** out of ****<br /><br />I watched this knowing what it was going to be like. I knew it would be trashy, cheap, unassuming, and interesting. But unfortunately, this film is none of these things. I went in expecting these things and i had them all shoved back into my face. I wasn't expecting this film to be as good as KALIFORNIA, but i was taken agog when i discovered what it really was.<br /><br />The film is basically just about a couple who hook u with a young outlaw and basically go on a trip to nowhere. While on this trip, they have some encounters with several people who they end up murdering. They don't show any kind of guilt by doing this. Just regret.<br /><br />This film was too easy. It's concluding statement is that the youth of today have made their world there own personal hell. This is established from the beginning and then the film decides to show as many different ways of showing this as it can. For me it didn't work, but in a strange way, it did. I liked the way the film doesn't take or give any sort of apologies for the weird images it shows. I liked the way the film showed us a continuing spiral around repetition. I usually hate it when a film does these sorts of things, but here it fit perfect. Rose Mcgowen does a fine job in her role of what appears to be a girl with terrets syndrome.<br /><br />The major problem is that the film just doesn't show enough of... well... everything. The scenes are half heartedly done, the characters are half heartedly developed, and the set design just seems to keep repeating more and more strange set tone and color, but not enough variety. Take, for instance, a surreal scene in which the teenagers accidentally hit a dog on the road and put it out of its misery. What makes this scene funny is the fact that they have already murdered several people throughout the course of the film, and yet when they hit the dog, they show more genuine emotion for hitting this animal than for murdering another human being. And yet the viewer will still get the feeling that they didn't show enough emotion for the dog either. There must be something wrong with a film when the only scene in the film where the viewer can feel anything relative to the characters in a regular human being is in a particular scene right at the very end which involves hedge trimmers and Nazis. Obviously, it is scenes like the one with the dog that drive the message of the film home.<br /><br />Now, the main problem with the film is how director Greg Araki(Mysterious Skin, Totally F*ckd Up) has to add a little zing to the carnage scenes. He adds style, which should definitely not be used in a film like this. There is a scene where a store owner's head is blown off with a shotgun, right off the stump. Now this scene is pretty straight forwardly done. Two people struggle with the gun, it goes off, someone is killed in the process. The thing is, once the the head lands in the guacamole, it screams and lurches, as if still alive. Now there's nothing wrong with having something like this in a film of this texture. The problem arises when it is talked about on local news programs that begin the discussion of how the head was sworn to be talking at the scene of the crime, and how a necklace was found at the scene of the crime along wit several other dead bodies. This is the kind of stuff that isn't necessary and certainly doesn't make the film any more interesting. It makes the film slow paced. And for a film that is less than 90 minutes, that is something that a director, especially one like Greg Araki, who has made some amazing films, should definitely avoid doing. Just look at films like KIDS or BULLY. They don't fall into the trap of being stylized for the sake of being stylized.<br /><br />Homosexuality also is a frequent concept that is brought up several times in the film. Now i have absolutely nothing against homosexuality in films. I don't even care if it's just a casual occurrence in a film.But in this film, the concept of the boyfriend being gay, or the drifter being gay is simply something that isn't explored to any real extent. In fact, the aspect of Rose Mcgowen or her boyfriend being a straight couple is barely explored either. For a film that has so much gay sex, straight sex, and three ways, there really should be more of an attempt for sexual exploration of the characters and less of a chore. I know that it is just a thing that these characters do, and i know that they don't care who loves who or what they want to do with each other, but they could have at least had an orgy and not just a series of weird encounters.<br /><br />Having said that, i do find the film interesting in its own trashy way. And i do kind of think the film is worth seeing, but the whole awkwardness of what the film attempts and repeatedly succeeds to prove is dumbed down by its finishing touches.<br /><br />(the film is not rated but is intended to be viewed by adults only. it contains overdone violence and gory images, a substantial use of strong language, lots of graphic sex and nudity, and a fair share of drug use.)