercial. Nothing is safe. Stylish isn't even a real term anymore so...whatever to that.

Why is this movie acclaimed, like, at all?

It's true that James Franco gives a pretty goofy performance and manages to really inhabit the role of a platinum toothed G, but that can only provide a few seconds of laughter. Had this film been condensed to five minutes and peppered evenly throughout a more superior film with some real substance, it may've been an amusing and "stylish" glimpse at this sort of cultural phenomena. But it wasn't and it's not.

Spring Breakers is a dull film as I finish watching it for a second time, hoping to "lighten up" and be in on the joke. The problem is that the joke isn't very funny and anything that aims for drama in this picture just comes off ultra hokey. We see a slow motion scene of bikini clad bimbos firing off uzi's with neon pink ski masks on, while we hear an innocent sounding voicemail being left for their parents: "This place is great, we're meeting so many new people" blah, blah, blah. It's here that movie is begging us to say to ourselves "HOW IRONIC! HOW BRILLIANT! SUCH CONTRAST!"

But we're smarter than that. This film is nothing more than a director getting his rocks off.

Hey, I like chicks with uzi's in bikinis as much as the next guy, but I don't want to suffer through a film that clearly shows work of a director who can do so much better than this, if he just had half of a brain left.

If this film's intention was to torture, I suppose mission accomplished.

Dim witted perverts who want to feel relevant by debating that it's really a good movie underneath, and if you don't get it, you're dumb, I have news for you:

No, you are! (sticks tongue out and thumbs at nose)