How did a film like War, Inc. (which opens this weekend in limited release) go so wrong? It's an ambitious film, a satire of foreign policy and war-torn nations under American corporate control. It's also a complete mess, anchored by a usually respectable cast that includes John Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei, and Joan Cusack. Oh, and Hilary Duff is in, too. With an Eastern European accent. Maybe that's one big hint. I wanted to love it, and maybe it will find a cult following eventually, but consider yourself warned. They were obviously going for Dr. Strangelove-meets-Grosse Pointe Blank, and wound up with something more like Southland Tales.

Haven't seen WAR, INC., but I've noted a spate of hyperplotted movies that aggressively court their own outlandishness, that embrace and then drive straight on through their own pomo self-reference/self-satire to the point where it's hard for the viewer to simply enjoy them.

SOUTHLAND TALES is one example; it relentlessly subverts itself, which is courageous, but what's left after a movie does that for most of its running length?

Other examples: Wayne Kramer's RUNNING SCARED; SMOKIN' ACES; SHOOT 'EM UP. I could name others. All of them have set pieces that are off the hook. But they make the viewer earn them.

I'm still trying to figure out whether these are random sparks, or a trend.

At some point, over the top is a good thing. At some point (for example, post-Tarantino, or post OLDBOY) maybe it became more prevalent, or acceptable.

But what's left after you go past over the top? If it still works, it works, but if it doesn't...

When it works, it's subversive, a hoot, a real goof. But it also seems harder to maintain rhythm, mood and momentum, the more you discard narrative convention.

Or maybe moviegoers need to smoke more dope.