Adolescent hysteria sinks ‘Lost & Delirious’

loading...

In theaters

LOST & DELIRIOUS, 100 minutes, not rated, directed by Lea Pool, written by Judith Thompson, based on the novel “The Wives of Bath” by Susan Swan. Starts tomorrow, Railroad Square Cinema, Waterville.

Lea Pool’s coming-of-age movie, “Lost & Delirious,” proves it isn’t easy being young and in love, but then it also proves it isn’t easy making a movie about the young and in love. Taking a cue from some teen romances, the film underscores the fact that if one’s hormones aren’t held in check, all can be lost to melodrama.

To a point, Pool’s film is important and necessary, a sincere look at adolescence and adolescent love that has guts. The problem is that, by the final reel, it’s wearing so much of its guts on its sleeve, some might want to look away.

Based on Susan Swan’s novel, “The Wives of Bath,” the film follows Mary Bradford (Mischa Barton), a quiet girl nicknamed Mouse who’s recently been shipped to a Montreal boarding school by her indifferent father and his breezy new wife.

At school, Mouse is faced with a new life, something she wasn’t exactly seeking (“I felt like a tiny gray mouse heading straight for the mouth of a cat”), but things eventually look up when she meets her roommates Tory (Jessica Pare) and Paulie (Piper Perabo), a fun couple who surprise Mary by revealing, well, that they actually are a couple.

As Tory and Paulie explore the boundaries of their tumultuous lesbian affair, which smashes apart when Tory’s sister catches them together in bed, Mary is forced to face the boundaries of her own life – and question how she herself responds to the world.

“Lost & Delirious” wouldn’t be nearly as affecting if it weren’t for the conviction of its cast; Perabo, in particular, has some terrific moments when Pool isn’t asking her to overact, and Barton grounds the film’s overblown midsection and ending with an economy of style that softens the increasingly hysterical mood. But Judith Thompson’s script, which initially skirts a number of clich?s and seems so promising, inexplicably turns sour. Indeed, as the nearly destroyed Paulie finds herself shrieking Shakespeare’s sonnets while fencing with Tory’s male suitors, the film leaves all sense of reality behind – and dissolves into a muddy puddle of camp.

Grade: C

On video and DVD

HEAD OVER HEELS, 91 minutes, PG-13, directed by Mark Waters, written by Ron Burch and David Kidd.

It probably won’t surprise anyone to learn that the new Mark Waters’ comedy, “Head Over Heels,” has as much meat on it as a supermodel, but what might surprise some is that a movie as inconsequential as this could potentially stand as an important turning point in pop culture.

The film, which features a bevy of real-life supermodels in supporting roles (Sarah O’Hare, Shalom Harlow, Ivana Milicevic and Tomiko Fraser), follows Amanda Pierce (Monica Potter), a weak-in-the-knees art restorer at the Museum of Modern Art (there’s a stretch) who’s eager to meet the man of her dreams.

Amanda believes she’s met that man in Freddie Prinze Jr.’s Jim Winston, but after witnessing him murder a woman in a scene straight out of Hitchcock’s “Rear Window,” Amanda finds herself in a bit of a quandary – should she just ignore the murder and stay with Jim, who’s way cute and charming? Or should she move on with her life and find someone new? Such dilemmas are at the core of a movie that’s about as toxic as a Dexatrim salad.

Still, “Head Over Heels” is nevertheless important for what it might suggest for the future of pop films. If you do see it, the key to its importance rests in Monica Potter’s performance.

Close your eyes and listen to her voice. Sound familiar? Now open your eyes and pay attention to her not-so-unique brand of vulnerability, her slightly wounded expressions, her goofy malapropisms, the awkward way she moves across the screen, her impossibly wide smile. Potter’s impersonation of Julia Roberts is so uncanny, it’s sometimes difficult to remember she’s supposed to be playing a character here – and not the hugely popular star of the hugely boring “America’s Sweethearts.”

It’s as if the film industry, mirroring the music industry, wants to move toward total homogenization. For our culture, that means one more step forward in its decline. For fans of movies, it could mean more generic films than ever.

Grade: D

Christopher Smith is the Bangor Daily News film critic. His reviews appear Mondays in Style, Thursdays in the

scene, Tuesdays on “NEWS CENTER at 5” and Thursdays on “NEWS CENTER at 5:30” on WLBZ-2 and WCSH-6. He can be reached at BDNFilm1@aol.com.

THE VIDEO CORNER

Renting a video? NEWS film critic Christopher Smith can help. Below are his grades of recent releases in video stores.

Head Over Heels ? D

The Trumpet of the

Swan ? C+

Pollock ? A-

Sweet November ? D-

Valentine ? F

The Gift ? B+

Family Man ? D-

Saving Silverman ? F

Down to Earth ? D

Monkeybone ? D

Thirteen Days ? A-

Unbreakable ? C+

The Wedding

Planner ? D+

You Can Count on Me ? A

Proof of Life ? C-

Save the Last Dance ? C-

State and Main ? B

O Brother,

Where Art Thou ? A-

Cast Away ? A-

Crouching Tiger,

Hidden Dragon ? A+

The House Of Mirth ? B