"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUnlike others, I refuse to call this pitiful excuse for a movie a triumph of style over substance (I don't want to give style a bad name). Still, it's the most apt description that comes to mind.
A pointless, unpleasant and ultimately meaningless assault on the eyes and ears, \"Wonderland\" leaves one wondering only why the film was made in the first place and who in their right mind gave the greenlight to this dreary and tangled mess. A biography of porn star John Holmes? A study of who the man was, why he went into the business and how it affected him? Great. Bound to be compelling, bound to be entertaining. Bound to be enlightening and fascinating on about a million levels (and I have zero interest in porn).
But a confusing, violent, Rashomon-style study of a series of murders Holmes was connected with after his career ended? Who in hell cares? What insights do we gain? This film completely ignores the most interesting aspect of John Holmes's life -- that he was a porno star! \"Wonderland\" might as well have been about anyone: the fact that the main character is the most famous male adult film star in history is almost irrelevant.
To make matters about a thousand times worse, the picture is loaded down with jerkoff gimmicks -- annoying machine gun editing, sloppy Dogme-95 camerawork, unnecessary split-screen graphics and animation, etc. etc.
In the absence of a compelling story and unique main character, the director (and I use the term loosely) has thrown together a dozen or so techniques from other films and decided to call the resulting mess a movie, among these: the trendy, bleach-bypass look of \"Narc\" or \"Traffic\" or \"Minority Report;\" the frantic, often incomprehensible, throw-the-pieces-of-film-in-the-air cutting style of \"Natural Born Killers\" or \"28 Days Later;\" the fill-every-moment-of-silence-with- an-old-song-to-evoke-the-period soundtrack of \"Goodfellas\" or \"Blow;\" the groovy, retro title sequence of \"Velvet Goldmine\" or \"Autofocus\" or \"Catch Me If You Can.\" The list goes on and on and on. Pathetic.
I wanted to like this movie. I had real hopes for it. \"Wonderland Avenue\" had been around for years; had the context of the murders been emphasized rather than the murders themselves, I think it could have worked. Had the murders (and Holmes's growing involvement with seedy L.A. types) signaled the end of a career, or the end of the swinging '70s, I think the film could have had meaning; it could have served a purpose. As it is -- meaningless. Pointless. Who cares how many perspectives exist on a series of murders generally unknown by the public? The case isn't famous enough to merit such painstaking examination.
This film should have been the third act of \"The John Holmes Story.\" That's it. Period. And it could have worked. What's that? Oh, right, right, they didn't want to tell a traditional rise-and-fall story. They didn't want to make \"Boogie Nights\" or \"Goodfellas\" or \"Star 80\" or \"Autofocus.\" They wanted their film to be different. Right?
Well, in one sense, they succeeded. There's a big difference between those films and \"Wonderland.\" The difference is those films are good.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"