Finally, finally got around to watching Gas, Food, Lodging for the first time. While it was enjoyable and certainly shines as an example of 90s independent film, I will have to say that Jurassic Park is the better of the two films.
It was closer than one would think, but this one goes to the 800-pound T-Rex in the room.
I'm disappointed in the outcome, but could you elaborate on your decision?
You know, here we are about 20 pages in the thread later and I finally got up the gumption to reply to this - especially in light of the fact that I signed up for Round 2 and got a pleasant-but-firm private message saying, "You didn't elaborate. Please elaborate before Round 2."
Both
Jurassic Park and
Gas, Food, Lodging exemplify the extremes of what 90s American cinema became.
Jurassic Park exemplified the big, loud, and dumb summer blockbuster that shook your ribcage with its thumping bass. Sure, some of the scenes didn't make sense (like how did the big T-Rex get into the building at the end?) but frankly who cares? This is a movie that promises one thing and one thing alone - dinosaurs eating people - and on that level it delivers the goods and then some. This film paved the way for other loud summer blockbusters like
Twister, which promised (and delivered) little more than tornadoes sucking up cows and
ID4, which promised (and delivered) little more than aliens blowing up stuff. This is sound and fury signifying nothing, but it is freakin' cool sound and fury. This is the type of film that people would buy to show off their home theater systems but never really watch. 2/5
Gas, Food, and Lodging on the other hand exemplifies the excess of American Independent Cinema. This movie has not aged well, probably because most of the cinematic territory that may have seemed fresh and invigorating at the time has been mined so thoroughly that it has become a cliche. It is a coming-of-age story about a family of working-class, yet incredibly good-looking, women who sling hash and live in a mobile home. For a talky film that is more of a character study than a story, the dialogue is not that sharp and the characterization consists of whining, crying, or yelling. The best aspects of this film come from its intents more than its actual execution - the main characters are women and the decision to focus on presenting a female perspective in a landscape that became dominated with the testosterone juices of Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith a few years afterward. But good intents do not necessarily make a good movie. The one scene that stands out for me - the scene where Ione Skye decides she really likes this guy enough to let him impregnate her - is a great example of intent vs. execution. The couple decide to copulate in a cave filled with luminescent rocks. The idea of filming in a textured environment as a way of conveying both the sensuality of the moment (much the way sand is erotically presented in
Woman in the Dunes) as well as the symbolism of their relationship (the
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus book - published the same year as this film - made much hay about "men living in their caves" plus there is this vague thematic idea that Ione Skye is supposed to be something akin to an earth mother - she is at her happiest when being surrounded by ground) should combine to create a moment that is both rich with symbolism as well as hot. Unfortunately, the execution - with neon blue and purple rocks, cloying rock music, and sand-that-looks-more-like-glitter-than-sand struck me with all the force of two teens blindly groping in a rave. Throughout the scene, I kept asking myself questions like , "Aren't those rocks sharp?" "Does this drag-her-to-a-cave method for getting women actually work?" and "Is she getting glittersand in her buttcrack?" This is not the profound moment it was meant to be; this is unintentional hilarity. 1/5