Review of The Chumscrubber (2005) by Drewj. — 09 Jan 2006

Comparisons to "Donnie Darko", the masterpiece starring Jake Gyllenhaal, are unavoidable, however, this movie stands on its own as a wonderfully unique commentary on the sad state of suburban American youth (excellent choice BTW, in choosing Valencia, CA for the location - I live in LA, but have never been up there - other than Magic Mountain (in the general vicinity, I believe) - but look up "mildly attractive suburban wasteland" in the dictionary, and I can't imagine a place capturing it more perfectly than Valencia).

Excellent performances from people ranging from Glenn Close, Allison Janney, Rita Wilson (all three are HYSTERICAL!), Ralph Fiennes, Rory Culkin, numerous other recognizable faces, and - in the most pivotal role - Jamie Bell ("Billy Elliott"!! I never would have guessed! He's also in the current / 2005 5-hour "King Kong" re-make (won't be seeing that, but kudos to those who recognized his talent)) is wonderful, and one of the most gifted young actors out there.

I'm shocked by the bad reviews from publications such as the LA Times ("Every adult in the movie is a caricature") - um, *THAT'S THE POINT*!!? / I'm pretty sure those characters are not meant to be taken seriously - satire, perhaps??!, but what can I say - the same new(?) critic praised the wonderful "Junebug", a mostly overlooked film with many characters one might also call "caricatures" (although, certainly not to the same extent - these are two very different movies, and the characters in "Junebug" are certainly more fully developed, but that's not really the point of "Chumscrubber").

Given the 2005 release of "Chumscrubber", I would hope to see it get nominations for the 2005 Independent Spirit Awards - in spite of - the, um - rather unfortunate title! And of course, to make matters worse, one month later "Thumbsucker" was released!? (Starring an actor from *"Chumscrubber"*?!) It's certainly not "mainstream" material, and thus I don't expect the Academy to recognize it / most members probably never even heard of it - so it's certainly "independent", but in a most splendid way.

Is it "clumsy", "smug" *at times*, and not your typical studio formula picture...?? - yes! Please give me that over 99% of what Hollywood releases, and I'd be thrilled! And thank God the people at Christian Science Monitor got it! As for one publication calling it "shrill" and "smug", I can't decide if that's more hypocritical or laughable! Everyone has a right to their opinion of course - but I highly recommend this movie.