This independent film is interesting and twisted. I watched it not knowing what I was getting into. It was surprisingly good. Addressing co-dependency in a way I haven't seen, it is frustrating to see the abuse one takes from another.
4 Reviews
A decent flick...but oh, that camera-work!
MBunge3 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Though life is usually a pass-fail thing, movies sometimes must be graded on a curve. If you don't, you'll get so caught up in what's wrong with films that you'll never be able to notice what's right with them. That's certainly the case with Living In Missouri.
It's the story of two friends and the woman who doesn't really come between them. Ryan (Connor Ratliff) is an office worker. His best friend Todd (Ian McConnel) is a video store clerk. They, along with Ryan's wife Amy (Christina Puzo), are waiting through their lives in the small town atmosphere of Missouri in the year before the first Star Wars sequel opens. Ryan and Todd are grown men who've never outgrown their adolescence and Amy's the relatively well-adjusted woman who finds herself stuck with these two maladjusted misfits.
There are quite a few things to praise about the film, but you've first got to acknowledge and accept a really massive flaw. The camera work on Living in Missouri is atrocious. It doesn't even reach the barest standards of professionalism. It's like the movie was shot by the "C+" students in a community college film class. The shots are framed fairly well and the lighting is perfectly fine, but any time the camera has to pan, tilt or move at all, the result is noticeably amateurish.
The best things about the movie are the performances of Ratliff and McConnel. They both are playing characters who haven't grown up, but in two very different ways. Ryan is the sort of smart, basically capable guy who's able to get through life without every really needing to grow up. He's charming enough to get a girl to marry him. He's got enough drive and talent to hold down a professional job. But on an emotional level, he's still a teenager. He only likes playing with his young son because they can play Star Wars, Ryan's favorite thing in the world. He has a room to himself in his and Amy's house with a Do Not Enter sign on the door. He becomes rude and condescending whenever he can't get his way. He really has no self-control.
Todd's a different sort of loser. He's the socially inadequate guy who can't talk to girls and still lives with his parents. His only real friend is Ryan and he's the put-upon subordinate in the relationship. Todd is too uncomfortable and too unsure to do anything but sit and watch his life go by. At the beginning of the story, he seems like the pathetic childhood friend that Ryan can't get rid of. As the story unfolds, though, you realize that Ryan wants to keep Todd around because he is such a loser. Paired with Todd, Ryan's the smart, smooth, controlling leader of the pair. He's comfortable being Todd's better and that sense of superiority makes up a big part of Ryan's self-image.
These two, and Amy, are stuck in going nowhere lives until Ryan loses his job and Amy reaches out to Todd for friendship as her marriage degenerates. The story that unfolds of three ordinary people who either do or don't take charge of their lives has some mediocre pop culture references, college flashbacks and flashes of Todd's fantasy life woven through it.
The only other real problem with the film, besides the horrible camera work, is that it focuses too much on Ryan in the first half of the movie and he's an unlikable jerk. You really can't care that much about him, but Todd is a more sympathetic in the lameness without ever becoming a cartoon. He's just as screwed up but because it's inwardly focused, he's pitiful and not annoying. Amy is more compelling as she tries to deal with a husband who's never stopped being a kid. When the movie focuses more on Todd and Amy, it becomes a better film
Living In Missouri does a very good job of examining a couple of those guys-who-won't-grow-up in a realistic and not theatrical fashion. If you can get past the awful camera-work, there's some genuine human tragedy to be found.
It's the story of two friends and the woman who doesn't really come between them. Ryan (Connor Ratliff) is an office worker. His best friend Todd (Ian McConnel) is a video store clerk. They, along with Ryan's wife Amy (Christina Puzo), are waiting through their lives in the small town atmosphere of Missouri in the year before the first Star Wars sequel opens. Ryan and Todd are grown men who've never outgrown their adolescence and Amy's the relatively well-adjusted woman who finds herself stuck with these two maladjusted misfits.
There are quite a few things to praise about the film, but you've first got to acknowledge and accept a really massive flaw. The camera work on Living in Missouri is atrocious. It doesn't even reach the barest standards of professionalism. It's like the movie was shot by the "C+" students in a community college film class. The shots are framed fairly well and the lighting is perfectly fine, but any time the camera has to pan, tilt or move at all, the result is noticeably amateurish.
The best things about the movie are the performances of Ratliff and McConnel. They both are playing characters who haven't grown up, but in two very different ways. Ryan is the sort of smart, basically capable guy who's able to get through life without every really needing to grow up. He's charming enough to get a girl to marry him. He's got enough drive and talent to hold down a professional job. But on an emotional level, he's still a teenager. He only likes playing with his young son because they can play Star Wars, Ryan's favorite thing in the world. He has a room to himself in his and Amy's house with a Do Not Enter sign on the door. He becomes rude and condescending whenever he can't get his way. He really has no self-control.
Todd's a different sort of loser. He's the socially inadequate guy who can't talk to girls and still lives with his parents. His only real friend is Ryan and he's the put-upon subordinate in the relationship. Todd is too uncomfortable and too unsure to do anything but sit and watch his life go by. At the beginning of the story, he seems like the pathetic childhood friend that Ryan can't get rid of. As the story unfolds, though, you realize that Ryan wants to keep Todd around because he is such a loser. Paired with Todd, Ryan's the smart, smooth, controlling leader of the pair. He's comfortable being Todd's better and that sense of superiority makes up a big part of Ryan's self-image.
These two, and Amy, are stuck in going nowhere lives until Ryan loses his job and Amy reaches out to Todd for friendship as her marriage degenerates. The story that unfolds of three ordinary people who either do or don't take charge of their lives has some mediocre pop culture references, college flashbacks and flashes of Todd's fantasy life woven through it.
The only other real problem with the film, besides the horrible camera work, is that it focuses too much on Ryan in the first half of the movie and he's an unlikable jerk. You really can't care that much about him, but Todd is a more sympathetic in the lameness without ever becoming a cartoon. He's just as screwed up but because it's inwardly focused, he's pitiful and not annoying. Amy is more compelling as she tries to deal with a husband who's never stopped being a kid. When the movie focuses more on Todd and Amy, it becomes a better film
Living In Missouri does a very good job of examining a couple of those guys-who-won't-grow-up in a realistic and not theatrical fashion. If you can get past the awful camera-work, there's some genuine human tragedy to be found.
Funny and Sad - an unexpected pleasure, although a twisted one
newyorkjerries23 November 2004
I stumbled upon this movie a few years ago at a festival, totally by accident, and I loved it. It was one of those situations where you don't know what to expect, and I almost walked out because the short subject it was paired with was so awful. I'm glad I stayed, because it was such a good film.
This is a really entertaining movie, and I laughed a lot, but it is also really painful in places. In this respect, it sort of reminded me of THE OFFICE, which has a lot of comedy that makes me squirm. Some of the funniest parts involved Uncle Roy, played by the actor who is now better known as Donnie Darko's dad. He plays a really creepy old guy who lives in a basement, and all of his scenes really had me laughing.
At first, the movie sort of brought to mind the whole Kevin Smith thing, but I'm not really a fan of those movies, and I think there was a lot more humanity and emotion in this one. Some of it, particularly the second half, was truly heartbreaking. It's exactly the kind of surprise I've always wanted to experience at a film festival, where so often the things I see are disappointing. You always hope you'll discover something more like this. A very good film.
This is a really entertaining movie, and I laughed a lot, but it is also really painful in places. In this respect, it sort of reminded me of THE OFFICE, which has a lot of comedy that makes me squirm. Some of the funniest parts involved Uncle Roy, played by the actor who is now better known as Donnie Darko's dad. He plays a really creepy old guy who lives in a basement, and all of his scenes really had me laughing.
At first, the movie sort of brought to mind the whole Kevin Smith thing, but I'm not really a fan of those movies, and I think there was a lot more humanity and emotion in this one. Some of it, particularly the second half, was truly heartbreaking. It's exactly the kind of surprise I've always wanted to experience at a film festival, where so often the things I see are disappointing. You always hope you'll discover something more like this. A very good film.
Interesting characters, good editing, bad cinematography.
nhikrath29 October 2004
I was lucky enough to see the film and talk to the director and editor in one of my classes at UCSC, where Shaun Peterson is an alum. I felt the movie held its own as an interesting black comedy, especially for only $7,500.
Its on-screen strength comes from Ian McConnel, who plays the unsure buddy of the jerk, Ryan Johnson (played by writer/co-producer Connor Ratliff). McConnel is able to successfully propel this pathetic character into a believable protagonist which the entire film centers itself around, despite having considerably less screen time than Christina Puzzo and Connor Ratliff, who gave good performances as the other two main characters.
The dialogue fluctuates in quality, sometimes going off into tangents on entertainment trivia, creating more of an annoyance than a motif, even though I could relate to much of what was being said. There are, however, some very genuine moments of pause and revelation between the three main characters which deserve some praise.
I enjoyed the DV aesthetic in such films as 28 Days Later and Dancer in the Dark, but I really disliked the cinematography of this movie. Camera movement was hyperactive and the lack of proper focus went beyond stylistic (see Belly for this) to the realm of plain amateurishness. I felt as if the cinematographer and director, in lieu of simply comprising with the DV aesthetic, threw most of photographic theory out the window to the point where it detracted from the awesome performances.
The editing, however, was very spot on. Pacing, both structurally and within scenes, kept things at a good clip throughout, which is why I think this film was able to get to the next level of maturity, away from common amateur film and towards something more enjoyable.
For a reference, I could describe this as a mix between Election (dir. Alexander Payne) and Clerks (dir. Kevin Smith).
Its on-screen strength comes from Ian McConnel, who plays the unsure buddy of the jerk, Ryan Johnson (played by writer/co-producer Connor Ratliff). McConnel is able to successfully propel this pathetic character into a believable protagonist which the entire film centers itself around, despite having considerably less screen time than Christina Puzzo and Connor Ratliff, who gave good performances as the other two main characters.
The dialogue fluctuates in quality, sometimes going off into tangents on entertainment trivia, creating more of an annoyance than a motif, even though I could relate to much of what was being said. There are, however, some very genuine moments of pause and revelation between the three main characters which deserve some praise.
I enjoyed the DV aesthetic in such films as 28 Days Later and Dancer in the Dark, but I really disliked the cinematography of this movie. Camera movement was hyperactive and the lack of proper focus went beyond stylistic (see Belly for this) to the realm of plain amateurishness. I felt as if the cinematographer and director, in lieu of simply comprising with the DV aesthetic, threw most of photographic theory out the window to the point where it detracted from the awesome performances.
The editing, however, was very spot on. Pacing, both structurally and within scenes, kept things at a good clip throughout, which is why I think this film was able to get to the next level of maturity, away from common amateur film and towards something more enjoyable.
For a reference, I could describe this as a mix between Election (dir. Alexander Payne) and Clerks (dir. Kevin Smith).
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
