I Know Who Killed Me

Director: Chris Sivertson
Starring: Lindsay Lohan, Julia Ormond, Neal McDonough, Brian Geraghty, Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon, Spencer Garrett
Running Time: 105 min.
Rating: R

**1/2 (out of ****)

Spoiler Warning!!! The following review does contain some spoilers about the film's plot.

Sometimes people ask me what kinds of movies I most look forward to reviewing. Not necessarily watching, but REVIEWING. Talking about great movies can be fun, but often it's not as fun as you'd think. This is partly because there are really only a limited number of ways a film can achive greatness. However, it never ceases to amaze me the new and different ways they can be bad. Upon hearing that this infamous Lindsay Lohan disaster I Know Who Killed was "so bad it's great" I marked my calendar for when it would be released on DVD.

The timing for this couldn't be better as it will keep me occupied while I wait for the check Michael Lohan sent me for favorably reviewing Georgia Rule to clear. But sorry even I have my limits. As tempting as it is to praise this film for its hilarious awfulness (and boy is it tempting) I just can't give in because the movie doesn't seem to be in on the joke. Had the movie truly committed to its entertaining badness and not taken itself so seriously this could have ranked among the greatest bad movies. No one could claim the ingredients weren't all there.

Instead it's in limbo, not sure what it wants to be and teetering between being an unintentional "torture porn" spoof, a character study and a mystery. It's not quite bad enough to be considered great trash yet not nearly good enough to warrant praise. Director Chris Sivertson almost seems to have some ambition here to actually make something of merit, which spoils the fun and makes its lesser qualities appear that much worse. The good news (or bad news depending on your outlook) is this hardly means the end for Lohan's career. She'll survive this. The movie may be howlingly bad, but her performance is as good as it could have been under the insane circumstances.

Lohan is Aubrey Fleming, a bright, promising student with loving parents (Julia Ormond and Neal McDonough) and a devoted boyfriend (Brian Geraghty) who is abducted and tortured by a sadistic serial killer tormenting their small idyllic town. Miraculously, she survives and is found days later on the side of the road, but missing a few limbs. She's taken to the hospital where she eventually regains consciousness, except she not only claims to have no memory of the horrific ordeal, but that she really isn't Aubrey Fleming. Instead she says she's a stripper named "Dakota Moss," a character from one of Aubrey's short fiction pieces. This justifiably frustrates the two F.B.I. agents (Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon and Spencer Garrett) who are on the trail of this killer and need answers desperately to prevent future carnage.

Was Aubrey's ordeal so painful that she had to create another personality just to cope with it? Or is she just playing games? What if she REALLY isn't Aubrey? Then the movie goes all Empire Strikes Back on our asses and fits her with a mechanical robo-hand and leg. Dakota comes home and her parents must deal with the trauma of living with a daughter who insists she has no idea who they are and whose hobbies include swearing, smoking and sleeping around. Meanwhile, this crazed serial killer who gets his kicks from dismembering his victims is still on the loose. As long as Aubrey's alive, she's in danger.

This is a film that must be seen to be believed, with laugh out loud moments galore. There's a scene early on when Julia Ormond's character is holding and petting what appears to be a cat while being questioned by an F.B.I. agent. Except the cat is dead. Or fake. I'm not really sure which and I'm even less sure if it matters. My personal favorite though is a scene where the one-handed, one-legged cyborg Dakota is plowing Aubrey's dumbstruck horny boyfriend in her room to prove she's not Audrey . Her mom just covers her face and hides her head in shame in the kitchen as pots and pans shake around her. If she's so upset by this then she should do something about it. Who does she think she is…Dina Lohan? I'm glad she didn't stop it though or we'd be spared the funniest scene in the film in which Geraghty (who's playing this so seriously you'd think it was Hamlet) rushes out of the house and frantically asks the swarm of F.B.I. agents in the driveway if they have any condoms.

Criticizing this movie for being bad is like criticizing the sky for being blue or the sun rising tomorrow morning. It's almost beside the point. I can understand why some have embraced this film as a guilty pleasure because it does test the waters of awfulness in a groundbreaking way unlike anything you've seen in at least the past few years. Unfortunately with the exception of scenes like those it's often too dreary and depressing to really be considered fun and the pace is too cumbersome. Oh, and it's disgusting also.

A small detail that was noticeably absent from what there was of this movie's advertising campaign is that the film is disturbingly graphic and brutal. When you have a killer who just likes to cut off body parts for fun I guess that's to be expected. It's not quite at the Saw or Hostel level but it's clear that was the inspiration even if this lacks a script anywhere close to being as coherent or competent as those. Sivertson does earn points for style though. He makes some interesting choices with lighting and colors and the soundtrack isn't bad. Had he let go and fully explored its potential to be a B horror movie schlockfest we could have had some real fun bad entertainment on our hands. Unfortunately, he seemed more interested in (yawn) putting an actual emphasis on this absurd story and the characters, which causes the film to drag in the middle portion.

There are a couple of brilliant moments though. One comes when in a great bit of stunt casting paranormal radio personality Art Bell appears to give us what could actually almost qualify as a passable explanation for all the nonsense we're witnessing. The film also benefits from having a killer who, while not particularly original or inventive in his approach, is at least terrifying. That he's stuck in one of the funniest comedies of the year instead of as Jigsaw's successor in Saw V is disappointing. He has just a few scenes but does he ever make the most of them.

The film contains two "big twists." One concerns the identity of the killer and the other involves the Aubrey/Dakota situation. One resolution is satisfactory. The other isn't. Although judging from the alternate ending we're shown on the special features I can't honestly claim any better option was available. Looking back it should seem blatantly obvious who the killer is yet when it was revealed I was surprised for some strange reason. I'm convinced this has nothing to do with any cleverness on the screenwriters' parts but rather the fact I was too distracted by all the silliness to even bother paying attention.

Despite the box office train wrecks of Georgia Rule and now I Know Who Killed Me the one thing that remained constant was that Lohan was the best part of both. Unsurprisingly here she clicks better as trashy stripper Dakota than virginal good girl Aubrey, although she isn't given much chance at tackling the latter since the script doesn't seem interested in fleshing out that character at all. Lohan does have a magnetizing presence on screen and you can see through the cracks what she's capable of with better material. Just that she manages to not give a bad performance in a film this bad is an accomplishment in itself.

I could see I Know Who Killed Me becoming a curious time capsule film of sorts down the line provided Lohan eventually gets her act together and moves on to creatively substantial projects worthy of her time and talent. I'll also say that while I can't in good conscience recommend this film without visiting a church confessional tomorrow morning, I'd much rather see a movie fail like this than go the way of safe, boring, mainstream Hollywood dreck like Ocean's Thirteen and Hairspray which I also recently gave two and a half stars to.

This at least took risks and I'm still laughing at some of the scenes that unfolded in it. The script is terrible, most of the acting is bad, the direction is muddled, yet at times it is entertaining in the worst way. And therein lies the contradiction with entertainingly bad movies like this. At the end of the day no matter how fun they may be, they're still bad.

Georgia Rule

Director: Garry Marshall
Starring: Lindsey Lohan, Jane Fonda, Felicity Huffman, Dermot Mulroney, Garrett Hedlund, Cary Elwes, Hector Elizondo
Running Time: 114 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

I know, I know. I'm in shock also. What I'm referring to, of course, is the star rating above. It really ruined my plans. Think of how much fun this review could have been. I could have talked about how Jane Fonda marching into Lindsay Lohan's trailer on set and screaming at her to come to work on time was more exciting than any scene in the movie. I also could have cracked jokes about how Garry Marshall, the film's director, and judge on this summer's Fox reality show On The Lot, should have been thrown OFF THE LOT by Steven Spielberg for making this mess. But I can't. Why? Because in many ways, Georgia Rule is one of the most satisfying pictures Marshall's ever made. If anything, it's his best since Pretty Woman. With all the thrashing this has taken in the media, the truth is it's actually fine.

While "fine" may not exactly seem like a glowing endorsement, it is these days when it seems even movies I give three stars to come with an accompanying laundry list of problems. This one doesn't. It only has two and they're minor. There's an issue with tone (which is understandable when a feel-good family drama tackles issues such as molestation, alcoholism and oral sex) and it's slightly overlong. That's it. This isn't a great movie, but it's certainly a good one that featured characters I cared about and kept me entertained for the better part of 2 hours. Am I guilty of going in with super low expectations? Perhaps, but I have to recommend it because when it was over I found it did very little wrong and a lot right. It also offers an opportunity to see two very talented actresses go toe-to-toe. One of which (I can't believe I'm about to type this) is Lindsay Lohan. This movie doesn't succeed in spite of her presence, but because of it.

I had a blueprint in my mind of how this whole film would play out. We'd get a whole backstory of a bitchy teenage girl acting out until her mom tells her, "You're going to live with your Grandma!" Through the tough love of Grandma and the quirky local townsfolk she'll be miraculously transformed into a good girl and reconcile with her mother. And of course she'll fall in love. Some of that happens, but most of it doesn't and definitely not in the way you'd expect it to. We join the story in medias res as 17 year-old spoiled party girl Rachel Wilcox (Lohan) is walking alongside the car driven by her alcoholic mom Lilly (Academy Award nominee Felicity Huffman). They're driving from California so Rachel can spend the summer with grandmother Georgia (Fonda) in the small Mormon town of Hull, Utah. Unfortunately, Rachel can't stand mom's company long enough to share the car ride over and is discovered on the side of the road by dim-witted country hunk Harlan (Friday Night Lights' Garrett Hedlund). After a spirited back and forth with him, she's picked up and given a not so friendly lift to town by Dr. Simon Ward (Dermot Mulroney), an ex-flame of Lilly's.

Immediately upon her arrival, Rachel has met her match in Georgia as the woman has certain rules of conduct that must be adhered to if you're given the privilege to stay under her roof. This means for the first time Rachel actually has to clean her own dishes and (gasp!) get a job. One of the more refreshing elements of the film early on is that Fonda's character isn't exactly ruling with the stereotypical "iron fist" and it appears she's playing a little game with Rachel, trying to give her just enough rope to hang herself so she can learn a lesson. Georgia is capable of giving it just as well as she takes it. She knows this teen's game because she's been through this before with Lilly. Fonda's poised experience as an actress reflects this without the character ever having to say a word about it.

Rachel reluctantly agrees to a job as Dr. Ward's receptionist. He's a veteranarian who also happens to treat humans, because, well, it's a small town and people do weird things. This and a bizarre cameo from Hector Elizondo are the weirdest things that occur in this town as for once we're actually spared a cartoonish depiction of small town America and its "quirkiness." The people actually seem normal. What a relief. They're also justifiably taken aback by the arrival of Rachel and some of the best scenes in the movie are just her walking down the street (in clothes probably not too far off from what's in Lohan's wardrobe) turning heads in amazement in this conservative town. She's definitely unlike anything they've ever seen before.

It isn't long before she takes it upon herself to flaunt her sexual magnetism all over town, setting her sites on Harlan, despite the fact he's taken by a Mormon choir girl. I also really liked how the script didn't take the easy way out by just presenting Mormons as uptight prudes. They're real people with honest values being exposed to behavior they're not used to. An incident with Rachel and Harlan on his boat sends them into a tailspin. I can't say Garrett Hedlund gives a great performance but he does bring a clueless "aw shucks" charm to the role that's welcome here. Plus, how many movies have you seen where the teen GUY is the virgin being seduced by the girl?

When Felicity Huffman's Lilly reenters her daughter's life and family secrets threaten to be exposed I rolled my eyes. Surprisingly though, it isn't handled too badly. And when it is handled badly, it's even more compulsively watchable. Played hysterically over-the-top by Huffman, Lilly comes spinning through grandma's house like an F-5 tornado of substance abuse and vulgarity. She's easily the most detestable character in the film. Is it wrong for me to say I was happy to see her injured at one point during her many unstable tantrums? I was trying to figure out exactly why this character inflamed me with such hatred. Now I know and have to admit it. It's because Huffman did such a great job playing her.

Most critics and audiences have pointed to this section of the film as grounds that the script is ridiculous. How? I can't tell you how many families I've known of that have gone through stuff exactly like this. A parent has a problem and its passed on to their kid, who in turn passes it on to their kid. It destroys the whole family. Whether it's depression, substance abuse or whatever. As for how it's handled, sure it's slightly overwrought and overwritten but it's a Garry Marshall movie! None of that makes the material ring any less true. The performances of the actresses also keep everything in check, preventing this from sliding off into Lifetime movie of the week territory.

Amidst this splattering of family secrets, Rachel reveals that her stepfather Arnold (Cary Elwes) had molested her as a young girl, although there's no way of knowing whether she's telling the truth or it's just another troubled cry for attention. The molestation mystery, which has been criticized by everyone, actually adds some much needed intrigue and bite to the material. Helping further is the performance of Elwes who never tips his hand as to whether his character did this or not. Lilly doesn't know who to believe and neither do we. Rachel has slowly gained everyone's trust but could still be playing a game. Arnold on the surface seems like a good guy. There's legitimate doubt as to who's telling the truth. Some will say the final act is messy (which it is), but it's also full of surprises. Things are more complicated than they first appear and the direction the script takes Mulroney's Dr. Ward is unexpected. We think he's being set up as a potential love interest for Lilly, but that's not completely true. There's more to him than we suspect.

Mixing family comedy and heavy drama is tricky so the tone is inconsistent at times. You could blame that on the fact Marshall was rumored to have done some re-writes on Mark Andrus' original script, which could explain some of the fluffier material, a Marshall trademark. Despite that, if you compare this to Marshall's other lightweight fare, it could be considered a snuff film. It actually earns its "R" rating which is shocking considering its director. You can't punish the movie because the studio wanted to market it as a family friendly comedy when it's also trying to tackle more serious issues.

Unfortunately because of that I can't say I'm completely sure who the audience for this movie is supposed to be. Bad Lohan press aside, it isn't difficult to see why the movie bombed. It may seem like a "chick flick" from the advertisements but it's too dirty for that and it can't be considered a good date movie since it covers topics like child molestation. I also can't imagine girls getting pumped up to drag their boyfriends to a movie where they get to ogle Lohan for 2 hours. That's too bad because everyone missed out on guilty pleasures like Fonda telling Lohan to go fuck herself, attempting to literally wash people's mouths out with soap and beating men with baseball bats. After her humiliating comeback role in the dreadful Monster-In-Law this was a definite step up. At least it's fun.

When Lohan first appears on screen what immediately struck me was how surprisingly good she looks. She actually looks healthy! She bears much more of a resemblance to the Lindsay we remember from Mean Girls than the physically wasted one we've been seeing all year on t.v. and in magazines. I'll give it to her that she cleans up really well. She looks more like a major movie star than a troubled starlet here. Her presence doesn't take you out of the film (like her silly role in Bobby), but instead draws you in as she holds a sexy spell over the movie.

For all the controversy surrounding her on this film (including the infamous letter by Morgan Creek studio boss James G. Robinson) when the cameras started rolling she brought it. They'll be those who say she's just playing herself but I have to be honest and say this was one of the few times I wasn't distracted by the fact she's Lindsey Lohan, which is ironic considering the nature of this role. There are subtle nuances underneath Rachel's tough exterior and she does a good job conveying them, never pushing too hard. That the character bears a strong similarity to Lohan's real life public persona (or at least what we've perceived it to be) only increases the fascination and makes the film that much more interesting.

While I wouldn't categorize Lohan's off screen troubles as an industry loss even close to the level of Robert Downey Jr.'s downward spiral, this was the first time I was given a glimpse that we may be missing out on some interesting performances because of them. And to think here she's working with a script that's just merely competent. Before, I just wanted to see I Know Who Killed Me out of curiosity, now I actually WANT TO SEE IT. At the very least I'll give her the chance to take me wherever she wants to go as an actress, but it would be nice if she cleaned her life up so that specter doesn't hang over every picture she makes.

I understand the temptation to bash this movie. Believe me I do. But it isn't bad. When it ended I was overcome with a sense of dread. Dread because I knew I'd have to not only praise this film, but Lohan's performance. Images flashed of subscribers fading away and my dreams of one day joining the Internet Film Critics Society going up in flames. Still, at the end of the day, I have to say Georgia Rule is engaging, complicated and full of contradictions. A lot like its star.