Entertainment

I cannot belive I watched this to the end. The most complete crock I've seen in many years of moviegoing.

Entertainment is a poor movie with a horrendous plot and character development, joined by a talented cast that are trying their very best to bring some life to these underwhelming parts. I understand that every decision this film made was made on purpose, but I despised each and every piece of this plot. All the weird sequences that contained little to no dialogue, such as The Comedian walking through the dessert to disturbing music, or the scene where he delivers a baby, are very unclear in terms of what their objective was. It is very hard to tell whether this movie was aiming to effect us or make us laugh. It was all far too humorous to be taken as a drama, but also too intense to be considered a comedy, the whole thing really just felt unnecessary to me. Maybe if the character was a likable one that I was able to support, then it could be redeemable, but I had no care for him or anything he did. I understand there are fans of this movie, and if you are thinking that the reason I did not enjoy this film is because I am not familiar with the work of Tim Heidecker and Gregg Turkington, I am actually a huge fan of On Cinema and Decker, I also love the Tim and Eric sketches, so this was genuinely something I was looking forward to. I was excited after seeing the very enthralling trailer and enthusiastic about seeing Turkington in a lead role, while his characterisation was stellar, I could not bring myself to appreciate this movie in any way. It simply did nothing for me other than confuse. Too funny to be dramatic, too dramatic to be funny, Entertainment is a regrettable 100 minutes. A washed up comedian goes on a tour across the country, and finds difficulty handling a lack of appreciation for his humour. Best Performance: Gregg Turkington / Worst Performance: Michael Cera

"Entertainment" is almost as hard to watch as Turkington is hard to look at. Why does his hair always appear wet? It's one of those sparse art movies where nothing happens and the movie barely seems to notice the main character, which I suppose is the point. Turkington found fame as Neil Hamburger, an "anti-comedian" who is funny because he isn't funny. That's the joke. In "Entertainment", he plays a comedian - nameless - who isn't funny because he isn't funny. His shows are bad at first, and continue to get worse until he gets on stage and blows a continuous raspberry - repulsive to view and listen to - and in a final performance, collapses. It wouldn't be one of these weird art movies without two things - unexplained celebrity walk-ons and equally unexplained disturbing scenarios. For the walk-on, we get Michael Cera in one scene where he asks the comedian to "hang out" with him in the men's room. For the disturbing material, we get him approaching a woman in labor on a public bathroom floor, and then a cut to him with a newborn baby in his arms while he sits on the floor, looking as bored as he has throughout the entire movie. The stand up performances are the only part of the movie that have any kind of drama to them. Yes, they're bad, but there is some kind of character arc present in the way they devolve. Nothing else in the movie is of any value, none of it makes sense, and it's not even interesting enough to frustrate you when you realise that.

There is a thin line, in the world of independent cinema-and European and world cinema as well-between good intentions and an accomplished form that can work as a piece of art. The usual thing, especially in places of art festivals-such as the Thessaloniki film festival where I watched the film- is to meet films that are rather pretentious, wanting to look clever(one perfect example of the kind is the highly regarded by the critics Lobster, which may go as far as bare the title of the best European film of the year), or that through their pronounced emphasis on social situations demand to be taken seriously as movies about people -in contrast with exactly what? Robert Bresson's masterpieces could teach something to all those mediocre directors who claim a place in the history of cinema. So, when I encounter a film maker who has really the capacity to create a cinematic vision with virtuosity and precision I am very glad. This is, I believe, the case of the film Entertainment, which although not easy to enjoy, it is in my opinion a remarkable work of musical quality(it has a pace that is successfully maintained throughout the film) and a personality that is not the sum of its influences(perhaps David Lynch, David Foster Wallace among others?).All actors are perfect but the protagonist, I think, gives probably the best performance of the year.Surely it is a film that very few things happen, but they do happen in a context that is meaningful, in a form that shows that the director is a master of its means, despite the difficulty of the task. A rare experience, copious sometimes, of being in the margin, and what it is all about, strolling in the desert of our lonely damned hard seeking Entertainment souls.

In reality, I'd give this film an orange and a telephone pole out of 10. That is to say,"Entertainment" eschews linear narrative.The surrealism is, mostly, gritty. It is an uneasy watch, and part of the difficulty is the misogyny depicted. The central character's act does for variety entertainment what Ted Hughes did for baking; yet, it is a beautiful film in the sense that it's a moving wallpaper with characters as part of a landscape.( The Mojave desert is stunning.) It is original ,the cast is faultless, and it's ironic. Some of the jokes are hilarious; despite the fact that they are part of an anti-comedy act and because of their complete mean spiritedness. It is beyond deadpan: it puts the soul in a vacuum and watches it writhe. The soundtrack also deserves mention as it is rather lovely.

A fascinating and ambitious mess, with echoes of David Lynch, Jim Jarmusch and Stanley Kubrick among others. Beautifully shot and full of careful and striking lighting and compositions, this tragic-comic character study of an abrasive, sad, utterly unsuccessful stand up comic has a number of surreal scenes and images that are deeply affecting and/or quite funny. There are also a number of scenes that seem needlessly repetitive, or working way too hard to be self-consciously weird. And the film definitely feels long. Back on the plus side, it's made more complex and interesting by the fact that the stand up character in his off-stage real life is outwardly nothing like the hyper-annoying, aggressively unfunny and gross person he plays on stage. He's quiet and introverted and seems more terribly and dangerously depressed than angry. However, under the surface the comic and his on-stage alter ego share a desperate sense of alienation from other human beings, and it's that terrible modern isolation that's at the heart of the film. Extending that exploration, 'Entertainment' plays with an interesting meta idea. What if an arty, self-referential surrealist comic like Andy Kaufman (or this film's lead Gregg Turkington) spent their career playing their most difficult and abrasive alter-ego like Kaufman's Tony Clifton (or star Turkington's Neil Hamburger, who is the basis of the on stage persona here), but instead of playing for crowds of hip and 'knowing' urban young people 'in on the joke', they only got to do that act in sad, barely populated working class dive bars out in the middle of the California desert, where the inside joke is totally lost for the audience. It raises interesting questions about perception and comedy, and how much of our enjoyment of hip ironic distance in modern entertainment is a cover for something wounded and broken inside us. It's a difficult film I'd be hesitant in recommending to most other people, and that I have my own reservations about. Yet I find that since I've seen it, moments, images and performances are aggressively haunting me in a powerful way, and make me look forward to seeing it again.

What is entertainment? What possesses someone to want to entertain? Life can grind us down to the bone. It can buoy us at a special moment. We are in a constant battle against the stark reality of a barren world. A world full of sand. Sand and hills. Anima and Animus. The energy needed to move the seemingly immovable object is at a premium. Skeletons of aeroplanes, littered amongst the dunes. Lime green and tanned yellow walls. Colours affect our perception. Death and rebirth all in one day. A fly. Stuck to the wall. Hanging around. What's the point of even trying. To make any of you laugh. Do you even know what it takes to put on a show like this?!

I really hated "The Comedy," so I'm a little baffled to have rather liked the director's followup, which is basically more of the same hilarity-and/or-torture-of-the-brutally-unfunny stuff. But while his prior film just seemed annoying and smug in its contrariness, this time it felt like he'd actually located the 9th circle of Hell or something like. The movie is like an unending nightmare in which you can't escape the hopelessness, negativity and humiliation of a universe in which you (or rather the stand-up "comic" protagonist here) are on the perpetual receiving end of a joke you're not even in on. Our "hero" is some sort of victim, yet we can't even feel for him--in fact, we kind of wish more of his unhappy patrons would throw things or beat him up. It's hard to imagine who to recommend this movie to, but it's sort of like a Beckett play: Uniquely, repetitiously desolate, with occasional content that suggests humor, but which perversely and very deliberately refuses to prompt any actual laughter. It is an expression--or analysis, or both--of pure self-loathing and existential despair. If you are in the mood for something grotesque, minimalist and defiantly unpleasant, "Entertainment" will fill that need. If you need a punchline, you can always dwell on choice of title. I'm not sure where this director can go from here--few movies have so vividly defined their own dead end in terms of artistic intent and "message." I'll almost be disappointed if he picks himself up off the floor and makes another movie. The next logical step would seem to be suicide. The bleakest statements by folks such as Lars von Trier or Gaspar Noe still have more filmic energy than this rather elegantly crafted movie that dares you not to kick it to see if it's still breathing. Yet I can't say it was boring--there's something compelling in its sheer masochism.

I get what this film was going for, and I'm aware of the new sub- genre of "ultra-awkward," and yet none of this seems to change the fact that this movie didn't really stir any sort of emotion from me whatsoever. Turkington is interesting, but here we are treated to a series of scenes designed to make you cringe and wonder what the purpose is, if any, of anyone going to such great lengths to achieve such a ho- hum goal. There is elements of Sid and Nancy here. You have a bizarre cultural phenomenon (Hamburger) touring a bunch of po-dunk towns as to not "preach to the converted." The result is unhappy dullards responding harshly to an assault on whatever simple beliefs they have. It's no shocker that in the scene (spoiler) someone hucks a glass at Hamburger's head, because that actually happened to Greg at a real set. And in the film Greg seems to be surprised and keeps talking about getting "more security," which is mildly amusing because this guy antagonizes rednecks for a living. Neil Hamburger is a funny character for the most part, but in this there is no contrast between the character and the person. Both are utterly miserable creatures. There is no character arch to speak of. Greg goes from a hollow husk going through the motions to a hollow husk going through the motions. The Comedy was great because there seemed to be some resistance to giving into the great despair of life. There seems to be no point either in the other "celeb cameos." John C. Reilly plays a guy that literally could of been played by anyone's uncle. Michael Cera appears to draw out a few more cringes if you have any left to draw (I had begun to read a book at this point and glanced occasionally to see Turkington staring off at something with a frown, or sitting at the edge of his bed with a frown, or...well you get the point. Sadness. The sad clown is sad on the inside etc, etc. I guess this is a film about depression. As a comedy it doesn't make you laugh, as a drama it doesn't really have anything that dramatic happen, and it fails as nearly everything else. Also a big fan of Greg Turkington, but his near crippling cynicism is getting played out.

I just saw this and... no idea. Parts of it are truly intriguing and fascinating to watch while still being kind of uncomfortable to watch, and other parts are just kind of obnoxious and unsatisfying. I totally didn't recognize Tye Sheridan at first, truly a chameleon (and should have been used more, if just to increase my interest). At parts the film seemed like it was on the verge of true magic, but my interest was never fully captured because it (intentionally) keeps itself at such a distance. It seems like this year I've seen many films like this, and most of them haven't stuck with me at all. Perhaps this will follow in that pattern. Don't know exactly what my rating should be