In Defense Of Lindsay Lohan

I mean, REALLY....
Why is everyone so happy that Lindsay Lohan is going to jail?

("Somebody HELP ME. I get terrible reception in here!")

What has she done to you people, anyway? Has Lindsay broken into your home? Kicked your dog?? Beat up your kids??? Is this young lady REALLY so much of a threat that she must be incarcerated for 90 days? I mean, that's three months!

Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm no fan of Lohan, either. In fact, I was shocked and outraged when word got around a few years ago that she'd be starring opposite Keira Knightley in a biopic about Dylan Thomas. I was like, "That wild HUSSY is going to be associated with MY favorite actress, the lovely and innocent Keira K??? UNACCEPTABLE!!!" I was super happy when I found out Lindsay screwed the whole deal up, and Sienna Miller was given her part instead. Too bad the movie ended up sucking so badly, regardless....


But STILL, I couldn't help but feel sorry for poor Lindsay when I saw her weeping in a Los Angles courtroom this week as a mean old judge sentenced her to jail for...well, I don't really know what she did, exactly.

I guess it had something to do with alcohol and probation violations or some crap. Whatever. The point is that I found it a little odd that virtually EVERYONE IN THE WORLD was so glad about what happened. It's like every person I know gets this satisfied sort of smirk on his face when the matter is brought up in conversation. "Did you see Lindsay Lohan is going to jail? Hmm, hmmmm?? It was on the news, you know. Yeah, Lindsay's going to JAIL for three months! Isn't that's fantastic??? Wink wink, nudge nudge. Say no more...."

C'mon now, people.


Three months in jail? For drinking??? That's clearly an out-of-balance sentence. Not to mention, it's expensive to keep someone incarcerated -- 115 dollars per day for each prisoner, meaning that Lindsay's jail time will cost the state of California over ten-thousand dollars at a time when the government is so broke that it's sending people IOUs as tax refunds. That darn judge is wasting taxpayer money just to prove to the public that celebrities can, on occasion, be held semi-accountable for their actions. This isn't serving anyone.

Besides, I believe that celebrities should be able to get away with anything they want, anyway. I mean, what's the fun of being famous if you can't run over a guy or burn down a hotel from time to time and face no consequences??? Seems like, nowadays, the stars are getting shafted by the law left and right for such activities. They're even getting sent to rehab just for stuff THEY SAID! At this rate, celebrities will soon be expected to follow the same standards as the rest of us, and I'm personally finding less and less motivation to pursue fame and fortune for that very reason. So, even if Lindsay Lohan IS guilty of some crime, I say LET HER GO!!!


Then, of course, there's the fact that Lindsay really isn't doing anything much worse than what many of US were doing at her age. Drinking? Partying?? Not sleeping for three days on end while on a clubbing bender??? Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone! Remember that phrase? It's in The Bible. Look it up. You gonna try to argue with The Bible, smart guy?

And this is all not to mention that with Lindsay Lohan now out of the way, the media is going to be shifting even more focus on Miley Cyrus. Mark my words -- as soon as Miley is so much as seen with a drink in her hand, it's going to be ON, ladies and gentlemen. The paparazzi will hound her even worse than ever before, and they'll keep pushing and pushing until poor Miley has been caught up in the justice system and turned into America's next train wreck. Friggin' media. That's how the vultures operate, you know. They tear down one person and move to the next.


Anyway, here's a ghost movie that stars a young lady who looks kind of like a sober Lindsay Lohan.

The House of Usher (2006)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455537/


Netflix description:
In this retelling of Edgar Allan Poe's classic tale, Izabella Miko plays Jill Michaelson, a woman whose lover and best friend (a pair of brother-sister twins) vanish from her life -- only to reenter it when one of them dies. When Jill travels to their New England town for the funeral, she soon learns that the brother suffers from the same malady that killed his sister, and Jill herself begins to feel the haunting effects of her friend's spirit.

So, The House of Usher is a modern day retelling of the classic Edgar Allen Poe story, The Fall of the House of Usher. In this version, a young woman named Jill visits the childhood home of her best friend Maddy when Maddy dies. While there for the funeral, Jill hooks up with Maddy's twin brother Roderick, who is just a little bit strange.

See, Roderick's got a bizarre disease that makes him unable to touch anything or anybody except at odd hours of the night, when his nurse gives him some kind of magical injection. The rest of his time is spent hiding in a dark room, writing creepy things that no one else is allowed to read (I think I just described myself). One can certainly see why Jill finds the chap so attractive!

When Jill finally announces that she's leaving the House of Usher and returning to her life as a therapist in the big city, Roderick persuades her to stick around for a while longer. He's lonely, and just so darn sensitive! Plus, he claims that he, too, will be dying soon from the same disease that just killed his sister. Jill feels sorry for him, I guess.

There's something creepy about Roderick, his nurse, and the House of Usher, in general, although Jill can't quite put her finger on it. Her hosts are behaving suspiciously, and there's a weird chamber down in the basement with an arrangement of fluid-filled coffins that no one seems willing to talk about. By the time our heroine finally decides to hightail it out of there, Roderick's sinister plans are too advanced to be canceled. He chases her down; she's held at the House of Usher against her will; and...well...there's a surprise ending that I need not spoil for you.

(I truly believe the above idea would be a good use of time and material resources.)

The House of Usher actually features much higher production values than I'd expected. It's slickly shot, well-acted, and tightly edited. I was impressed with the visual flair that director Haley Cloake brought to the picture, and also felt that she did a capable job of establishing a spooky atmosphere. Really, this film was a pleasant surprise, considering that all of the previews on the disk before it started were for ultra low grade torture-horror exploitation flicks shot on video. By the time the main feature started rolling, I had practically written it off, which in retrospect was not very fair of me.

Of course, that's not to say that I regard this movie as GOOD, though. The truth is that The House of Usher is a fairly tedious, confusing, and unnecessary experience. None of the film's three characters are especially likable, and the old Haunted Mansion premise has worn so thin that it couldn't be made interesting even with a modern reboot like this. Admittedly, I have never read Poe's original story, but I still could guess the drill: creepy old house...something happening underground...ghosts...family secrets...a twist ending...blah blah blah blah.....

I realize that Ms. Cloake probably tried to keep this version of the story as true to the original as possible out of respect for Poe, but frankly, The House of Usher could have used a little punching up. This movie just drags and drags. I had trouble telling one scene from another, and by the time the big twist ending came around, I had basically lost interest.

Really, if you want to see a good Edgar Allen Poe adaptation, check out one of the Roger Corman classics (in fact, he made a House of Usher film with the great Vincent Price back in 1960). The 2006 version is, at best, a rental only for dedicated Poe fans and hardcore ghost story addicts desperate for something new. It's stylish, but nothing special.

2 out of 5.

b.