Note well and full: my rating of 10/10 is for the combination of the graphic novel "prequel saga," which is nothing less than the *first half of the story*, and the movie itself. I'm not sure if it makes sense to rate the movie as a separate entity, but it is wildly entertaining enough, I think, to rate a solid 7/10 or 8/10 for anyone who can lock into its satirical mode.

A word on that: it's amazing how tone-deaf some critics can be. I've read numerous reviews that criticize the movie for attempting to make deep or profound statements that instead fall flat because they are in fact trite, shallow, or stupid. Duh! I think it fair to say that at no point does any character say anything that Kelly thinks is profound; what we hear is a steady and very funny parody of exactly that. Maybe because the tone of the movie, its vision, is fresh and unique, that those who don't get it just assume it must be serious. This is part of the reason the movie is getting such wildly mixed reviews. Half the critics don't get the tone at all and hate it. Half the critics get it, and about 1/3 of those think the movie still isn't coherent enough to recommend, while the other 2/3 of the 1/2 think it's got just enough coherence to make it a treat.

So how coherent is it? *Without it's first half*, I think it's fair to say that it's confusing as hell and a challenge to follow. But we are given enough of the back story that the pieces can be put together reasonably well *by someone with decent experience seeing and reading complex science fiction stories*. I can certainly see how someone could regard the story as wholly incoherent, but that's their inexperience with this kind of story. Anyone who has "gotten" ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, PRIMER, or, yes, the original cut of DONNIE DARKO on the first viewing, gotten them enough to figure out the broad outline of the plot, should be able to do the same here (as did my companion at the theater).

There is a big difference, though, between the movie half of SOUTHLAND TALES and these other flicks. The broad understanding of the story that you can get from a first viewing is an understanding of the WHAT of the story, but not of the WHY. In particular, it is impossible to understand the motivations of the movie's most important characters, the Treer Corporation, without having read the first half of the story.

Now, here's the astonishing part. Usually when a movie is widely dissed as incoherent, the best argument its defenders can muster is that some decent sense can actually be made of it after all. Often that involves inventing plot points that the actual story omits! However, the complete SOUTHLAND TALES, the graphic novel first half and the movie second half, is not just adequately coherent, not just satisfyingly coherent, it is *thrillingly* coherent. It's every bit as coherent as its reputation for the opposite. The big reveals near the end make numerous pieces of the puzzle fall into place, and once you leave the movie theater the pieces keep on locking up, bit by bit by bit. It's one hell of a science fiction story.

In short: if you have any strong interest in this movie, do yourself an immense favor and read the graphic novel. (Ideally, read it first, but I think that seeing the movie, reading the graphic novel, and seeing the movie again would be highly satisfying).

I still cannot figure out what Kelly was thinking when he decided to split this huge story the way he did. There's one alternate universe where this is a 600 page Hugo-Award winning novel, standing in the precise relationship to 2007 as John Brunner's brilliant STAND ON ZANZBAR did to 1967. And there's another alternate universe where it was a 6-part HBO miniseries that was universally regarded as doing for sci-fi on cable TV what the Sopranos did for crime and family drama. It's our sucky luck that we live in the universe where it was a mostly unread graphic novel plus a widely misunderstood motion picture. Then again, it's the point of the story that we do live in a sucky reality, so maybe there's perverse ironic sense in that.

I had not heard much about Southland Tales when I started to rent it. The only reason I was getting it was because I will watch anything with Sarah Michelle Gellar and always enjoy her even if I do not enjoy the movie. I had no idea what I was in store for. While watching this movie, I just became so, entranced. From beginning to end, I was loving every second and I could not figure out why. Maybe because it is so eccentric and well executed that it seems weird to like it for how odd it is. Maybe the performances were giving the film it's edge where the plot was so original and crisp. No, the real reason I enjoyed this movie is because it was so incredibly interesting and fun to watch, and it appeared to me as a perfect film throughout my whole viewing, when in reality it is one big mess. Yes, this is quite perfectly the most beautiful piece of junk I have ever seen, and I can not get enough of it!

Allow me to explain further for those who are unsure what I am saying. This film is an apocalypse-themed string of events that seem to make absolutely no sense sometimes as the film progresses. There are no stand out performances, only ones that intesify the artsy atmosphere the film tries to create. At that same time though, Richard Kelly does not attempt to make it anything more than it is; it seems as though the film is just there, no more, no less. What I love about Southland Tales is it is not afraid to test it's viewers. People who hate this film just do not understand it usually. They think it has no creative merit, no purpose but to see how random it can be. That is not the case. I, in my honest opinion, believe the film is as perfect as it can be without actually being any good, and that is the complete opposite of hating it. In the end, there is really a lot of questions as to why this film is so good if it contains so many problems, and that is because it does the one thing a movie is meant to do, entertain, and it does that unconditionally.

Those who say they are appalled by it's lack of intelligence really are judging the film in the wrong way. Those who say it was boring, it just might not be the film for you. I, for one, enjoy it more and more with every viewing and my opinion on why I love it so much, I can never exactly pin down. The movie is an apocalypse within itself, but masks it all with what the creators want us to believe is pure genius, and I completely respect and admire that in every way. Those are just my views, take them or leave them.

On July 4, 2005, nuclear explosions devastate Texas. It's the start of WWIII. America turns militaristic. Three years later, California is the key to the presidential race. Republicans are generally winning politics. There is a leftist neo-Marxist movement. There is a new government force USIDent which controls cyberspace and surveillance. Middle east oil is cut off and scientists have developed a new power source Fluid Karma using quantum entanglement. Boxer Santaros (Dwayne Johnson) is a key republican who goes missing and returns with amnesia. He has info with Krysta Kapowski (Sarah Michelle Gellar) who is reality porn star Krysta Now. Roland Taverner (Seann William Scott) is a cop or a copy of the cop who is giving Santaros a ride-along.

This is an ambitious movie from Richard Kelly who made Donnie Darko. He's allowed to be let loose and that is its major problem. It has so much that it becomes quite a mess. It has way too much. It is unexplainable and illogical. It's a conspiracy nut's wet dream. Somebody needs to hold him back. There are bits and pieces that I really like. I love SWS watching his delayed reflection. I like some of the silly humor. Generally, I don't like the cinematography or directing style or the overly complicated world. It looks like a cheap compromise. I appreciate the ambition but this is not a good movie in most sense. It is a mishmash of weird ideas.