← Back to Reviews
in
Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine, 2012) -
Endless shots of "students" drinking, smoking, snorting and shaking their booty. That's the good half. When the idiotic James Franco character appears, and the message (?) that his and the spring breakers' lifestyles lead to a dead end seems to be presented, it becomes even more boring, pointless and obvious (in a convoluted, nebulous manner).It is Korine's best-looking film, but that means little when what cinematics on display fail to be coherent or meaningful. I suppose the best I could say about it is that it's more successful than Only God Forgives, but that's the movie it reminded me of, both stylistically and in what I consider their muddled messages.
To reiterate in more detail, though maybe as unclearly as I think the movie does.
I think the reason most people who say they don't like Spring Breakers is because it seems to have a split personality and a mixed message. The film seems to be targeted to high school and college students and starts out as a celebration of booze, drugs, immature behavior and sex. I think that even most of the people who defend it will say that they don't like such movies (unless they're young or feel they missed out on that) but maybe I'm wrong. Then the movie gets more "artistic". It wants to show these particular party girls being seduced by a hiphop, gangsta devil and beginning a life of crime. It wants to be some kind of morality play, but it makes this devil too ridiculous. It also makes the crime lifestyle just as seductive as the party life was. However, the style of the movie is more serious in the second half - it slows down, has "artistic" scenes like the Britney Spears bit and other things whose intent is strangely unclear. Then it ends in something which could be considered tragic or a life lesson, but I took as "about time!" and actually would have preferred an atomic bomb to explode to cleanse the characters, their world and the viewers.
This is also presented in some beautiful photography (unlike most of Korine's films, I don't fault it technically), which appeals to those who think that artistic visuals are more important than content. I'm not sure what was the actual message Korine wanted to convey, but I'm assuming it's something about wrongful behavior bringing sadness. Or maybe it's that you should party and enjoy good-looking things (although beauty, like depth and meaning, are in the eye of the beholder) when you get the chance because it will all be over too soon. Or maybe it's you should just like a movie even if you don't know why exactly. That's fine for those of you who enjoyed Spring Breakers. But for those who don't like it and know why, it's fine to say that it's bad. Bad and good can mean a lot of things. The film is a mixture of both, but I think it's up to each individual what side they believe it falls
Endless shots of "students" drinking, smoking, snorting and shaking their booty. That's the good half. When the idiotic James Franco character appears, and the message (?) that his and the spring breakers' lifestyles lead to a dead end seems to be presented, it becomes even more boring, pointless and obvious (in a convoluted, nebulous manner).It is Korine's best-looking film, but that means little when what cinematics on display fail to be coherent or meaningful. I suppose the best I could say about it is that it's more successful than Only God Forgives, but that's the movie it reminded me of, both stylistically and in what I consider their muddled messages.
To reiterate in more detail, though maybe as unclearly as I think the movie does.
I think the reason most people who say they don't like Spring Breakers is because it seems to have a split personality and a mixed message. The film seems to be targeted to high school and college students and starts out as a celebration of booze, drugs, immature behavior and sex. I think that even most of the people who defend it will say that they don't like such movies (unless they're young or feel they missed out on that) but maybe I'm wrong. Then the movie gets more "artistic". It wants to show these particular party girls being seduced by a hiphop, gangsta devil and beginning a life of crime. It wants to be some kind of morality play, but it makes this devil too ridiculous. It also makes the crime lifestyle just as seductive as the party life was. However, the style of the movie is more serious in the second half - it slows down, has "artistic" scenes like the Britney Spears bit and other things whose intent is strangely unclear. Then it ends in something which could be considered tragic or a life lesson, but I took as "about time!" and actually would have preferred an atomic bomb to explode to cleanse the characters, their world and the viewers.
This is also presented in some beautiful photography (unlike most of Korine's films, I don't fault it technically), which appeals to those who think that artistic visuals are more important than content. I'm not sure what was the actual message Korine wanted to convey, but I'm assuming it's something about wrongful behavior bringing sadness. Or maybe it's that you should party and enjoy good-looking things (although beauty, like depth and meaning, are in the eye of the beholder) when you get the chance because it will all be over too soon. Or maybe it's you should just like a movie even if you don't know why exactly. That's fine for those of you who enjoyed Spring Breakers. But for those who don't like it and know why, it's fine to say that it's bad. Bad and good can mean a lot of things. The film is a mixture of both, but I think it's up to each individual what side they believe it falls