The terms "best" and "worst" are bandied about ironically so often that they are meaningless. I have never committed to the absolute "best" or "worst" of anything until recently. After experiencing Brad Harrison's Groove, there is with out a doubt a champion.
My interest in the film sparked from both the high praise at Sundance and my background in the early rave scene. The terribly amusing promotional shots of a raver holding a discoball while riding the subway didn't hurt, either. After finally seeing the thoughtful, entertaining Human Traffic, I was ready for an American rave film. What I got was a sloppy hour-and-a-half episode of Mtv's Undressed.
Although the details of Groove are a bit hazy to me - I saw it a little over a year ago - this doesn't mean much as the details of Groove are hazy to those involved with its production. The script is sloppy, filled with one-dimensional cliches with disco-dancin' legs. We have the uptight nerd; the hot (yet clear-headed) chick; the wacky, offbeat druggies; the sleazy dealer; the oh-so-nice hippie, susceptible for a double-cross. I suspect that first-time writer/director Greg Harrison used The Big Book of Cliched Dialogue to write most of the characters' verbage. For example, as a camera slow closes in on the serious face of a lead character, he says, with true conviction, "It's not over 'til the last record spins."
Much like Human Traffic, the film never makes a definitive message about drug usage (which plays a large part in both films). But Justin Kerrigan's film closes allowing the viewer to draw his/her own conclusion. The only use narcotics play in Groove is to show that, yes, Harrison understands that drugs are used at raves. No overt stances is ever solidified about drugs. Technically, the film is deeply flawed as well. The "actors" sound as if they are monotonously reading lines. In many of the scenes, it is obvious that this supposed "rave" consists of about twenty extras in a warehouse. Despite this fact, I will give Harrison credit for shooting a film that LOOKS mid-priced. But why would you purchase a pretty car whose insides are damaged beyond repair?
After spending $8 to see Groove - and bringing two friends, causing me to turn a deep shade of red out of embarrassment for my choice - I was in a rage. I immediately ran home to gather more information about the film. Why do people enjoy this? Why was it a hit at Sundance? It seems that people like Groove solely because it is about something they are a part of: rave culture. I want to remind viewers that just because a cereal box champions your favourite sports player doesn't mean the contents are delicious. I read a review that stated, 'yes, the film is flawed, but we have so few movies about raves that it will do. Three stars!' This is a very unprofessional attitude. A truly discerning critic would rather eat no eggs at all than rotten ones.
Recently, I argued with a friend that almost every film has its redeeming qualities. A good example, I told him, is Mac & Me, a mid-80s E.T. ripoff about a wheelchair-bound boy and a rubber alien puppet. It is so cluelessly flawed it's great! The kid can't act (only hired because of his disability?), the "FX" are cheaply done, and (for Christ's sake) SEARS is featured prominently. You have to love that. However, if one film has no redeeming qualities; if one film's only effect is of wasting time; if one film exists only to steal your soul, your creativity, and any drive or ambition you have ever had for life, it is Brad Harrison's Groove.
(I have NEVER given this score to ANYthing in life:) 1/10
My interest in the film sparked from both the high praise at Sundance and my background in the early rave scene. The terribly amusing promotional shots of a raver holding a discoball while riding the subway didn't hurt, either. After finally seeing the thoughtful, entertaining Human Traffic, I was ready for an American rave film. What I got was a sloppy hour-and-a-half episode of Mtv's Undressed.
Although the details of Groove are a bit hazy to me - I saw it a little over a year ago - this doesn't mean much as the details of Groove are hazy to those involved with its production. The script is sloppy, filled with one-dimensional cliches with disco-dancin' legs. We have the uptight nerd; the hot (yet clear-headed) chick; the wacky, offbeat druggies; the sleazy dealer; the oh-so-nice hippie, susceptible for a double-cross. I suspect that first-time writer/director Greg Harrison used The Big Book of Cliched Dialogue to write most of the characters' verbage. For example, as a camera slow closes in on the serious face of a lead character, he says, with true conviction, "It's not over 'til the last record spins."
Much like Human Traffic, the film never makes a definitive message about drug usage (which plays a large part in both films). But Justin Kerrigan's film closes allowing the viewer to draw his/her own conclusion. The only use narcotics play in Groove is to show that, yes, Harrison understands that drugs are used at raves. No overt stances is ever solidified about drugs. Technically, the film is deeply flawed as well. The "actors" sound as if they are monotonously reading lines. In many of the scenes, it is obvious that this supposed "rave" consists of about twenty extras in a warehouse. Despite this fact, I will give Harrison credit for shooting a film that LOOKS mid-priced. But why would you purchase a pretty car whose insides are damaged beyond repair?
After spending $8 to see Groove - and bringing two friends, causing me to turn a deep shade of red out of embarrassment for my choice - I was in a rage. I immediately ran home to gather more information about the film. Why do people enjoy this? Why was it a hit at Sundance? It seems that people like Groove solely because it is about something they are a part of: rave culture. I want to remind viewers that just because a cereal box champions your favourite sports player doesn't mean the contents are delicious. I read a review that stated, 'yes, the film is flawed, but we have so few movies about raves that it will do. Three stars!' This is a very unprofessional attitude. A truly discerning critic would rather eat no eggs at all than rotten ones.
Recently, I argued with a friend that almost every film has its redeeming qualities. A good example, I told him, is Mac & Me, a mid-80s E.T. ripoff about a wheelchair-bound boy and a rubber alien puppet. It is so cluelessly flawed it's great! The kid can't act (only hired because of his disability?), the "FX" are cheaply done, and (for Christ's sake) SEARS is featured prominently. You have to love that. However, if one film has no redeeming qualities; if one film's only effect is of wasting time; if one film exists only to steal your soul, your creativity, and any drive or ambition you have ever had for life, it is Brad Harrison's Groove.
(I have NEVER given this score to ANYthing in life:) 1/10