Customer Reviews

Floundering

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This movie has everything: salient social commentary, great acting and character development, a captivating and touching story line, timely humor, cameos (Billy Bob Thornton, John Cusack, Kim Wayans, Steve Buschemi, Ethan Hawke, and others), and most importantly it deals with the human soul and the complexities of navigating your way through the hardships of the modern world in which we live. I stumbled across this flick while watching the IFC back in 97'. Since then, I've seen this film at least 10 times, and each time its has helped me to clear my head and put things in perspective. Everyone I've ever shared this brilliant picture with has been truly touched by it. If your in search of meaning in the world, yourself, or truth, this movie is for you. "What's so funny bout Peace, Love, and Understanding"

An offbeat movie with great one-liners that shows how when life starts to suck, it can spiral in on itself and slowly get worse, but nothing is completely unredemable and that things change. I started out doubting it but ended up really enjoying it.

This movie is absurd -- few would debate that. But wicked funny and inspiring in its holistic approach. It's hard to describe in a way, like what Louis Armstrong said about Jazz: "If you have to ask, you'll never know."

James LeGros plays John, whose life can't get any worse. He decides he's getting tired of it and pulls a final coup à la "Falling Down" (only with hilarious results and endearingly surprising fulfillment). His (mis)adventures are a slow-burn treat and the cameos (John Cusack/Ethan Hawkwe) are sublime.

This sixties time-warped retro kind of "power to the people" nineties flick is mostly a procession of set pieces, some of which are not bad. The bit at the gun store with Billy Bob Thornton was superb. The crack philosophers scene was also very good. And the way "What's So Funny 'Bout Peace, Love and Understanding?" was sung so badly was just perfectola. (Actually that's "What's So Bad about Peace, Love and Understanding?" but whatever...) And the way that big silver fish popped those gold fish...gulp!

I think some of the negative comments about this movie ought to be greeted with a "Whoa, dudes--get a sense of humor." Or, "Don't be offended, man, it's only a movie." Or maybe, "Uh, the soundtrack is awesome, dude." (Oh, god, people really did talk like that!) The dream sequences fooled me at least twice. They were funny. Funniest line: when the trash lady pulls her rifle out of her cart and says "Vive la Revolution!" Second funniest line: "What kind of music do you want to hear?" "The farm report."

Okay, this was no masterpiece, and any episodic movie sans plot is not going to rival The Godfather at IMDb. And James LeGros ain't no Marlon Brando. And if you've ever been to Venice Beach...well, you know it's a freak show. But I think director and screen writer Peter McCarthy did a nice job of bringing that slacker street scene to life. I think the big mistake was to headline actors like Steve Buscemi, John Cusack, Ethan Hawke, and Billy Bob Thornton when they only had cameos. That should have been made clear up front. And there was more than a touch of the kind of sixties moral pretension that we've all grown a little tired of. But bottom line for me, this was a funny movie.

It's important to understand right up front that Floundering is a small budget film, and while it tries to promote its "big names", these actors only had cameo roles. So you get short little clips of Viggo Mortensen, Steve Buscemi, John Cusack, Ethan Hawke, Billy Bob Thornton, and others. This means the acting, like the dialogue, is a bit roller-coastery. Sometimes it really is awesome, but other times you wince at acting that just never would have made it on screen in any other regular film.

Still, you accept that for what it is. Not all movies are made by the big houses, nor should they be. When you watch the credits roll and see the entire cast singing a song together about peace and love, you realize what this really was. It was a gut reaction by many actors to the LA riots. It was a way for them to express their anger and outrage and confusion about everything that went on. For example, Viggo had starred in a movie a few years before this, and the next movie he did was one of my favorites - American Yakuza. And yet in this film he has maybe 3 lines, all of them mumbled. He's the homeless man that the lead character gives his apartment away to in the last 30 seconds of the movie. You bet Viggo didn't do this movie for that screentime or paycheck. He did it - like many of the other actors - as a way to get this message out there.

The premise is pretty simple. A confused 30-something guy is meandering his way through life. He doesn't have a job, he owes back taxes. He has pet goldfish which he feeds to his pet predator fish. He's the "nice guy" who won't date the girl who is smart and likes him, but is in love with a girl who doesn't respect him and sleeps around. He keeps giving money to a drug addict and lets people walk on him. He becomes obsessed with the LA riots - why were all those people so upset? Why did the police "do nothing"? Why don't all the rich people just give up 90% of their income and "solve the problems"?

I can see why many people felt that the discussions were simplistic and stereotypical. Many if not most of the characters themselves here were stereotypical. The downtrodden poor woman supporting a child. The rich egomaniac who hates poor people. The police chief out solely for personal power.

It's easy to say "the movie should have had more depth, addressed the issues with more complexity." However, in life there are audiences of different levels. It's like the Matrix. A portion of viewers saw that and said "That's basic philosophy, about how you sense your world. I knew about that." Then another big portion of the viewers saw that and said "WOAH! That's a cool idea, I never heard about that before!" That second portion wouldn't have gone to see an in depth, complex movie about the topic. They would see this simple version involving fun sci-fi themes. So you start somewhere, to get the discussion going. Then people can understand the more complex versions.

Even understanding that dynamic, I'm not sure I liked the way the movie ended. The lead guy finally realizes that he should do something, get his life into gear, and that a woman he's met is actually right for him. She's off in Vegas for the weekend. He's just gotten a block of money from an old friend. So he portions part off to help his druggie friend in rehab. That's great. Then he spends the rest on *loaves of bread* to give out to people. Ever hear that story about "feed a man for a day"? There are soup kitchens already feeding people. There was a whole storyline about a recycling woman who could have her own business - and also complaints about rich people not funding inner city business. Why didn't *he* set up this money as a micro-loan program? That's be pretty easy, and it is *hugely* helpful in many poor areas, to help small businesses get the small but vital start-up funds they need. Or heck, a scholarship fund? Something other than the "throw bread out for a day" solution. Then he runs away to Vegas. Which again seems quite the opposite of what people should do. Why not end with him calling his lady love, asking her to come back to him, to LA? Heck, he abandons his only pet! It just left me with a "this is the moral?" feeling, after the movie had been relatively heavy-handed in its simplistic good-evil statements.

Still, it's worth a watch, if only to remind us just what the LA riots were like and how it affected many people in this area.

Wow, people gave this gem one star? They must be looking for some Bruce Willis film, which this is not. If you've ever "floundered" or if you want to see how society has floundered at even the best of times, then this thought-provoking film may be for you. Intermixing the personal and the political in the wake of the Rodney King riots, "Floundering" shows a fascinating mix of LA-ians trying to make sense of it all. Their lives are a mix of boredom and shock at what has just occured, and the film follows the central character as he careens through his increasingly desparate search for meaning. With a huge roster of great cameos, its indie roots are at times maybe too exposed, but its breathless pace is such fun that you can't help but get pulled in (if, that is, you have the patience and mindset for films off the beaten track). So, buckle up for a great ride of a film. I watch this once a year, and am fully entertained and even a bit enlightened by the experience.

While the film Floundering touched on many important and poignant issues by allowing us to observe the worst day in the life of John, a young unemployed idealist living in Venice Beach, California, its approach was uneven--clever and sarcastic at times, but sometimes heavy-handed and simplistic. However, overall the cast was talented and likable, the dialogue was witty, and the message was positive. Great cameos by Buscemi and Cusack help.

James LeGros is by far one of the most underrated actors of all time. He plays John Boyz, a man trying to figure out the meaning of life. It has great cameos, wonderful narrarations, and terrific acting. If you like movies about searching for the truth, this is for you.

Floundering is an obvious attempt by its director to both make his mark on the then-burgeoning Indie scene and make a Big Statement about the World, using Los Angeles as its synecdoche. It alternates between clever, brilliant, cloying, oppressively politically correct and/or strident, and painfully sophomoric. It is fun to watch, though ultimately as much as a train wreck than anything else.
The film concerns a character named apparently named John Boy, who drifts through a series of bizarre events, Candide-style, and makes wry philosophical observations about life and the state of the political world (LA in particular, and by extension, the USA) along the way. John is an interesting, flawed character, and his interactions with the people around him reveal both the craziness of the world and John's own flaws and foibles (his narcissism, for a start). There are clever little moments, dream sequences, odd little bits that seem improvised, all in this weird mix.
At about ¾ of the way through, I still felt I was watching a pretty good, if strongly flawed, movie. But then things take a turn toward hackneyed Hollywood cliché, and probably in an attempt at parody, but, if so, it's carried out so ineptly that it's impossible to tell. Additionally, the political views of the film seem to devolve until a combination of grumblings of "revolution" and a bone-stupid subplot involving perhaps the most thinly-disguised character in film history, "Merril Fence" (for those too young to remember 1992, he's supposed to be Daryl Gates...nudge, nudge, wink, wink) pretty much swallows the film whole and craps it out, and what's left is...crap.
The film is loaded, by the way with (a) some surprising cameos (John Cusack, Ethan Hawke), (b) lots of "before-they-were-famous" appearances (Viggo Morgensen, Billy Bob Thornton), and, for obvious reasons of tribute, the film is absolutely loaded with (c) references with Alex Cox's 1980's cult masterpiece, Repo Man, from which it also borrows some of its attitude, the rest of which it cops from Spike Lee's early films and Richard Linklater's Slacker.
Floundering ends with a one-two punch of feel-good politically-"correct" schmaltz, followed by absolutely the worst rendition of an New Wave pop song from the 80's you have ever heard, or will ever hear, by what one can only hope is an ad hoc folk duo, whom are suddenly joined by pretty much the entire cast of the movie. They might have well have just raised a white flag reading "WTF?". Still not as bad as Troll 2.

The primary cast list in this movie is quite decieving. It makes you believe that "Floundering" stars John Cusak and Ethan Hawke, two fairly respectable actors who could easily draw a host of viewers. However, the protagonist is played by a no-name actor with little charisma. Ethan Hawke and John Cusak merely make cameos-and even in these few minutes they single handedly become responsible for the few entertaining scenes of the movie. The theme seems original and intriguing at the onlaught: a lonely, disenchanted twenty something is trying to find some purpose and meaning in his life. Living in Venice during the aftermath of the LA riots, the main character ponders various interesting and comical existential dilemas typical of early ninetess "generation x" slacker movies. However the plot soon becomes surreal and nightmarish, and from then on the movie wallows in a level of depression and sinister undertone that only your most die-hard movie fan would be willing to sit through. Ethan and John must have been close and personal friends of the creator of this movie to agree to apear in it, and though it has its redeaming moments, Floundering fulfills the connotation of its title in one too many ways.