Originally posted by Spangle@Feb 4 2017, 07:52 PM


It's depressing, but very funny.

La La Land is impeccable.

2016 was a terrific year.

A struggling actress and a struggling musician in LA meet and fall in love?

Sounds like ground breaking stuff

Originally posted by GroupMeIsKindOfOkay@Feb 4 2017, 07:55 PM

A struggling actress and a struggling musician in LA meet and fall in love?

Sounds like ground breaking stuff

It's earth shattering

Zootopia still better than La La Land for me.

Originally posted by BasedMinkus@Feb 4 2017, 09:24 PM
Zootopia still better than La La Land for me.

I thought Kubo and the Two Strings was the best animated film of the year.

[pbhfx]
Bane - Defense - Nevada Battleborn - 345 TPE
-----------------------------------------------------
Birthplace: London, UK
Height: 6'4"
Weight: 225 lbs
Number: 3
-----------------------------------------------------
SMJHL Regular Season Statistics:
S55:
-----------------------------------------------------
Transactions and Awards:
Drafted 54th overall by the Nevada Battleborn in the S55 SMJHL Draft

[/pbhfx]

Player Page || Update Page

Originally posted by BasedMinkus@Feb 4 2017, 09:24 PM
Zootopia still better than La La Land for me.

Zootopia the movie I enjoyed the most without question.

Thank you to My boys @Merica and @Ragnar for the lovely sigs!

Originally posted by Maxy@Feb 5 2017, 11:30 AM

Zootopia the movie I enjoyed the most without question.

I still laugh thinking about that DMV scene.

8/10 - A modern update on Pygmalion starring a hooker with a heart of gold, Mighty Aphrodite is an absolutely hysterical film by director Woody Allen. Blending social commentary with neurosis, Mighty Aphrodite is a play on the Greek tragedies and amended for Allen's style and wit. The end result is a film that references various Greek tragedies throughout and manages to subvert the expectations of its genre, in spite of repeated warnings from the chorus. Inventive, imaginative, quirky, and witty, Mighty Aphrodite is a film that is decidedly Woody Allen, but feels risky and far more adventurous than many of his other more modern films. With a classic turn from the oddball filmmaker and from Mira Sorvino, Mighty Aphrodite is an incredibly charming film.

The best part of this film is undoubtedly the chorus. Led by F. Murray Abraham, the chorus is a source of great comedy from interactions with Lenny Weinrib (Woody Allen) to calling Zeus and getting his answering machine, the chorus is hysterical. However, as with all Greek tragedies, they play a key role. They tell of events off-screen, alert us to issues the characters face, and intervene throughout. F. Murray Abraham pops up throughout the film to urge Lenny to not be an idiot or give him advice on how to handle a situation. But, above all, the chorus is there is warn characters about obsession and the path to avoid tragedy. They are incredibly doom and gloom and constantly expect the worst to come around every corner. However, Allen's film subverts this with a largely happy and sound landing. Things work out the way they are should with no miscommunication or other romantic comedy cliches. Instead, Allen takes the depressing endings of Greek tragedies and plays it more along the lines of a rom-com where everybody ends up satisfied. This feels like subversion, if only because of the chorus and Allen's repeated references to Greek plays.

One of the most prominent plays referenced in the film is Oedipus. With Jocasta (Olympia Dukakis) and Laius (David Ogden Stiers) in the film, Allen makes overt references, but also adds in Kevin (Michael Rapaport). On a date with with porn star and prostitute Linda Ash (Mira Sorvino), Kevin makes repeated references to how he wants a girl like his mother who takes care of the home and makes dinner, etc. Clearly Oedipal, this date is a precursor to the poor guy finding out Linda made porn films. Needless to say, he did not take kindly. The references continue with a fortune teller named Cassandra (Danielle Ferland) who nobody takes seriously as she warns Lenny about tracking down Linda, the mother of his adopted son, and - along with the chorus - warns him about the trap of obsession. Lenny ignores these warnings and goes behind his wife Amanda's (Helena Bonham Carter) back to find Linda to satisfy his own curiosity (the real killer of people, not that "bullshit about the ozone layer", as the chorus warns) regarding his brilliant son's roots. The film also introduces Tiresias (Jack Warden), the blind prophet. Warning Lenny as to his wife's potential unfaithfulness, Tiresias sees all and remarks that one would "have to be blind" to not see Amanda's positive response to her potential lover. Oh the dramatic irony.

Allen treks on with an ending fit for a Greek tragedy, even if it is not tragic and more in line with a romantic comedy. With Lenny having Linda's son and Linda giving birth to a daughter fathered by Lenny, the two meet again once more a few years after the events of the film. However, they both keep the lineage of their children a secret. They are pleased to see one another with both of them happily married to other people. A classic case of dramatic irony with the audience knowing the truth, but both characters ignorant of the truth, the film's ending is honestly perfect.

That said, the film does have some faults. After a hot start with a fast and light opening 20 minutes that leaves you in stitches, the next 40-50 minutes are a bit slower. The humor is more subtle as Allen dives into the plot with Linda. Jokes come, but not like the first 20 minutes, which was constant. Instead, some jokes fall a bit flatter or result in simple chuckles. This section is what separates it from Allen's best works, as the final half hour or so is terrific yet again. However, the second act just slacks a bit and fails to live up to great first and third acts of this film.

However, Mighty Aphrodite is still an incredibly funny film that is easy entertainment. With a neurotic and nervy turn from Woody Allen and a great bombastic performance from Mira Sorvino, the film is fun and light entertainment. Allen's films manages to always be a breeze to watch, but always truly mentally engaging at the same time with some philosophical thoughts. But, he instead dumps the philosophy here and goes to the source: Greek tragedies. Allen has a thing for the mind of the Greeks and that becomes all the more clear in this film.



9/10 - Often cited as one of the most accurate courtroom dramas put to film, Anatomy of a Murder is a tremendous film. With James Stewart and George C. Scott doing battle as opposing lawyers in a murder trial, there was truly no way this film would not be riveting and spectacular. With both turning in stellar performances in their respective roles, Anatomy of a Murder is a boxing match of the minds as the competing lawyers trade blows and jabs for nearly two hours. Prior to that, director Otto Preminger sets the scene and score. A murder trial in which a man, Frederick Mannion (Ben Gazzara) killed another because the deceased raped Mannion's wife, Paul Biegler (Stewart) is tasked with defending the man. Of course, Biegler was once the District Attorney and lost in the past election to the new man, Mitch Lodwick (Brooks West). Wary of the case, Lodwick brings along Assistant Attorney General Claude Dancer (George C. Scott) to help him try the case. Ultimately, it comes down to a battle of the legal minds between Biegler and Dancer with the two doing the tango in the courtroom.

Frequent outbursts, twists, and unexpected testimony keep the case swaying in the wind. Was Mannion legally insane because of the news of the rape? Did he have a history of jealousy? Was his wife, who had a history of infidelity with a past husband, cheat on him with the deceased and claim she was raped to stave off her violent husband? Did her bruises come from her abusive husband, who was known to knock her around? Confronting antiquated notions regarding rape and the degree to which a woman "asked for it" by dressing seductively, Anatomy of a Murder certainly seems like a film that would have been controversial at the time. Open about sex and rape, the film is backwards in its portrayal of sex as the film certainly supports the theory that Mrs. Mannion (Lee Remick) was asking for what she got to a degree. That said, that bit of nastiness aside, the film challenges the prudeness of society at the time and presents a deeply sexual case to the world.

Constantly unpredictable, the ending may seem obvious since it is a courtroom drama with James Stewart. That said, Preminger keeps you guessing in spite of that. Whether or not the verdict is the right one is one such thing as the prosecution pokes many holes that may not be adequately excused. In this way, the ending is incredibly inconclusive. It is clear this ending influenced Primal Fear, though that film may go in a different direction with in, as it makes it abundantly clear the verdict was wrong. Here, Preminger does not give his audience any such satisfaction. Instead, he hints at the possibility that everything did not come out in the trial, but never outwardly says anything and has the Mannion's split town before we truly know. It is a film built for discussion and debate with audience members able to present their own case based on what we know about the case or believe that we know. For this, Anatomy of a Murder is an incredibly engaging and thoroughly entertaining film to watch unfold.

Similar to Preminger's 1962 film Advise & Consent, Anatomy of a Murder is detailed and thorough. It takes nearly three hours to reach its end and it is because Preminger takes his time. He introduces us to our characters: classic lawman Paul Biegler. A good, honest man who knows the law forwards and back. Against him, we have Dancer, a hot shot from downstate in the big city of Lansing, Michigan. Combative, brilliant, and explosive in court, he is a man that also knows the law. From here, Preminger dives into the minutia of the law and gives the judge and jury a personality all their own. Everybody has a role to play here and Preminger recognizes this and makes it more a film about the process of trying a case, instead of the case itself. Each objection cares suspense. The testimony, cross-examinations, and redirections all brilliantly executed. The film brings to light the ability of a lawyer to say something they know will be overruled, but saying it still lets the jury think about that possibility. It is intricate, it is defined, and it never ceases to be fascinating. While many may believe this film to be boring, I found it to be positively riveting akin to Advise & Consent. Both sit down and tell a story about something, but it is more about the process that goes into it, rather than the story itself. Here, it is a murder. There, it was the Senate.

Featuring outstanding lead performances and a compelling court case, Anatomy of a Murder shows why it is such a landmark courtroom drama. Thoroughly riveting and always leaving you questioning, the film has you hanging on every word. The 160 minute runtime flies by and leaves you craving more from this world of law and the private practice of Paul Biegler. It is a film that would make somebody want to run out and become a lawyer for the way in which it portrays lawyer. Instead of boring legal minds, it positions them as boxers doing battle in a heavyweight bout. Constantly sizing up their opponent with little jabs throughout, the lawyers drill one another with heavy upper cuts and crushing blows from every which direction. However, it is a fight always doomed to come down to the jury. Will they find in your favor or no? Ultimately, as humans are prone to be, they are fallible. No matter how much the other guy is bleeding or how many more punches you got in, the jury may still be against you. It is this brilliance, this nuance, and this intricate detail that makes Anatomy of a Murder such a riveting and timeless classic of a film.



8/10 - Dark Passage is a pretty incredible film. Using a lot of point of view for the first 37 minutes of the film, the film is about a man who escaped from prison - Vincent Parry (Humphrey Bogart) - who changes his appearance to avoid the police. Convicted of murdering his wife, he receives help from Irene Jansen (Lauren Bacall), a cabbie, and a plastic surgeon, all of whom do not believe he is guilty. Taking 37 minutes to show Bogart's face at all, that shot is merely of him in bandages. Up to that point, much of the film is shot from the point of view of Vincent, in order to hide his initial appearance from the audience before he turns into Bogart. Slightly after the hour mark, we finally get to see him as a post-operation Humphrey Bogart and to say I was impressed with how long it took would be an understatement. This really hints at how the film takes its time. It never rushes and keeps you guessing throughout, which is really what a film noir should be able to do.

The film, however, is largely just another excuse to put together real life lovers Bogart and Bacall in a film and, well, as those are prone to be, it is quite good. Director Delmer Daves' risks with the camera and the initial point of view pay off in a thrilling and mysterious film noir. Constantly viewing the opening from Vincent's point of view allows the audience to feel the tension, the fear, and the confusion as he escapes jail and encounters people who may or may not help him. Similarly, when he is quite dazed and tries to get home from the plastic surgeon, the point of view occasionally used in this sequence really highlights the disorientation and haze that he is in post-surgery. The film finds great tension and mystery when post-surgery Vincent is still picked out as an oddball by a detective. The subtle detail and tension regarding whether or not he would be busted keeps you on edge, much like the rest of the film. Throughout, Daves takes the mystery from the beginning and keeps it going with a constantly unexpected film that keeps you wondering whether or not Vincent was guilty and whether or not he could get away from the detectives.

Yet, the film is not solely about whether or not Vincent gets away. As with all film noirs, there is a case resting beneath the surface of all this style and tension. If Vincent did not kill wife or his friend, who did kill them? The reveal is great, but also further defines his hopelessness and status between a rock and a hard place. There is great mystery here, even if I did figure it out. From the small details, subtle evidence collection, and the full reveal as to the motives and the truth behind the murders, the film really is captivating in these moments and reaches a fever pitch of its noir genre.

Pairing together Bogart and Bacall was always a tremendous idea, as they had great chemistry. The finale highlighted this with the look they give one another from across the room. In that look, their romance always feels authentic and real, mostly because it was. Thus, pairing them as lovers always makes sense and Dark Passage feeds off of this chemistry in the more romantic moments. Acting-wise, the duo are always very good and that is very much the case here. Bacall outdoes Bogart in this one though with a smart and controlled performance as the woman he was always convinced of his innocence.

Mysterious, thrilling, and bold in its approach to Bogart's character, Delmer Daves's Dark Passage is a top-notch film noir. Pairing together the classic duo of Bogart and Bacall, the film is always captivating and thoroughly riveting with its ability to leave wondering how everything will turn out for those involved. Never slacking or slowing down, the film is fantastic entertainment.


SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

7/10 - From the very first frame of this film, I felt inescapable dread. It became clear that things would only escalate, especially after Split quickly got through the setup in the trailer. With Kevin (James McAvoy) kidnapping the girls practically immediately into the film, Split allows itself to quickly get into the unknown. It got past the setup and now drops three young girls - Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy), Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), and Marcia (Jessica Sula) - into the lion's den and leave them no way of escaping. From there, M. Night Shyamalan is free to explore the possibilities of this unknown building and the incredible mind of Kevin, a man trapped inside his own body with 23 distinct personalities. Frequent warnings about "The Beast" only add to the tension and the end result is a film that leaves your stomach churning for nearly two hours.

That said, while the thrills and horror are top-notch and akin to films such as The Silence of the Lambs in that is not a film about viscera, but rather an exploration of the mind of a mentally ill man, Split is not explicitly a horror film. It is one that finds horror in the situation of the girls, but instead of focusing on them, the star here is Kevin's mind. The true thrill and insanity of Split is derived from his mind, rather than the situation the girls find themselves in. The latter is often quite derivative and predictable, with obvious implications regarding a gun and Casey learning to hunt proving far too overt to actually become effective. The plot itself is relatively straight forward as these girls simply are trying to get out. Once the film really hones in on Casey and her back story, it becomes equally clear that it will come down to a face-off between her and "The Beast" to escape. Thus, the more straight out thriller/horror elements really do not provide much to chew on. It feels merely superfluous to the real show: Kevin.

With 23 personalities trapped inside his mind, Kevin is a man with a lot of walls up. One personality, Dennis, is brutally evil and has OCD. He is also responsible for kidnapping the girls to sacrifice to "The Beast". Others make appearances throughout the film and some are entirely stable, some are diabetic, some are women, and some are even young children. He is a man that is thoroughly fractured and, unfortunately, the bad personalities are gained the "light" and preventing Kevin himself and the more adjusted personalities from being active. It is in this playground of personalities that Shyamalan truly as fun, as he creates great mystery as to who is actually in control of Kevin's body and what they may be capable of doing. While often quite scary, Shyamalan saves it at the end from being a film that demonizes the mentally ill. Upon saying Kevin's real name, Casey gets to interact with the real Kevin. Trapped in September 2014 within his own body, Kevin begs her to kill him before he loses control again. Tragic, heart wrenching, and entirely moving, this sequence shows that while Shyamalan finds fear in the illness suffered by the mentally ill, he does not demonize the mentally ill themselves. Rather, he paints Kevin as a sympathetic figure who desperately needs help and is trapped just like the girls kidnapped by Dennis.

The sympathetic portrayal continues in the explanation of Kevin's past. These personalities were created by his mind to help cope with the mental and physical abuse undertaken by Kevin's mother. In one terrifying scene, we get a point of view shot of Kevin hiding under the bed as his screaming and irate mother calls out his full name and closes in with a weapon to harm him. However, just as the calm and docile personalities are byproducts of Kevin's coping, the evil ones - Dennis, Patricia, and "the beast" - are all byproducts as well. Recognizing weakness, the mind has created these darker personalities out of pain. "The Beast", for example, originates from a train because his father left on a train and never returned. As such, all 23 personalities are coping mechanisms and methods by which the mind tries to protect Kevin from further mental strain and hardship. It is via this reveal that Split takes on a very depressing tone as though we see the damage he can cause when "fully evolved", it comes from a place of pain and agony. Though he must be stopped, it is hard not to shed a tear over the agony he still endures while trapped inside his own body and buried beneath coping mechanisms.

However, this portrayal does explain his approach to the girls. Claire and Marcia are the true targets. Having stalked them for weeks, he had decided upon them because they were impure and perfect for the Beast to consume. They were impure because they had never suffered pain. In his messed up post-traumatic state, Kevin's personalities have reasoned that to reach purity, one must suffer. Thus, he does not kill Casey since she bears the scars of either self-harm or her Uncle raping her to this very day. Thus, to "the Beast", she is pure and not worthy of being consumed. It is an interesting psychological twist here, as many would presume the opposite. Untouched and unharmed = pure, but for Kevin the opposite is true, which is merely an interesting touch by Shyamalan that demonstrates the way in which his mind has been altered in order to protect itself. Naturally, people wish to view themselves as pure. Thus, as part of his coping, he has begun to view those stereotypically viewed as impure, which would include himself, as pure and a higher being. He has tricked himself into accepting and embracing his own personality disorder.

The film could also be described by some as a demonic possession film. Ask many Christians and they will claim that some who suffer from mental illness are simply possessed by a demon. While I am unqualified to say whether or not this is true, Split could be interpreted as being a demonic possession film. With Kevin referring to the forthcoming 24th personality as "the Beast" and the collective of Patricia, Dennis, and "the Beast" being referred to as "the Horde" by the other personalities, it instills images of Satan and the Four Horseman. Essentially, it is his own judgment day in the film as he determines who has suffered enough to be spared and whose souls must be consumed for their impurity. These personalities have, via some demonic force, consumed his body and mind in order to execute the end of the world scenario via Revelations. First, the Horde arrives and begins to capture up those that will be killed and get the ball rolling with the end of the world. Finally, "the Beast" arrives and finally delivers the eternal punishment to be experienced by those with impure souls. Unfortunately for Claire and Marcia, they meet this standard and are made to suffer for their supposed impurity.

Furthermore, the film often parallels both Yvonne Tasker's theory on masculinity and Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure in Narrative Cinema. First, in regards to Tasker, she argued that in action films, the male body was spectacle. Citing films such as Rambo or Die Hard, the male body is subject to torture and pain, which allow the man to cope and deal with his anxieties and weaknesses. His large muscles are merely to compensate for the purported inadequacies of himself. This is all very much the case in Split. As previously mentioned, the personalities arose out of pain. Once Kevin turns into "the Beast", repeated shots of Kevin's shirtless torso, muscles, and physical transformation into a ripped and toned man are scattered throughout the late second and third acts. Here, Shyamalan turns the male body into spectacle, just as defined by Tasker. The transformation of his body between personalities takes on a similar connotation with his muscles bulging and his arms twisting as his body chemistry is rapidly altered. Here, his body is tortured similarly to his mind. He is also shot by Casey and bleeds, further indicating the torture his body suffers. All of this torture can be seen as merely a physical representation of the very turmoil going on inside of his mind and, as such, his toned physique suffers as a result of his own mental torture. Additionally, Tasker also argued that the male action star was often on his own and against the system. Here, Kevin is very much against the system, not just legally, but within his own body. Kevin is trapped in his own mind and at the whim of his various identities. When the real Kevin reveals himself, he is shocked to learn of what has happened and is mournful, depressed, and sorrowful towards Casey. This reveals not only the sympathy his character should garner, but how he is even against his own body and mind. While his body's actions make him a man opposed by the system, Kevin himself is also an identity being beaten down, controlled, and opposed by the system of his body. Though Split is not an action film and Tasker's theory was in regards to male action heroes, Kevin does fit into the same image of masculinity defined by Tasker throughout.

Similarly, it would be a film that could have very well been written about by Laura Mulvey. Here, the three girls are captured from their father by a man. The girls are being punished and held down by the patriarchy and exist solely for men to be able to use them as they please. References are made to Dennis making girls dance naked for him, but he does not touch these girls aside from making Marcia dance with him. That said, they are still being used to feed "the Beast". Helpless damsels in distress, the women are being held captive by a man and are unable to free themselves. Claire and Marcia both die at the mouth of "the Beast". Casey manages to escape, but not because of her own actions. "The Beast" merely gives up on eating her since she is pure and then a zoo employee finds her in a cage. She is confined like an animal and is akin to the animals in the zoo here, further distancing her from equality and further objectifying her character. Ultimately, the women cannot rescue themselves and must rely on the mercy and assistance of men, even when it is men who have put them in the situation they are. The parallels continue with Casey only getting a gun at the end because Kevin, in an attempt to have his body killed, tells her where the gun is, in order for her to kill him. Casey is also taught all she knows about hunting by her father and is raped by her guardian and Uncle. In this film, women are constantly punished for merely being women and it certainly would have come under scrutiny by Mulvey, as there is no reason for women to be captured by Dennis. Instead, they are preyed upon due to their perceived weakness and the film, as a result, is a cinematic representation of the suffering endured by women in modern society at the hands of the patriarchy.

The women in Split are often objectified as well, further embodying Mulvey's theories on how women are portrayed in film. The girls here all represent to-be-looked-at-ness and are sexualized at every turn. The three girls are often forced to change their clothes because they got dirty, but the film stops this after a certain point. Instead, Claire is left in nothing but a bra and pants for the rest of the film. Marcia is left nothing but a crop top and panties. Casey is left with a see through and low cut shirt with many shots in the film emphasizing her cleavage. During the battle with "the Beast", our final girl has her shirt ripped, forcing her to tear it off and leave just a sort of bra to cover her up. Via these methods, the film embodies the male gaze and subconsciously aims to provide stimulation to male viewers via this scopophiia of its female stars. Given their situation in the film, this sexualization is often quite problematic as the girls are captives of a man. Yet, they are really captives of a camera that seeks to wring out every drop of sexuality from its stars.

Cinematically, Split also emphasizes how much Shyamalan has changed. In many ways, the camera here feels very similar to that in The Visit. It is very modern, but relies heavily upon the Kuleshov effect. Every scene has a reaction shot it seems with Shyamalan's camera constantly cutting from something crazy being done by Kevin and the stunned reactions of the girls. This becomes quite repetitive and predictable, but even worse, it becomes comical. While a thriller, many reaction shots garnered laughs from the audience and served to kill the mood and atmosphere conjured up by Shyamalan throughout the film. While the Kuleshov effect can be effective at times, it is heavily overused in the film and becomes far too relied upon by Shyamalan. On a similar note, James McAvoy dances to music and hypes up his love of Kanye West. Viewed in conjunction with the horrible rapping scene in The Visit, is Shyamalan trying to create a common awkward white person love of rap in all of his films now?

Acting-wise, the film is spectacular. Anya Taylor-Joy continues her hot streak after last year's The Witch and picks a strong role to continue her early career. The "final girl" of this psychological thriller, Taylor-Joy is emotionally reserved, raw, smart, and powerful throughout the film. While the camera sexualizes her, the writing shows her to one of the strongest characters in the film with how she copes with the constant torture and pain in her life. Somehow, she keeps getting up and takes the punches thrown her way. If that is not bravery, nothing truly is bravery. However, she is certainly upstaged by James McAvoy. And here I thought that Atonement would stand as the best performance of his career. While brilliant in that film, he is other worldly in Split. Playing 23-24 distinct identities, he masters each intricacy of the person. From the walk and speech of nine-year old Hedwig to the feminine turns and walks of Patricia, McAvoy is brilliant in every way. To the untrained eye, he is brilliant. When examining the subtle intricacies of his performance, he is similarly tremendous. This may seem like a classic gimmick performance, but that does not mean McAvoy does not fire on all cylinders. Each identity has a life all its own thanks to McAvoy and the way he brings each to life and make it appear wholly its own, even if it is in the same body.

Envisioned as a sequel to Unbreakable, the film tacks on a reference to Mr. Glass and brings back Bruce Willis' character in a cameo at the end. Honestly, this feels a little ineffective. The film as a sequel to Unbreakable does make sense as "the Beast" is essentially a supervillain to counter the superhero element present in Unbreakable. A theoretical sequel would likely bring the two together. That said, the way in which Willis is tacked on as a sublte nod to those who watched Unbreakable feels a bit too much and the film would have been better served adding that on a mid or post-credits scene to connect the film to Unbreakable. As it stands, as the final sequence in the film, the dialogue is clunky and does not help to improve this film at all.

Thrilling, atmospheric, and more, Split represents a return to form for Shyamalan. That said, heavy reliance on the Kuleshov effect turns comical and the portrayal of women and mental illness may be too problematic for some to look past. Fortunately, for those willing to look past those issues, the film has a lot to chew on and features, likely, a career-defining performance for star James McAvoy who will have to really turn in a powerhouse performance to top this role. Honestly, his turn as Kevin may rank among the best of the century. It is nice to have Shyamalan back directing good films again.



8/10 - A mishmash of various influences, most predominantly Phantom of the Opera, Brian De Palma's Phantom of the Paradise is exactly what one would expect from a De Palma horror comedy musical. It is insane. It is violent. It is Hitchcockian. It has split-screens. It has women in peril. It has obsession. This film is often insane, but does have great music and is thoroughly thrilling, while De Palma finds comedy in the insane exuberance of the show and Swan's (Paul Williams) vanity and quest for youth and power. With many of De Palma's usual traits, this tale of a songwriter who has his work stolen, is disfigured, and begins to sabotage the resultant musical is a classic all the same and De Palma's stylistic infusion only improves the foundation. A great horror comedy musical, the film is a lot of fun to watch unfold, but even more fun to analyze and pick out De Palma's touch on the film.

Firstly, the camera work is very De Palma, in particular the split-screens. There are a few here, none truly notable though. Instead, the major contribution in this arena is when Winslow/The Phantom (William Finley) views the tape of Swan selling his soul and then getting Phoenix (Jessica Harper) to do the same years later. Viewing this all on security footage, there are multiple screens. One shows Winslow himself, another the ongoing show, and another shows an assassin hired to kill Phoenix. As with all other times where De Palma shows the tension in this fashion (films such as Sisters or Passion), this sequence is incredibly tense. Will Winslow find the assassin in time or will his beloved Phoenix die because of her bond to Swan? The mystery as to where the assassin is and the tension with him closing in on pulling the trigger is fantastic, especially when De Palma uses a point of view iris to put us right inside the assassin's field of view as he focuses in his gun on Phoenix's head. The use of iris once again feels reminiscent to a particularly hypnotic usage of it in De Palma's Sisters, which came out one year prior to this work.

De Palma also shows off the Hitchcock influence in his work with a recreation of the Psycho shower scene as The Phantom closes in on Beef (Gerrit Graham), a terrible singer tasked with performing Winslow's cantata. Furious that such a bad singer would perform the role of Faust and steal the show away from Phoenix, he attacks Beef while in the shower with a knife. He does not kill him then, but certainly puts fear into his heart. This obsession is what drove him to kill and is akin to the obsession portrayed in Psycho in regards to Norman Bates and his relationship with his mother. For Winslow, nobody else can have Phoenix, even if he barely knows her. Those who harm her or prevent her from reaching stardom must be executed. His obsession continues through a use of split-screen as Winslow watches through a glass window as Swan and Phoenix become more intimate. Clearly featuring Hitchcock's trademark voyeurism in this sequence, more akin that found in Rear Window or De Palma's Body Double or Femme Fatale, Winslow keeps an eye on the proceedings through the window. But, Swan sees him and turns on a security camera to capture his actions. The resultant split-screen is a menacing twist on the voyeurism often deployed in his work.

De Palma's touch also comes via the obsession and Winslow's inherent need to protect Phoenix. His films often portray women in peril and these sequences often feel filled with fear for the dangers that face women in the world. Phoenix is exploited and the other female singers are objectified and forced to have sex with Swan to get a part in the show. They are used and tossed out. While De Palma is often criticized as a sexist, just as Hitchcock is and was, this is not done to sexualize the women. Instead, it is done to demonize men such as Swan who take the beauty of women and opt to pervert and destroy it for their own personal gain. It is a very paternal and forlorn take on objectification of women feels incredibly depressing in that fashion. While it is distressing due to the controlling and obsessed feeling it instills, I would hardly say it comes from malicious intent. Rather, it is concern and a warning about what the true and ugly face of show business truly is and could present for women that do not know any better.

Thematically, Phantom of the Paradise touches on a variety of topics. Of course, artistic integrity is at the forefront as Winslow fears his work being distorted by the hands of big business. Big business takes the bait and distorts his work, shutting out Winslow and forcing him to sell his soul to even write any of the work and get credit for that work. He is systematically controlled and silenced and, as such, the film feels as though it is a critique of the studio system and the way in which artists slave to create great art, but it is then misconstrued and distorted by those who do not understand that work and what makes it great. On a similar line of critique, the film often functions as a social critique of rock. With bands such as the Jelly Fruits shown as being unartistic hacks, Beef being celebrated, and dumb young rock fans celebrating his death and violent dismemberment of stage props, rock fans are shown as very animalistic morons. Though this is a rock musical, there is a clear contempt and admonishment placed towards the fans of the genre and the way they conduct themselves at shows. The crowd is raucous and frequently storm the stage, even when people are killed. Instead of assisting them in their time of need, the stupid fans just hoist up their bleeding corpse and celebrate them as the party rages on.

The film also takes on a heavy religious slant as Swan sells his soul and then convinces Winslow and Phoenix to also sell their soul. The parallel between Swan and Winslow's rock cantata on Faust, a man who sold his soul, is clear. Yet, the most interesting touch is the very end. Having had Winslow rewrite the musical, the ending is changed from Faust burning in hell to a wedding between Swan and Phoenix. Though Swan knows what his true fate is and that he cannot go back on his deal with the devil, he still wishes to escape this fate, while remaining young forever. This rewrite is quite clear in that matter as it shows his underlying desire to escape his deal and become a normal person again. Unfortunately, he is so vain, that is impossible as he could never sacrifice his beauty, even if it is for his soul.

A very well-written musical, Phantom of the Paradise balances very good music with De Palma's traits and some classic De Palma thematic explorations. Fun, comedic, musical, and horrifying, Phantom of the Paradise is a very good film that finds beauty in its absurdity and comedy in its over-the-top nature.



8/10 - Lolita suffers from the censorship that forces director Stanley Kubrick to side-step the nastiness inherent in the story of Lolita. For that reason, it would have been compelling for him to have made that 1997 remake instead of Adrian Lyne, even if Lyne is a great match for the perversion and scandal of the plot. That said, the greatest achievement of Lolita is Kubrick's ability to bury the lede. Whispering, double talk, creepy characters, and body language, are used as cues to the sexual relationship between Humbert (James Mason) and his underage stepdaughter Lolita (Sue Lyon). It is these subtleties that allow the film to rise above its perverse plot. I have not seen the more modern adaptation, but it seems that it was incredibly controversial and deemed indecent by many because of the relationship. This film was as well, of course, but that was in 1962. In 2017, the film seems relatively tame with sex only hinted. Thus, it allows the audience to look past the taboo and instead assess and absorb the characters on display in the film.

With strong lead performances from James Mason and Sue Lyon, Lolita is a story that rapidly accelerates to being one about obsession. Humbert, though just Lolita's stepfather and initially just a friend, is obsessed with her. He wishes to control her every move and restrict her from seeing anybody, even when her mother is still alive. Clearly infatuated with this young girl, Humbert is incapable of functioning without her and seeks to destroy her independence. While the sex is always implied, it is clear that he is suffocating her and that she is desperate to find a lover besides her stepfather. This is largely because she is a free-spirited young girl who wishes to experience life. She wants to experience life, but feels trapped the obsessive pedophile that lives vicariously through her youthful energy.

As with all Kubrick films, there is a heavy reliance upon the bathroom. Humbert escapes into the bathroom where he writers derogatory comments about his wife. Upon reading them, she is distressed and gets hit by a car and killed. While being consoled, he is the bathtub and surrounded by friends. Earlier in the film, he contemplates killing his wife while she is in the bathtub. As with all his films, these are important scenes that reveal the nature of the characters and drive the plot in the direction it spirals towards. More than anything, it confirms Humbert's lack of passion towards his wife and lack of feeling for her. He seems broken up, but he seems to want little to do with dealing with her estate, rather his concern for his future with Lolita. The very writings that disparage his wife also reveal his love and obsession with Lolita and his apathy towards the death of his wife reveal his true emotional state at the time.

The film also has some fun little tidbits along the way that provide great comedy within the black comedy genre. My personal favorite along these lines was the summer camp attended by Lolita, which is entitled "Camp Climax". With the subtle sexuality of the film, this seems overt, but somehow got past the censors. Other little bits, such as Peter Sellers as a German psychologist to help get closer to Lolita, who is equally obsessed with, is hilarious. It feels like a precursor to Dr. Strangelove in these sequence and is terrific fun to watch unfold. It is impeccable that Kubrick found comedy in this perverse subject matter, but he certainly did and the film is littered with decently funny lines and situations that have no business being that funny.

Overall, Lolita is a great film that may not be one of Kubrick's best, but it is hard to top his very best. It could be a bit overlong, but I enjoyed every second of this twisted little black comedy about perversion, obsession, and some 1960s gender roles ("go do it like a good little wife").



8/10 - Honestly, three-quarters into this movie, I had conceded that this one may just be a solid misfire from Alfred Hitchcock. It had suspense, but seemed to be taking too long to get to the point. Yes, Johnnie (Cary Grant) was creepy and a liar, but I needed a pay-off. My mind began to wander and it seemed like I had finally found a Hitchcock film that had missed the mark. However, even in this mixed state of mind, the film was admittedly incredibly suspenseful and filled with tension as you began to wonder, along with Lina (Joan Fontaine), if her husband Johnnie was really a dastardly murderer. What won me over was the third act. It is brilliant. Visceral, edge-of-your-seat entertainment, the third act must rank among the very best final acts of a film in Hitchcock's career. That said, in hindsight, the first and second acts are also often terrific in setting up the clues to the "case" and hinting at the truth.

Deceitful and untrustworthy, Johnnie falls quickly into love with the rich Lina. Unbeknownst to Lina, Johnnie is a gambler, heavily in debt, and broke. Hitchcock immediately sets up the film to make Lina and the audience suspicious, especially after her father dies and Johnnie loses his job for stealing, but fails to tell Lina. He is no good and a thief, but is he a murderer? Lina seems unsure, but her paranoia and suspicion continue to spiral out of control. As a result, though it was lost on me initially, the audience's instincts also spike out of control. Every clue, every move, every action is draped in tension in the final act of the film. Sick from nerves, Lina is bed ridden. Johnnie bringing her milk, after learning of an undetectable and pain free poison found in every home, is filled with suspense. Hitchcock is the "master of suspense" for good reason and he shows it here in this film. As she looks at the glass after Johnnie put it down, it makes the audience want to get up and scream, "Do not touch that milk, it is poisoned!" When films make the audience feel such emotions, you can always tell just how effective its thrills and suspense are.

Cary Grant truly lives up to the billing as well, as his every move and look instills trepidation and fear. He seems like a snake and acts like one throughout the film. When he tries to convince Lina that he loves her and would never hurt her, it never feels genuine. It is almost as if he is convincing himself as well as his wife. His slimy, grimy, and despicable behavior leads to the belief that he is untrustworthy and, even worse, his lack of wealth and seedy nature easily instills the belief that he would kill Lina to get her money. As such, the film is filled with dread and suspense as we wait to see the lengths that he will go to in order to get out of the financial hole. As his wife, Joan Fontaine is terrific. She defines paranoia and fear as she quickly puts together the pieces of the puzzle that merely reinforce her mistrust of her husband. From dead friends, lies, cover-ups, theft, and more, her evidence is piling up. Fontaine perfectly captures this petrified wife character who solemnly realizes that she does not know her husband as well as she thought, as she has no idea if he could kill her.

The terrific final act is truly the cherry on top of this film, however. While the first and second acts are a mix of portions that do not work and Hitchcock firing on all cylinders, the final act truly saves it all. As they drive on an open road by a cliff, the tension and suspense of the moment is honestly overwhelming and leaves you clutching the seat to see what will happen next. It is here where the film's billing as a psychological thriller really pays off as the mental build-up in conjunction with that finale is incredible. This is a film that really messes with your mind and is honestly inconclusive. Though the ending seems to paint one picture, an argument for the exact opposite could be equally true. Johnnie is not a man who is easy to pin down, so his true nature is eternally elusive, so whether he is capable of truly killing or not.

Laced with tension and suspense, Suspicion is a tremendous earlier work in Hitchcock's filmography. While its first and second act are not as effective in the moment, they become great thanks to a phenomenal finale that leaves you guessing. As is typical, constant references to murder and the word itself are littered throughout and it is always compelling to see how Hitchcock keeps you wondering even if it is so apparent that murder plays a key role in this story. But, for him, the build-up and the mystery is key, just as it is here in Suspicion.



5/10 - Waking up from anesthesia after giving birth, Rachel (Meryl Streep) rolls over and asks her husband Mark (Jack Nicholson), "Is that our baby?" This little line is really what drives at what makes the film not work, as I half expected Nicholson to take the baby, spike it like a football, and shout violently, "THAT WAS OUR BABY." He is simply too creepy. His eyebrow movements, tone of speaking, and everything else about his demeanor makes him far too creepy to make the romantic upswing truly work and, unfortunately, that is the best part of the film. That said, he and Streep sitting around eating pizza and singing songs with the word "baby" in them after discovering Rachel was pregnant really is the pinnacle of cinema. After the romantic upswing, the downswing of the relationship simply feels lifeless and flat in comparison.

Throughout, Nora Ephron injects authenticity, but Heartburn simply lacks that "it" touch. It is clearly an earlier written work by her, as it lacks the whip smart nature of When Harry Met Sally or Sleepless in Seattle. Heartburn has all the pieces in place, but never really knocks it out of the park. However, it does really peak in the first half hour to 45 minutes. Here, during the romantic upswing, Heartburn is irresistibly charming. Sweet, funny, and romantic, these scenes really pop. While Nicholson is a bad choice for a romantic comedy, he still does have good chemistry with Streep and scenes such as when they lie in bed as Mark tries to convince Rachel to marry him (during the wedding no less) ache with authenticity and the duo real pull it off. Unfortunately, after this period, the film begins to mirror the marriage it depicts. It becomes lifeless, flat, and lacks the compelling hook of before. In many ways, it feels like the film sort of just runs out of steam.

Of course, it is one of those odd situations. It does not feel like it is running out of steam throughout. It keeps showing authentic scene after authentic scene, but then it just sort of ends and gets to the point and it dawns on you that the past hour has been pretty bad. I have no idea how it happened, but director Mike Nichols simply loses focuses of the film in this portion. Scenes do not really add up to much, even if they largely work in a vacuum. This happens far too often and the second half is just amalgamation of various scenes that do not really flow or necessarily work too well with one another. This is a shame because, again, the writing is still incredibly authentic. It may lack that witty zip, which may have been a possible thread for these scenes if it were there, but never stops being achingly real and a painful look at the downswing of a marriage between an adulterer and a woman who loves him.

That said, what never wavers is the acting. Every movie should cast Meryl Streep and I still have no idea why they do not. She makes literally every movie better. As Rachel, she is a fireball of emotion and plays the scorned lover incredibly well. She disappears in the role and you often have to remind yourself that it is Streep, even if she is such a recognizable face. Nicholson is, again, an odd choice for the film. He hits some good romantic and comedic notes throughout, but his raspy deliver and crazy eye brows simply prevent me from buying him in a film of this sort. In his debut role, Kevin Spacey appears as a guy on a subway that robs Rachel and her self-help group. He is hysterical in this short role, so thank God he blew up within the next decade.

Lacking the comedic punch of Nora Ephron's best written work, Heartburn has a great turn from Streep and legendary comedy director Mike Nichols to its credit, but never works as it should. The first half hour or so is great with good wit, authenticity, and drama. But, afterwards, the film just gets caught up in itself and cannot find the light again.

Originally posted by Justice@Feb 4 2017, 04:52 PM
anyone who's seen blue valentine knows that gosling needs his goofy singing voice

Don't even get me started with that movie

Oliver Cleary || Defence || Seattle Argonauts
---------------------------------
Player Name: Oliver Cleary
SHL Team: Seattle Argonauts
SMJHL Team: Detroit Falcons
Position: Defence
Height: 6'3"
Weight: 215 lbs
Born: Toronto, Ontario
---------------------------------
SHL Regular Season Statistics:
S48: GP: 50 | G: 3 | A: 9 | P: 12 | -12 | PIM: 38 | H: 84 | SB: 61
S49: GP: 50 | G: 3 | A: 7 | P: 10 | 7 | PIM: 62 | H: 135 | SB: 68
S50: GP: 50 | G: 5 | A: 13 | P: 18 | -3 | PIM: 52 | H: 148 | SB: 81
S51: GP: 50 | G: 7 | A: 19 | P: 26 | 17 | PIM: 130 | H: 119 | SB: 67
S52: GP: 50 | G: 1 | A: 12 | P: 13 | -3 | PIM: 89 | H: 157 | SB: 61
S53: GP: 50 | G: 16 | A: 20 | P: 36 | 19 | PIM: 22 | H: 58 | SB: 53
S54: GP: 50 | G: 7 | A: 23 | P: 30 | 14 | PIM: 12 | H: 100 | SB: 64
S55: GP: 50 | G: 8 | A: 16 | P: 24 | -14 | PIM: 24 | H: 92 | SB: 96
---------------------------------
SHL Playoff Statistics:
S48: Did Not Qualify
[pbl]S49: GP: 6 | G: 0 | A: 1 | P: 1 | -3 | PIM: 11 | H: 13 | SB: 8
S50: GP: 5 | G: 1 | A: 1 | P: 2 | -5 | PIM: 17 | H: 15 | SB: 15
S51: GP: 15 | G: 3 | A: 8 | P: 11 | 8 | PIM: 33 | H: 40 | SB: 20
S52: GP: 7 | G: 0 | A: 5 | P: 5 | -3 | PIM: 26 | H: 25 | SB: 7
S53: GP: 11 | G: 1 | A: 2 | P: 3 | 0 | PIM: 0 | H: 19 | SB: 17
S54: GP: 12 | G: 0 | A: 7 | P: 7 | -1 | PIM: 4 | H: 24 | SB: 20
S55: Did Not Qualify
[pbl]---------------------------------
SMJHL Regular Season Statistics:
S46: Did Not Play
S47: GP: 50 | G: 1 | A: 5 | P: 6 | 0 | PIM: 48 | H: 81 | SB: 51
---------------------------------
SMJHL Playoff Statistics:
S46: GP: 9 | G: 0 | A: 0 | P: 0 | -2 | PIM: 6 | H: 4 | SB: 0
S47: GP: 10 | G: 2 | A: 3 | P: 5 | 7 | PIM: 8 | H: 14 | SB: 4
---------------------------------
Transactions:
S46: Signed as pre-draft free agent with Detroit Falcons
S47: Drafted 14th Overall by Montreal Militia
S47: Traded to Detroit Falcons
S48: Drafted 4th overall to the Los Angeles Panthers
S48: Signed 3 years/1M Contract with Los Angeles Panthers
S48: Called up from Detroit to Los Angeles
S51: Re-signed 3 years/3M with Los Angeles Panthers
S54: Re-signed 2 years/6M with Los Angeles Panthers
S56: Traded to Manhattan Rage
S56: Signed 4 years/6M with Manhattan Rage
————————————————
Awards
S47: Golden Aardvark Award for a contract holdout with the Montreal Militia  

7/10 - Man, these superhero movies have always been the same, eh? Even in 2004, terrific director Guillermo del Toro turns out just another superhero movie that follows the hero's journey throughout and has a horrible boring white male sidekick. Fortunately, Del Toro is such an impressive director, his stylistic inclinations rise above the tame and boring superhero material he is given in this film. Gothic with great mythology behind it, Hellboy is a compelling film with great visual effects and remains constantly engaging and compelling thanks to Del Toro and a stellar lead performance by Ron Perlman as the Nazi-summoned demon good guy. Unfortunately, the film is still derided by its lame and predictable story.

Opening in terrific fashion with Hellboy being summoned, his rescue, and then the introduction to the Paranormal Bureau headed by Trevor Broom (John Hurt), Del Toro manages to create great scope to the film. While it devolves into typical end of the world fare later on, the opening half hour with Hellboy fighting the hellhound in the museum and the introduction and usage of Abe Sapien is tremendous. If the entire film was just Hellboy and Abe Sapien kicking butt, I would have loved this film. But, instead, every comic book superhero movie must devolve into being a "save the world" hero's journey and end up with lame fight scenes between our hero and the big bad guy. This makes the film feel incredibly stale, even if if was one of the first of the wave of superhero movies we have gotten in the 21st century. It bears all the lame and tame marks that continue to deride the genre as it feels sterilized and overly restrained from going in more interesting directions with its story. Instead, Hellboy was merely one of the first films that showed superheroes could be compressed into the hero's journey, regardless of who they are, and the film will turn out pretty good. If this came out next year, it would be an unchanged film and fit into the current trend just fine.

That said, Del Toro's gothic style and influence is all over this film with gorgeous shadowy locals and castles. This infuses the film with his visual style, which was always going to be a very, very good thing. The film greatly benefits from this, often rising above its superhero cliches. The gorgeous cinematography and awesome visual effects also play a role, especially when Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) is on fire. The shot of her and Hellboy kissing at the end with both enveloped in flame is terrific and a great lasting image from this film. Along with the poetic dialogue accompanying this final sequence, the finale - even in spite of the asinine fight scenes - is stellar and why I tune in no matter what Del Toro is attached to and directs.

The film also suffers from Generic White Male Actor #7 and his large role in the film. He really adds nothing but bland dialogue, bland looks, bland stares, and bland communication. Compared to the lively and fully game Perlman and the always impeccable John Hurt, Rupert Evans is just so damn lame. I have no idea why del Toro added him in when the film was just fine without his addition. To paint him as a sort of "knight" and hero in his own right was borderline comical as well. If this were from a lesser director, having an audience surrogate this bad with bland action could be the final nail in the coffin. Fortunately, Del Toro elicits such good performances from the rest of the cast that the acting, on the whole, is quite good. Put together with great visuals, there is still a lot to like about Hellboy and that is likely why it has remained so popular.

Given scope and purpose, Hellboy feels tremendous in the first half. Unfortunately, it gives way to the hero's journey trappings of its story, which makes it nothing more than yet another superhero movie. Fortunately, the acting is so good and Del Toro is so talented, Hellboy still manages to be a riveting and truly engaging superhero movie that shows off just what can happen when talented people make a superhero movie. That said, if talented people could steer clear of this crap material in the future, it would be much appreciated.



5/10 - One of Robert Altman's many play-to-film adaptations in the 1980s, Fool for Love largely feels like the director was on autopilot. With a small cast and limited locals due to its basing on a play, the film feels incredibly claustrophobic. Obviously, this is the intent, but it really hurts since it is an Altman film. His films are always incredible personal character studies. The plot is inconsequential in comparison to the depth to which he dives in the psyche and inner machinations of these people. While this film does dive into these characters, it lacks his camera movement that defines it as an Altman film. While there are a few extreme long shots and zoom-like movements of the camera here, Fool for Love largely feels like he lacked passion for the subject matter and simply went through the motions, which is a shame. Fortunately, even Altman working half-interested is better than some directors dedicating all of their energy to a project.

Putting together two former lovers in a motel, May (Kim Basinger) and Eddie (Sam Shephard) just fight for the first two acts. It becomes quite stale and dull, honestly. It takes too long to get going and the insights into the characters are largely uncompelling. That said, it is compelling to watch Basinger and Shepard go head-to-head here, even if Basinger looks her current age (63) as opposed to being in her 30's. Fortunately, the acting is good and the dialogue retains its essence as a play with it being very melodramatic and overwrought. I do appreciate this element, even if some do not love that piece of plays-to-film.

Now, where the film becomes successful is in its mystery. Altman takes nearly an hour and 25 minutes to get to this, but the finale is very, very good. Explaining Eddie and May's histories together and their sordid past, the film's ending is perverse, unexpected, and thoroughly compelling. As the two tell their history to the old man (Harry Dean Stanton) and May's date Martin (Randy Quaid), it is hard not to get caught up in these great monologues and retelling of their pasts. Whether you believe it or not, it is deliciously twisted and unexpected all the same. Honestly, the slog it takes to get through the first and second acts is nearly entirely worth it due to the terrific final act. This sequence is well acted, well-written, and thoroughly compelling.

That said, while the opening two acts are not nearly as interesting as the final act, they still feel incredibly well put together. From great staging, choreography, and claustrophobia, the film really captures the feeling it should in the first two acts, even if they are never quite as compelling as they should be. It is here that Altman really shows how talented he is because he somehow makes this slow film into one mildly worth watching due to the atmosphere he initially conjures, even if the material is lackluster. Plus, the pay-off is more than worth the wait. Overall though, this one can be skipped unless you are an Altman die hard and want to finish out his entire filmography.



9/10 - "Sometimes he would walk into the desert, alone, just to let himself be tempted by the devil."

"That night, and every night since... I’ve prayed to die."

"God, in his infinite wisdom, has made sure...it is just enough for us."
-Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy and John Hurt as The Priest

Nobody will ever understand Jackie Kennedy and the pain she went through after the death of her husband. While we all have lost loved ones, few have lost a spouse. Even fewer have lost that spouse while the First Lady of the United States and none of those women were alive to be there for Jackie. She was isolated and all alone. Nobody could comprehend her grief and nobody, thankfully, can today. Sitting next to her husband driving through a parade, he is shot and his mangled head rests on her lap and she sits there with his blood splashing on her body. In this eternally lasting image, few have sat down to truly examine what that day and the succeeding few days were in the mind of Jackie Kennedy. However, in director Pablo Larrain's intimate look at her mind and grief in those days, he finds beauty, pain, and agony. But, above all, he finds a woman with so much strength, so much grace, and so much power, it is chill inducing. Punctuated by a powerful and articulate performance by Natalie Portman, the film leaves you in emotional ruins repeatedly and is an entirely beautiful, moving, and stirring portrayal of the strongest and hardest week of Jackie Kennedy's life.

Upon its release, Jackie gained notoriety for its unique structure. It is not a biopic at all. Shot with grainy documentary style footage, the film is an inside look at both Jackie's life after her husband's death and the descent into madness experienced by the country afterwards. However, that is not what makes it unique. Rather, the film is lyrical and poetic. Its dialogue is overwrought, begging to be quoted. It feels too prim. Too precise. Too detached from reality. Yet, that is entirely the point. This is no biopic about Jackie Kennedy. It is an album composed of "songs" about her life and key defining moments: the death of her husband, the televised tour of the White House, planning for the funeral, and talking to a priest. Complemented by interludes courtesy of an the famed interview with Life Magazine, the film takes on a poetic approach to telling its story and this is incredibly irregular for the genre. As a regular of the poetry of the storytelling, it is nonlinear and it shows scenes from those aforementioned moments before and after the assassination in varied order.

This structure truly lends itself to the way in which the film is quotable, but overwrought. Its dialogue is aching to be recognized as powerful. As timeless. As stirring. Yet, it is all of those things. He may feel a tad forced in this regard, but it works. Matching the hypnotic, dream-like, and thoroughly lyrical nature of the storytelling, the dialogue feels mystical, other worldy, and unattainable. Jackie's words are so well chosen, as are those of her counterparts. In this, the dialogue catches the class, the grace, and the power with which women in her position are expected to act and speak. Her words are well chosen for fear of portraying herself and her husband negatively. In her interview with the journalist (Billy Crudup), she unleashes at times and becomes less formal, but never allows him to print these words. In these moments, she becomes wordier. With those she acts entirely formal around, her words are limited and more carefully selected. While I say the film is overwrought, it is not to detract from the film. Rather, it is perfectly elaborate in its limited words and prim/proper dialogue. Each word and each line feels quotable and verbose.

This verbosity is certainly what led the Kennedy's and others in power to seem unattainable. In particular, their life was a fairy tale. It was spectacular, overwhelming, and extravagant. Their wealth was obscene and otherworldly. It embodied regality and the belief that this was the royal family of the United States, if there ever were to be one. Larrain, a Chilean-born filmmaker, has managed to eloquently and brilliantly captures this cult of personality surrounding the Kennedy family and captures it so well, in fact, that the film has been criticized for the same reasons Jackie was criticized in her life. It is too cold. Too distant. Too reserved. Yet, it is for these elements that the film is so brilliant. Not only is it poetic and gorgeously crafted narratively, but its feeling and emotions as a film keep the audience at a distance. It never hopes to understand Jackie and her mindset after her husband's death, as that is an impossible enterprise to undertake. It is simply something that could never be accomplished. As such, instead, Larrain's film reduces intimacy. He uses grainy documentary style footage, old school television footage, and has a cold and carefully orchestrated Portman in the lead role. She embodies Jackie Kennedy to the very last detail both in her manner of speaking, walking, and body language. It is a film that is cold and dead behind the eyes, shutting out the world from every hoping to understand the pain its main character underwent and preventing us from fully grasping who she was.

This may be a fault to some, but there is beauty in this approach. Not only is it authentic, but it forces the audience to focus on the small details. The look on her face and the way she speaks. It feels like she herself is forcing herself to get through this for those that look to her as an icon and the First Lady. For them and her children, she must honor her husband and his legacy. Nothing can get in the way, not even her own emotion. Thus, she locks it up inside and puts on a strong face. However, her face is never quite as strong as she believes. Portman's face looks cold and detached. It is in this look that we see her pain. She refuses to let herself seem frazzled as she freshens up right before the swearing in of Lyndon B. Johnson in Texas, still dressed in the iconic pink Chanel suit that is covered in JFK's blood. She is composed, but she aches internally. Her purpose, her life, and her status is all in upheaval. She is forced out of her home and wants nothing more than to match the elegance and importance of the role her husband occupied to be represented in his funeral. A key portion of the film, this funeral shows how she is redirecting her grief. In order cope, she wants to celebrate. As the secret service is worried about a procession walking through the streets, she defies orders and defiantly states, "I will march with Jack, alone if necessary." A powerful, strong, and immense quote (honestly, just writing it out gives me chills), it also highlights the way in which she directs her grief towards embodying the grace demanded of her position. She wants an extravagant funeral in spite of recommendations not just for her own vanity, but for the world to recognize the cost of their violence. She is alone, left to suffer alone. Her children are now fatherless. It is a powerful image and one the world has yet to heed. Instead, it is still filled with animosity and prejudice. While Kennedy left little legacy as a President, a fear of Jackie's in this film, the funeral and this powerful image after his assassination is still one that permeates our culture and national psyche.

One of the greatest pieces of this film is its portrayal of grief. Manchester by the Sea, a fellow 2016 film, did this eloquently with a story of pure fiction. Jackie accomplishes this with a true story, a far more impressive feat as it manages to feel entirely organic and natural. Often times, real stories can feel too manicured and manufactured. However, here, Larrain finds the human soul within Jackie and shows it to the world. Her grief is encapsulated in a few images in the film and in a few moments. Most viscerally, it is seen as she wipes blood of her herself and when we actually see John F. Kennedy get shot. The look on her face of pure agony, fear, and pain is the one time she truly breaks visually. It is not a moment that gets lost on the audience as she recounts it to the priest. It is visceral and is a punch to the stomach of the audience. Yet, it is not the most harrowing and terrifying portrayal of the grief in the film. Rather, the denial. One of the hardest things to get over is the denial. The belief that you will walk around the house and see them pop up around the corner is powerful. My grandfather died over two years ago and I still feel this way. It feels surreal every time I see my still-grieving grandmother that he is not around anymore. This is a hurdle to still get over and one that Jackie is forced to cope with as she has memories of her time with Jack and the fun they shared. However, as she again tells the Priest, these are mixed with the bag. She knows Jack was a bit of a playboy and let himself be led into temptation too often. These memories cloud the positive ones of pure joy and bliss they experienced together. Her mind is incapable of coping with these and with his loss, as she is still lost as to whether she should hate her husband or love him and the legacy she left behind. In many ways, the funeral is the embodiment of this as well. She hopes for the latter. She wants to celebrate him and mourn his loss like a normal widow. But, these bad memories cloud her mind and she hopes that by throwing an extravagant funeral procession for him in the capital, she will be able to drown out these memories and focus on the good. This is incredibly powerful and truly where Larrain's film finds much of its veracity and strength.

"Let me share with you a parable. Jesus once passed a blind beggar on the road, and his disciples asked --‘Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?’ Jesus answered - ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned. He was made blind so that the works of God could be revealed in him.’ And with that, he placed mud on the man’s eyes and told him to wash in the Pool of Siloam.’ The man did, and he came back seeing. Right now you are blind. Not because you’ve sinned. But because you’ve been chosen -- so that the works of God may be revealed in you."
-John Hurt as The Priest

In the aforementioned conversation with the priest, Jackie also explains why she did the procession: to be put out of her misery and killed. Praying every day to be killed or just die, she cannot cope. She puts on a brave face and never lets her enemies see her cry, instead opting to use herself and her children's suffering as a dagger that she thrusts into the abdomens of her enemies, twisting the knife with every proud and strong step. However, she must move on. The priest tells her as much in his discussions regarding God and life. Not only does he confide in her that he too wonders if this is all there is to the world, he equally stands firm in the belief that God is in everything - even death - and that he has given us as much as we need. Along the same lines, he never gives us something we cannot handle. However, as the quote above alludes to, she is merely an instrument of God's power. This answer does not move her or quell her aching heart, but it does shed light on the importance of his advice to keep waking up, making coffee, and living her life. The death of a loved one can be paralyzing, but she cannot shrivel up and die. You must continue to breathe and put one foot in front of the other. Lying die and waiting to die is not the answer. Jackie herself is certainly portrayed as religious in the film, thus she must find peace in God. Humbly asking for healing and strength will make her like the blind man in the parable. It will give her sight and allow her to see the light at the end of the tunnel in her suffering. It will allow the sun to rise without the accompanying feelings of pain, agony, and depression.

Aside from the dialogue of the film, there is also beauty in the score. Nominated for an Oscar with good reason, the score is brilliant. Yet, one noteworthy scene sticks in my head more than any. As she walks through the White House in a black dress, the music briefly takes on a more haunting tone and feels like something out of The Shining. It instills fear and truly captures the essence of this story. It is a tale of blood, gore, pain, and agony. It is elegance and luxury meeting brutality and the underbelly of society and humanity. The mixing of these worlds creates this seemingly elegant sequence with brilliant cinematography using that grainy look to capture the 1960s and the elegance and extravagance of Jackie's wardrobe, juxtaposed by unsettling musical notes. It is a nightmare disguised as a fairy tale, yet people only see the fairy tale and refuse to recognize it is a nightmare, as to do so would be the recognize Jackie as human, not just some cold, lifeless, and unfeeling person.

While one can never dream of understanding Jackie's pain in the aftermath of her husband's assassination, Pablo Larrain comes very close. Dressing it up as merely a Kennedy fairy tale set in Camelot, it is instead a lyrical, poetic, and verbose look at the pain, agony, and denial that accompanies grief. This harrowing exercise is ultimately more akin to a nightmare than anything else, accompanied by a brilliant descent into the self and detachment from the rest of the world and even one's own emotions. Brilliantly brought to life by Natalie Portman and a very game cast, Pablo Larrain's inventive and uniquely structured film is poetic, powerful, and painstakingly brilliant.



8/10 - Characterized as an allegory for Jewish control of the media by neo-nazis, it is borderline comical to see how such great art has been misinterpreted. Guess that is what happens to those of us who are a few cards away from a full deck. As it stands, the film is truly just an inventive alien invasion flick that doubles as a social critique for how people sit back and do not question what they are told. This, again, is a problem that continues to today where people simply read or hear something and take it as the gospel truth because the person is on the news or sounds like they know what they are saying. They Live is a cautionary tale in this regard as people have been lulled into believing they are safe when, in reality, we are blind to the negative forces all around us that corrupt our minds. In John Carpenter's incredibly inventive and imaginative They Live, those negative forces are aliens.

Unaware of what is going on until he puts on some special sunglasses, John Nada (Roddy Piper) quickly sets out to help the resistance expose the control the aliens have achieved. Through cool gadgets such as those sunglasses of the aliens' watches, the film creates some great little science fiction touches that really only add to the experience. In particular, the former creates incredible anxiety. As John gets surrounded by aliens that know he can see, the film takes on an incredibly thrilling and terrifying tone. However, the same can be said for when he has the glasses off. Whenever he is in a tough situation and Carpenter does not immediately have him put on the glasses, the film is packed with tension and paranoia. The film manages to convince you that everybody and anybody could be an alien, especially when he lacks the glasses. When he loses them, the tension and anxiety to put them back on is felt by the audience as our heart races along with John's.

Action-wise, the film is incredibly strong. Each action set piece is incredibly strong and Carpenter knows his way around a gun battle. This is very much the case in They Live in which his battles are very similar to ones found in the very beginning of his career, except with more polish and better effects. On that note, the visual effects are very good. The film does a great job crafting the look the aliens and it feels like it is very similar in style in that area to Tim Burton's Mars Attacks!. However, it feels realistic and looks funny at the very least. Carpenter plays on this at the end when the aliens are revealed in bars, having sex, or on television. While comical in look and feel, the aliens do look pretty interesting and feel authentic and an interesting take on what aliens would like and do on earth.

They Live could also be categorized as Carpenter being very tongue-in-cheek with his fighting against criticisms towards his use of sex and violence. The ending highlights this with an alien on television saying that he and George Romero need to tone down both. Here, Carpenter essentially compares his critics to being mindless robotic aliens, incapable of formulating their own opinions. Instead, they opt to parrot what they have heard others say. This is unfortunately still prevalent today, especially in film criticism when a popular film or artist's reputation is quickly torn apart after one critic or person makes a short-sighted argument, which then gains steam and popularity. Carpenter had obviously been critiqued for both sex and violence, so he answers with a film built on testosterone and campy violence and action. Honestly, it is admirable to see him fight back in this fashion.

They Live is a truly entertaining and campy science fiction horror comedy about a man who wakes up to alien invasion taking place on Earth. While silly, its science fiction pieces are imaginative and truly engaging. It creates a world that is worthy of further looks and is truly fun to imagine the possibilities within this world, especially with the cool knick knacks introduced by Carpenter throughout the film. Action-packed, inventive, and simply a good time, They Live is another top-notch film from John Carpenter.



8/10 - Shivers is the kind of film that makes you skin crawl and make you want to curl up in the fetal position in a corner. This film is, simply put, really gross. Telling the story of a scientist that creates a parasite that consumes the innards of people and turns them into sex crazed maniacs, Shivers is best described as a zombie film by way of David Cronenberg. Except, instead of brains, they want nothing more than to have sex and turn the world into a huge orgy. As may be readily apparent, this film is typical Cronenberg body horror and he manages to prove the statement "everything is erotic" deadly wrong. For those who watch Shivers, it will do more than give you the shivers. It will make you want to run away to isolation and take a vow of chastity. This film is pure horror and classic Cronenberg insanity.

With the parasites taking refuge in the abdomen of its host, the film finds a way to be more horrifying than any other Cronenberg film in its abuse of the abdomen. The film is very visceral in this portrayal, even when it is simple things such as Dr. Roger St. Luc (Paul Hampton) assessing the abdomen of a patient with the parasite. As he feels around and feels the parasites, the scene is haunting and decidedly horrifying. Additionally, when Nicholas Tudor (Alan Migicovsky) calls the parasites in his abdomen like dogs and they start crawling, oof is that sequence scary. It is one of the very best body horror moments of Cronenberg's career and obsession with the perverse and sick subgenre. Honestly, it made me look away from the screen it was so horrifying, highlighting the brilliance of the effects and the impact the body horror in this film has, with the power to make you feel the parasites within your own abdomen.

As has been mentioned by some, the film is problematic in regards to gender, but not to an excessive degree. Women are raped and abused throughout the film and a sexual woman is shown as a dangerous woman, because of the power that she wields. This is problematic, but obviously not dire by Cronenberg as it is hardly his intention here in the film. Men are also raped and treated as violent sexually, so it does all balance out. In many ways, it is simply a film about the sexual violence of humans and the way in which eroticism and violence intersect. This has no specific gender target, rather it is merely a very violent and disturbing comment on human sexuality. While it may not always work thematically and focuses too heavily on the female body, the film is hardly as problematic as some have made it sound.

One of the greatest pieces of this film, however, is the opening. Cross cutting between the brutal attack and gutting of a woman and a couple looking to buy an apartment in the same complex, the film's opening sequence is a brutal juxtaposition. It also functions as a gory foreshadowing to the brutality that is set to unfold in the Starliner Apartments and what future awaits this simple and neat couple. By the end of the film, we know the context of the murder and also know the end that the couple from the opening met. Any time we see them, we remember the pain that juxtapose their nice arrival in the beginning and that opening remains one of the most iconic images from Shivers.

Filled with retching, bloody vomits, and abdomen exploding fun, the film feels like a precursor to films such as Alien or Eyes Wide Shut. With the former, the abdomen busting feels akin to that seen in Ridley Scott's classic, but is obviously wholly different. The horror and shock of Scott's is burned in everyone's mind. Here, Cronenberg makes it an art. The gore, the violence, and the repulsion felt by the violence on screen is only natural, but Cronenberg's hatred towards the human abdomen is always felt by the way in which it is punished by those parasites, especially when they burst out. It is truly what makes you skin crawl the most. With regards to Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, Shivers is unerotic. It is highly sexual, but the eroticism is haunting and demonic. It is terrifying to watch, just as in the orgy-packed Eyes Wide Shut. Shivers uses sexual content to scare its audience, just as zombie films using biting to cause tension. Cronenberg, referencing Freud with the belief that everything is sexual, shows just how sexual violence can become.

A chilling, horrifying, and repulsive film, Shivers will give you shivers. Why must Cronenberg mess with my stomach as well? It is honestly horrifying to watch some of this film unfold and it is one of the hardest watches I have encountered recently.



7/10 - "Now that's a real shame when folks be throwin' away a perfectly good white boy like that."

Though director Savage Steve Holland ultimately wound up directing bad made-for-TV Nickelodeon movies (and I mean bad), Better Off Dead certainly hinted at better potential. With a 1980s teen comedy rivaling the quality of John Hughes or John Landis at the time, this surrealist and more absurd take on teen comedies hints at great potential. It is unpolished, some transitions are awkward, but man, the characters are fun and the film itself is incredibly funny as well. Milking 1980s John Cusack for all he is worth, the film rides on charisma, charm, and everyman qualities for as far as the eye can see. With some solid jokes and gags along the way, the film really does hit its stride and makes a truly sweet and charming 1980s comedy. While not as funny as better 1980s comedies or as nuanced in its take on the coming of age genre, it remains a thoroughly entertaining film.

Surrealist throughout with running gags such as the paperboys, the hookers with a nine year old, the nine year old making a gun from a toy, and the animated sequences, the film feels like a teen comedy via David Lynch at times. Savage Steve Holland blends in these surrealist elements quite well, though the animated ones feel a bit off. They never really work with the film and are instead mildly compelling diversions within the film. Overall though, the film does strike a balance between Holland's surrealist tendencies and the authentic story of teen love and depression that accompanies it, which is very good strength.

That said, the film never investigates its characters too much. It is a good film, do not get me wrong, but it is largely just because it is funny. The characters and situations are quite cliche with the struggles of Lane Meyer (John Cusack) never being investigated. He is obsessed with his girlfriend and wishes to kill himself when she dumps him. The suicide scenes are turned into comedy, but are still haunting and the comedic intent of them essentially shows how teen suicide has been overlooked as a serious issue in the world and in this very film. In this sense, it can be quite problematic, even if it is clear that Lane will never actually kill himself. No matter the level of doubt one has that somebody will kill themselves, joking or mentioning the intent to kill suicide is a subtle cry for help or them testing the waters. While Better Off Dead shows that Lane has a lot to live for and can move past his girlfriend, it never has a serious moment to actually explore Lane's mind, which does hold the film back from being a coming of age teen comedy that rises above its genre trappings.

As previously mentioned, the film is incredibly funny. Cusack has great charm and comedic timing here, even if it is one of his first roles. He is terrific in this film, in large part because he is so easy to believe as a lost high school student wading through the minefield of growing up. Holland, while unable to create unique characters, does create good jokes that feel more like Abrahams and Zucker brothers style at times with random comments or little visual gags adorning the film. The surrealism also adds to this feeling with scenarios being added simply because they would be so odd and random, it would be funny without feeling forced. Better Off Dead is filled with these and it is what has helped it become such an iconic teen comedy. There is no denying that the film is often hysterical and consistently funny throughout its runtime, which is definitely an accomplishment.

While not unique and entirely predictable, Better Off Dead is an often inventive surrealist teen comedy with the ever lovable John Cusack. It is charming, sweet, and funny, even if it never gives the time of day to truly develop its characters beyond their stock parts and never investigates its main character's suicidal thoughts with the seriouness they demand.



9/10 - Perhaps I am alone in this, but The Fog is the best John Carpenter film I have seen yet (still have to see The Thing though). Haunting with the omnipresent nature of the fog and with great mythology behind it, The Fog is a spine tingling horror movie that creeps up on you with a few knocks on your door. The Fog tells the story of a town that has been cursed. On its 100th anniversary, the curse comes to knock on their door in the form of ghost pirates disguised by the fog. Scary, chilling, and truly a great horror thriller, The Fog can be a bit campy and cheesy, but lacks the predictability and horrific acting of Carpenter's Halloween (sacrilege, I know), while retaining the horror and the terrific score.

On that note, the score is phenomenal. It sets the tone from the very beginning and creates an atmosphere of eternal dread. With each note, the film becomes scarier, even before things truly kick off. The score, as in all Carpenter films, plays a key role in the film and really delivers throughout. It is the common thread in this film that connects each scene and also amplifies the terror in each sequence. For any horror film, the score is crucial and The Fog's score packs a punch that is hard to ignore.

However, Carpenter has the most fun with the fog. Creating a sense of dread whenever it appears, the fog obscures your view. That is simple and straight forward, but it makes it a great tool in a horror film. You simply cannot see what is coming, which makes any jump scare truly impactful. As the ghost pirates close in, you can sense them approaching, but you cannot see them. In this way, we are dropped in alongside the characters and forced to feel our way through the night blind as to what may be lurking in the distance. As the fog rolls onto Antonio Bay and starts to cover the island, the images creating a great sense of dread with this blanket covering the town in a shield of mystery and horror.

What adds to the mystery of the film is of course the mythology. As with any Carpenter film, the film is incredibly imaginative. Taking place on the 100th Anniversary of this seaside town, Father Malone (Hal Holbrook) quickly discovers why the mystery and terror brought by the fog is occurring: the planned murder of a leper colony that wished to settle a mile north of Antonio Bay. Accompanying the murder was the robbery of the leper colony's stock of gold orchestrated by Father Malone's grandfather. Here to reclaim the gold and punish the six conspirators, the ghosts exact their revenge under the cover of fog to obscure a clear view of their faces ravaged by leprosy. This disguise is incredibly effective at creating an omnipresent dread. With the fog covering the whole town, the scorned men could reasonably be anywhere, which really adds to the film's horror and anticipation.

Some of the more effective scares come as the fog closes in. As the citizens race about trying to find cover or deal with the fog and its inhabitants, there is great anticipation and Carpenter creates multiple moments where you just want to jump off the couch and point out the danger. This anticipation and thrill is really what defines this film as the characters can never see what is coming, but the audience knows more than any of them and knows what the lepers want from this town. There were multiple moments where I caught myself yelling at the screen for the characters to run or do something. Compared to many other films, this is a rarity and is a credit to the dread, atmosphere, and anticipation conjured up by Carpenter throughout this film.

A cult classic, The Fog has unfortunately become one of the lesser known Carpenter horror flicks, but I personally find it to be one of the best films in his filmography. Terrifying, thrilling, and a complete joy from beginning to end, the film is decently acted, but the real draw here is the impeccable score, the unique horror elements (the fog), how much fun Carpenter has with this, and the ease with which he creates fear, anticipation, and dread. This is a horror film that fires on all cylinders.

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

9/10 - Simultaneously the second entry into Terry Gilliam's "Trilogy of Imagination" and the first entry in his "Dystopian Trilogy", Brazil is a masterwork of pure satirical genius. More aligned with modern day America than I am comfortable to admit, Brazil is a cautionary tale of government control where freedom is assumed, but is merely an illusion. Working in the Ministry of Information, Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) is a lowly worker who just does as he is told and keeps plugging along with no aspirations for anything better. Except, he keeps having dreams where he is a winged angel and trying to save a mystery girl. Learning that this girl is Jill Layton (Kim Greist), Sam tries to find her, only to discover that the government believes her to be a violent terrorist. Now, he must subvert the government to find the girl that he loves. A visually rich and thematically dense film, Brazil is a hard nut to crack and though this review will make it sound like I know what I am talking about, allow me to assure you that the opposite is in fact true.

In my review of Time Bandits, the first entry in the "Trilogy of Imagination", I highlighted one of the major themes in that work as being materialism. With a psychotic obsession towards material items over their own child, Kevin's parents in that film ignore him at all costs. Gilliam continues this thematic discussion in Brazil, except it takes on a particularly politically charged tone. During the Cold War, the American government equated the communists with being godless heathens. Therefore, to be truly godly, one must be a capitalist. As such, spending and material goods are good and a glory to God. Throughout the film, Gilliam critiques this idea with a visual motif of a glowing blue cross in various shots, but also takes shots at the biggest glorification to capitalism in existence: Christmas. Setting Brazil during Christmas time allowed Gilliam to adorn each scene with a reference to the gift giving holiday. Everybody in the film has some asinine gift they are carrying or give to another person. Sam receives presents from nearly everybody he sees in the film and it is never something he truly wants. Interesting to note as well that nobody says "Merry Christmas" in the film, rather they always say "Happy Christmas". However, Gilliam ensures that this is a religious critique during a sequence in a shopping mall. One boy is carrying what appears to be a folder that reads, "Consumers for Christ" on the cover. Similar to the glowing blue cross, this folder is also blue. Highlighting the capitalist indoctrination disguised as Christianity, Gilliam decries the linking together of religion and mindless consumption above all else. During this shopping mall sequence, a young child also joyously exclaims, "Oh my own credit card!" For him, getting a card with which he can mindlessly spend is just as good as getting any other gift. This is further emphasized through Sam's mother (Katherine Helmond) and her friend Mrs. Terrain (Barbara Hicks). The two are constantly getting face lifts to look younger and while Mrs. Lowry's goes fine, Mrs. Terrain is constantly shown with bandages due to her complications having complications. For Gilliam, this is a way of punishing the vanity and mindless materialism and consumption that has gone on in our present society.

This is further underscored in a callback to Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin and the famous Odessa steps sequence. In that famous sequence, people are gunned down on the Odessa steps by guards and, as she runs down, a mother's baby carriage gets stuck and begins to tumble down the steps. Gilliam takes this scene as inspiration towards the end as Sam has a dream about escaping from the prison he is held in. During his breakout - with the help of Archibald "Harry" Tuttle (Robert De Niro) - the guards in the Ministry of Information are shooting at the escapees from the stairs and begin walking down them. As they do, a vacuum tumbles down the steps akin to the baby carriage in Battleship Potemkin. Here, Gilliam creates a parallel between the baby and the vacuum, in essence saying that we now serve machines and the system, instead of our children and one another. Our purpose and focus in life has shifted from each other to the soulless machines in the name of innovation. This is further confirmed, in hindsight, by a sequence earlier in the film. The chief torturer of the Ministry of Information is a friend of Sam's named Jack (Michael Palin). While visiting with Jack, Sam sees Jack speak to one of his three children. During this conversation, Jack calls the girl "Amy" and later "Chloe", despite the girl's protests that she is actually "Holly". He seems disinterested and makes a crack about never really knowing anymore. For Jack and for everybody else living in this dystopian society, the only things that matter are work, consumption, and maintaining the status quo determined by those in power. All else fall by the waste side, especially family. Viewed in conjunction with the vacuum/baby carriage parallel, it is clear that Gilliam wishes to highlight this as a major fault in our present society.

One of the major themes in this film, however, is the critique of bureaucracy. Of all the things Gilliam takes aim at in Brazil, bureaucracy is one he keeps coming back to throughout the film. With endless forms, recorded messages at companies ("this is not a recording"), and even more forms, the film is an endless critique of bureaucracy. Before we know who she is, we see Jillian at the Ministry of Information trying to get a signature only to be sent back to the Department she came from because they needed to stamp something, even though that department said she needed to go to the Ministry of Information for more assistance. Similar to the constant redirecting and loops people can find themselves in when dealing with companies nowadays, Jill's struggle is one that it is hard not to empathize with. Of course, Gilliam shows just how pedantic this bureaucracy is throughout. To fix a heater, they need a form. To report an incident, they need to write a report. A page can only have one stamp and the department will refuse to stamp it again because, well, it has already been stamped. In a restaurant, a waiter makes Sam say which number on the menu he wishes to have before he can actually accept the order, even though he understands what he wants. It is absurd and hyperbole by Gilliam, but its satirical roots are still clear. Today's world has been dominated by paper and forms and endless phone calls. There is no simplicity to the world anymore, instead things have been made more complex than anybody can actually bear. This, of course, is perfect for the ruling class because it induces complacency. People hate to be inconvenienced. So, if something is hard, they will simply avoid doing it or pushing it off endlessly until it can wait no longer. This is what the ruling class depends on in reality and in Brazil. To emphasize this death by paper, Harry Tuttle is literally consumed by paper in a dream had by Sam towards the end of the film. With one paper landing on him, which suddenly turns into a swarm of papers, poor Harry Tuttle is quickly engulfed in papers. For Gilliam, this is the direction we are headed: death by bureaucracy.

Yet, one of the key parts of bureaucracy is the status quo and not questioning anything you are told. The film is kicked off by a mistaken identity. A man named Archibald Buttle is arrested instead of Archibald Tuttle. Buttle eventually dies in custody and the whole thing is a bit of a butterfly effect after a fly lands in a typewriter and causes the typist to hand out the wrong arrest receipt (yes, they have arrest receipts). Later in the film, however, a man remarks to Sam that this confusion was clearly intentional and a terrorist plot to save Tuttle, a supposed terrorist, from being captured. This excuse is made out of the belief that the bureaucracy that governs the place could never be wrong, so why believe anything but conspiracy when they are wrong? It is all a clever plot to tear down the bureaucracy from the inside, but of course it is snuffed out by those who do not question the norm and the status quo. Along the same lines, the archaic technology that has clearly outworn its usefulness are continued to be used. Why? It is what was always used, regardless of whether or not it is actually better or helps with anything. In the aforementioned restaurant sequence, patrons are served slop with a picture of the food they ordered accompanying their slop. Akin to the technology, this is clearly the way things have always been with the returns slowly diminishing overtime. Nobody has decided to step up and question why they cannot have the actual food they ordered, now this green colored slop that is served as a substitute.

The bureaucracy and materialism combine when viewed in conjunction with Sam's arrest. Early in the film, we learn that information is expensive. Thus, those who demand the information must pay for the information. Criminals pay to be arrested and pay for the cost of the trials. As such, during Sam's interrogation, we are introduced to his need for insurance, receipts, and his need to confess quickly to avoid damaging his credit score. Further highlighting the endless stream of forms and processes inherent in society to a comedic degree, Gilliam also highlights the threats used by those in power to keep us in control, as well as how they profit on our suffering. Via insurance or credit ratings, the masses are kept in check and those in power are ensured they will get their money off of any of life's events, both positive and negative. If you die, your debts do not go away because the system will come to collect regardless. Brazil highlights this as Sam meets a series of men all looking to make money off of his own misfortune and likely demise at the hands of Jack, the torture and electrocution expert.

Though released in 1985, Brazil also feels terrifyingly relevant for today's times. In a conversation with accused terrorist Jlll, she asks Sam, "Have you ever met an actual terrorist?" There are also multiple terrorist bombings in the film, including in the restaurant, but people quickly move on. The restaurant staff toss up a divider and patrons continue to eat happily. For the people in Brazil, their struggle is akin to the "communist terrorists" and red scare levels during the "communist terrorism" days or the present day under the "radical Islamic terrorist" rhetoric paranoia days. It has become old hat in today's world to hear about a shooting or a bomb. There has been a desensitization to tragedy far beyond what could have ever been expected and, while it may not reach the levels Gilliam shows in Brazil, it is not far off. This portion in particular felt incredibly relevant today, especially with how the terrorists are gathered up and killed with a presumption of guilt. Gone are the days of "presumed innocent", replaced with a reign of terror undertaken by the government in which all citizens, especially those in the target group (Muslims now, unfortunately) are simply assumed to be suspicious anti-American operatives. It is tragic, just as it is here. Though undetermined as whether Tuttle and Jill are terrorists, they are good people. There is nothing about them that would raise suspicion, but they have come under that suspicion because they do not follow orders. This satire of the anti-foreigner stance of many living in America or in other white-dominated areas is further supported when Sam has papers blown away from him on the street. An angry woman chews him out and declares that he and other people like him leave their "filthy countries", go there, and then think they can mess it up too. Xenophobic and disgusting, Gilliam obviously highlights how dumb it is because both Sam and the woman are white. In this way, he highlights a simple similarity between the two of them that makes this outburst incredibly hysterical. Yet, it is equally comical when people do it to people of a different skin color, because we are all human underneath the surface.

A satire, Brazil critiques a variety of elements such as materialism, consumerism, vanity, bureaucracy, the status quo, torture, and xenophobia. Impeccably put together and inventive - beyond its connections and similarities to Orwell's 1984 - Brazil is a feast for the eyes and mind. Gilliam creates a masterpiece here that did take me halfway through to fall in love with, but once I fell in love, it was head over heels. Funny, surreal, and excellently executed political satire, Brazil is a film with bite.



5/10 - Released in late 2004 in Europe, but early 2005 in America, Melinda and Melinda stands as a testament to the change that was afoot in Woody Allen's career. After this film, he took off to Europe and began filming in various vacation destinations across the continent. One of the last few New York City shot Allen flicks (Whatever Works and Cafe Society would later represent brief returns to the city he loves), Melinda and Melinda is a mixed bag. Touching on typical Allen themes, the film poses the question: is life more tragedy or comedy? Set during a dinner conversation between two playwrights, one a comic writer and the other a tragedy writer, both pose theories based on a story offered by a mutual friend. The setup: a couple is hosting a dinner party and a woman randomly shows up at their door. The two playwrights envision two entirely scenarios in which a woman named Melinda (Radha Mitchell) knocks on the door of a dinner party unexpectedly. One goes tragically and the other turns comedic. Which is the actuality of life and better captures the likelihood of the mystery behind this girl?

In the tragic tale, Melinda is a woman damaged. After cheating on her husband, killing her lover, and losing custody of her children, she shows up at the front door of a couple, Lee (Jonny Lee Miller) and Laurel (Chloe Sevigny), as they entertain. Now, this couple are people she knew in college and had planned to stay with months ago, but a suicide attempt on Melinda's part got in the way. While with them, she meets and falls for a musical man named Ellis (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Unfortunately, things do not work, Lee and Laurel's marriage falls apart, a lawyer she consults cannot help her with her custody case, and Melinda winds up wanting to kill herself. By the end, Laurel resolves that Melinda will always need help. In this section, the tragedy is quite clear. Her life is horrible, though some is self-inflicted. Much of this section falls flat comedically, however. As a Woody Allen film, one would expect some more comedic lines, but there is nothing here. I looked for comedy here simply because the tragedy seems so ineffective. Melinda is unlikable and probably brought all of this on herself by killing a man in cold blood and cheating out of boredom. She is unsympathetic and not a good main character. The first half of the film heavily focuses on this story unfortunately and Melinda here is simply not easy to like. While the acting here is great, especially by Mitchell in a scene where she spills her heart and past to Ejiofor, little works until she meets Ejiofor. When the two are together, the film really does click and the tragic playwright finds some magic in the darkness.

In the comedy section, Melinda arrives at the home of Hobie (Will Ferrell) and Susan (Amanda Peet). As Allen is a comedy writer, this section really zips at times, especially in the second half. A damaged woman who arrives after having downed 24 sleeping pills, the section quickly becomes charming as she as Hobie begin to fall for one another. Fearing hurting his wife, Hobie consults best friend Walt (Steve Carell) as to what he should do. Fortunately, the feeling is mutual between he and his wife and they have an awkwardly easy split where the duo just agree it is over. Now free to chase Melinda, the duo fall in love after spending some time with other people - Melinda with a regular guy who is quite nice and Hobie with a Republican Playboy mode. Ending on a happier note, the section is largely quite witty with Ferrell playing the Woody Allen character. It is funny throughout with Ferrell delivering good Elf-like performance in regards to the innocence and authenticity of his character. He plays the neurotic man quite well and delivers the witty and smart lines with ease. When this section takes focus, Melinda and Melinda is at its most enjoyable and is often incredibly funny, mainly because it plays to Allen's strengths as a writer/director.

A film about whether life is more tragic or comedic, the answer is simple: it is both. The film very clearly shows that tragedy does not work quite as well without some comedic lightness to liven it up and comedy lacks stakes or the final bit of punch without some tragedy. Comedic possibilities are introduced in the tragic storyline and vice versa, but never explored because of the defined focus of the storylines. The end result is an interesting concept, but with two sections that do not work quite as well as intended and prove that tragedy and comedy need each other to work. In isolation, the duo tend to just tread water.



5/10 - Edward Snowden is an infamous man nowadays. After leaking that American citizens and the entire world were being watched by the NSA, he became the most wanted man in America. People were split on whether or not this man was a hero or a traitor. It is a hefty question for which there is no easy answer. On the one hand, he pulled the wool off our eyes and forced us to see what our government become: unhinged. The government never knew when to step and, even if they had an inkling it was wrong, they trudged on anyways. On the other hand, what he did revealed top secret information to our enemies. Yet, it is not this debate that takes center stage in Oliver Stone's film. Rather, it is an examination of the man behind the leak with little focus on the leaked information itself, which makes for a largely mixed bag as a result. While a compelling film when it really hits it stride, the film never dives into the leak enough, instead focusing on the love between Snowden (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley).

Personally, I believe Snowden to be a hero. Here is a man that has a great girlfriend (Woodley teaching pole dancing is what cinema was always intended to be), is incredibly smart, and has a well paying job. He has the world in the palm of his hand. Yet, because of his rigid moral stance regarding what his job entailed, he opts to let the world know what is going on. Personally, I would have just quit the job and started doing something else, even if it was just stocking shelves in a grocery store overnight. Anything else would have satisfied. Blowing the whistle would be the last option in my mind. Because he did something I find incomprehensible that will haunt him for the rest of his life and it is something that benefited society, he is a hero. Unfortunately, many people do not see it this and he is hunted like a fugitive.

As for the film itself, it is simply too unfocused to be successful. Is it a political thriller or is it a biopic? Director Oliver Stone directs both parts with an assured hand, but the two feel like complete strangers. The two halves of this film never blend and make it work with one another. Rather, they just run off and split a potentially good film into two half decent ones. This is very unfortunate to watch unfold, but it is clear that the romance half is the portion that can go by the waste side. Instead of focusing on the leak and the very compelling scene in the Hong Kong hotel room with the documentary filmmaker and writers from The Guardian, the film focuses on his love with Lindsay Mills. While I love Shailene Woodley in this film and in anything (she is another actor that really needs better material though), her portion here adds nothing. It humanizes Snowden, but it borders on being oddly offensive. Early in the film, we learn she is a liberal who questions the government. Snowden is a conservative who does not. When they watch Obama being elected in 2008, Lindsay remarks in the pride she feels that Edward has become more liberal and is subtly happy about Obama winning the election. In essence, she has made him willing to question his government and not just blindly follow. The problems here is two-fold. On one, it positions all conservatives as mindless drones. I am a moderate, so I have no dog in this race, but this strikes me as an unfair painting of an entire half of the population. Secondly, Edward does the leak so that people can question their government. In essence, it is because of the influence of Lindsay that he has become what he is. If you read him as being a traitor, this film essentially lays the blame for that on his girlfriend because, otherwise, he would have just been a guy working for the NSA who does what he is told.

Yet, it is the division in time between the two halves of the story that make the film sputter out of control. Stone cannot strike a balance between the two and it is the kind of story that demands that precision focus. Instead, he lets it get out of control as we get an unnecessary romance and not enough details regarding the highly complicated NSA material. This film could have been a great vessel for discussing Snowden's status, but instead it spends too much time humanizing him and not diving into the compelling parts of his story. While we know who he is and get introduced to Lindsay, his relationship and himself are too much of the story when compared to the vitally important information he leaked for public consumption. As an overall film, Snowden entertains, but lacks focus and needed some fine tuning before being released as a final product. It is a film that would benefit from being trimmed to focus more heavily on the CIA/NSA surveillance instead of a cliche romance story.



7/10 - I mean, The Thing is good, but the best horror film of all-time? Hardly. A great exercise in paranoia, the film feels like a precursor to Carpenter's They Live. Anybody could be imitated by "the thing", making everybody a prime suspect and under investigation. This makes for a largely fun horror film, but hardest the greatest of all-time. Compared to The Fog, which I watched yesterday, The Thing lacks the same omnipresent dread and it is never nearly as scary. That said, watching Kurt Russell fight aliens, the cool special effects, cool premise, and the killer score, do establish The Thing as a good. Unfortunately, it may just suffer from far too high of expectations for an otherwise solid horror film from director John Carpenter.

Set in Antarctica, The Thing opens with a scene that only becomes haunting later on in the film. It is truly an odd opening with a Norwegian man trying to shoot a dog from a helicopter. Initially, we have no clue, but it is only later when we see the madness and paranoia that descends on the American camp heading by MacReady (Kurt Russell) that we understand what happens to this Norwegian man. This same paranoia permeates the American camp in no time once we learn that "the thing" can imitate anybody and anything. Hidden inside dogs, people, or anything else, "the thing" could be anything around you. This paranoia is what the film really feeds on, complemented by a nervy and anxious score by Carpenter. What the score reminds me of is the opening few notes of a great theme song from an action movie, except in perpetuity. Ennio Morricone's score just plays, with each new piece of music, the same opening chords over-and-over. Though the chords differ from piece-to-piece, they are all generally the same in that it plays the opening notes more than is comfortable, as the audience expects it to simply be a quick lead in to the music. This alone creates incredible anxiety and is a great testament to how a great score can make a horror film even scarier.

This paranoia is really the primary emotion of the film as the horror too often goes into gross out territory. It trades fear for gore to middling impact, which is a shame because the special effects are incredible. A head ripping itself off a body and walking away is no small feat, yet Carpenter's film makes it look seamless and easy to do. Thus, these gross out effects are greatly appreciated from aesthetic stand point and I did get great enjoyment out of watching a dog (though I love dogs) somehow split in two and reveal this "thing" living beneath its fur. It is an incredibly cool effect to watch unfold. Similarly, the fire from the flame throwers - a great tool to use in this film - always looks incredible. Honestly, the whole production design is great and only adds to the paranoia with the various hiding places within this metal trap. However, as I said, the gore is simply not scary. It is cool and occasionally thrills, but it never really scared me if I am being honest. Considering the gore is the big pay-off here, it is clear why this one sort of flew past me.

A slow burn science fiction horror film, one of the greatest assets of the film is the mystery and the investigation into what "the thing" is capable of doing. As none of the characters know what it is, they are all in the dark as to the signs that somebody has been killed and is merely being imitated. As such, scenes of them discovering information regarding "the thing" and the confusion as to how it got there and how long it was there are all incredibly compelling and truly engaging.

However, the film is bogged down by lazy writing. While a compelling film, its characters are pretty disposable. Similar to many war films, The Thing lacks any character development for such a large cast of characters. Carpenter does not focus on developing the characters, but it is still a concern as a film such as this demands pathos and compelling characters to give the film stakes and the audience anxiety as we worry which beloved character will die next. Other than the dogs, which is inherent, I never felt these stakes or concern.

The Thing is a good film, but it is hardly the masterpiece it has been heralded as. Though well acted with great special effects, score, and paranoia, the film simply lacks scares. Instead of well earned scares, it opts for campy gore that entertains from a special effects standpoint, but is hardly scary and it kills the tension of the moment as a result.



8/10 - Released in 1979 when female nudity was still allowed in PG-rated films, Kramer vs. Kramer is still as powerful now as it was then, even if the film is now 38 years old. About a couple - Ted (Dustin Hoffman) and Joanna Kramer (Meryl Streep) - who separate, divorce, and are now fighting a custody battle, the film is achingly real. Blessed with an authentic and heartbreaking script from Robert Benton, Kramer vs Kramer never ceases to both break your heart and be an absolutely riveting film. Praised for portraying the concerns of both Ted and Joanna evenly, Kramer vs Kramer may paint Joanna as a bad guy in the film, but her concerns are valid ones with regard to her marriage to Ted.

Ted, a workaholic, is a distant father. He provides financially, but misses the crucial part: emotion and low. His son Billy (Justin Henry) barely knows him. Joanna is done. She has been unhappy and forced to be a stay-at-home mom against her wishes, so she leaves. Ted is neglectful and old school with a set understanding of what a wife should be and do. This does not work for Joanna, so she leaves him and Billy to find herself and happiness. For the next 18 months, Ted and Billy fight and are forced to learn to live and love one another, while Ted is forced to parent. The end result is an unbreakable bond that Ted could never imagine having severed in the future. As such, he gets quite defensive when Joanna comes back with a job and wants to take her son back full-time. This is where Kramer vs Kramer fails to be fair, as it shows Ted and Billy for the most part. When Joanna gets Billy briefly for a visit, we only see how Ted handles giving him over. As such, we write off Joanna as a parent and start rooting for Ted to get the kid, even though this "bitch" wants to take Billy away from him. That said, for his part, Hoffman has incredible chemistry with the young Justin Henry. Hoffman plays an incredibly sympathetic man with great gravitas and care for the nuance of parenthood. He refuses to demonize Joanna and instead begins to look inward and identify what made her run away. He knows he screwed up and feels great remorse for those errors.

On the flip side, Meryl Streep is impeccable. Her testimony is raw, powerful, and engrossing. Her delivery is always top-notch and it is hard to deny that this is a performance worthy of her first Oscar. She is limited in screen time compared to Hoffman, but she makes an impact every time she appears on the screen. As Joanna, she plays this forward-thinking mother who looks beyond the home for gratification and success. As such, a home life is at odds with what she truly wants. Though she loves Billy, having him live with her would be a mistake for the both of them, even if she is a good mother. Her realization of this is an incredibly powerful moment in the film and underscores Joanna's confusion and lack of focus in her life at the moment.

Impeccably written, as mentioned, the film's main fault is that it takes Ted's side. We understand Joanna, but never comprehend why she wants to take Billy away. Why must Ted be limited to every other weekend and she gets the kid? The film too readily cops out and blames archaic beliefs of the judge that mothers are more important when, in reality, it must explain why Joanna refuses joint custody and wants Billy full-time. The two could split him and the end result would be hard, but easy to understand. Yet, they go guns blazing at one another because Joanna wanted to. This is unfortunate and makes her hard to sympathize with, even if her reason for divorcing Ted makes sense.

A powerful film, Kramer vs. Kramer is a riveting and thoroughly engrossing family drama that has authenticity in every line. Hoffman and Streep turns in powerful performances as the warring couple, even if the writing seems to take Hoffman's side a bit too much. That said, it is an incredibly nuanced and timeless film that rides on the back of its impeccable characters, real life drama, and acting.



7/10 - Telling the true story of a man falsely accused of robbery, The Wrong Man is the first fact-based story directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Yet, as he promises in the prologue, the film is just as suspenseful as his usual fare, equally unpredictable, and even harder to believe. In the film, reality proves that it can sometimes be even stranger than fiction as the tale of Manny Balestrero (Henry Fonda) spirals out of control upon his accusation. From at-home issues, legal issues via the trial, and the confusion of it all, Manny's life is forever altered as a result of this case of mistaken identity.

A suspenseful and mysterious film, the film is not very Hitchcockian. It shows you that he is not the guy. We know he did not rob these places as accused. As such, the suspense largely just comes from the trial and the circumstantial evidence piling up against him such as witness testimony and handwriting. Neither are conclusive, but lead to him being railroaded and left out to dry by the easily convinced cops and district attorney. Thus, the suspense comes as a result of the question as to whether or not the man will get off and the cops will realize the mistake they made. Hitchcock really works this angle quite well and makes the film incredibly compelling, leaving the audience in the dark as to what the prosecution will argue and how the evidence will mount against him in the case.

However, one of the problems I do have with the film is the ending. It is not neat and it is real, but it feels too abrupt. The story becomes crazier than fiction here, but it feels like the lead in is too harsh, too rushed. The film builds to this moment and it feels far too anticlimactic to be truly enjoyable and impactful, which is a shame. Though the film is suspenseful, it just lacks the terrific ending to really stick the landing. In addition, though fact, the spiraling out of control by Rose (Vera Miles) is, again, too abrupt. One day, she is good. The next, she is nuts. Hitchcock, in both areas, lacked the seamless transition to make his justice and his wife's insanity truly work in the context of the story.

That said, the acting is terrific. As Manny, Henry Fonda is incredibly authentic and plays an everyman. He just works hard and does right by his family, yet he is under investigation all the same. Fonda makes it easy to become sympathetic for Manny and really feel the anxiety and confusion of the character as he gets charged with a crime he had no idea even happened. As his wife, Vera Mills captures the insantity very well and makes it feel authentic. When sane, she is equally good as Manny's devoted wife who is panic-stricken and concerned about what the future holds for her husband and her family as a whole.

Suspenseful and compelling, The Wrong Man's is what undoes it as it all just feels oddly rushed. Yet, seeing Hitchcock work within the confines of a real story that is stranger than fiction is incredibly fun and he still manages to make it truly compelling and suspenseful. While it is a bit more subdued and lacks his flair, The Wrong Man is still a very good film with some good performances and a crazy story that makes you shake your head in anger at the cops and witnesses that caused this man and his family so much agony.



7/10 - Compared to other Oscar-nominated animated films I have seen (Zootopia and Moana), Kubo and the Two Strings is far superior when it comes to visual effects. It is no surprise that the film has received accolades for this, as the film's animations and little visual effect tricks are impeccable. As Kubo tells his stories and the papers begin to replicate characters, the visual impact is impeccable and a true testament to the hard work put in by the animators. The cinematography is also breathtaking with the film using the sun and the trees to create a very natural beauty for a film that occurs in such mystical terms. That said, it is not as funny or as adventurous as its animated counterparts and it is this missing element that leaves Kubo and the Two Strings as a good film, but not one that is very good or great.

With terrific voice acting from Art Parkinson, Charlize Theron, Matthew McConaughey, Ralph Fiennes, and Rooney Mara, the film sets up a conflict between the Moon King (Fiennes) and Kubo (Parkinson). Kubo, a young boy with magical powers from his mother, is the grandson of the Moon King. However, the Moon King is blind to the world and its pain and desires. He is cold and unwelcoming and wants Kubo to be the same way, so he takes one of his eyes. He tries to take the other, but his mother and father take him away. However, his father is killed, leaving him alone with his magical mother, Sariatu (Theron). Accompanied by his mother as a monkey (it makes sense) and Beetle (Matthew McConaughey), Kubo embarks on a journey to find his father's armor in order to defeat the Moon King. What ensues is a film with great mythology, but is far too predictable. It is a kids movie, yes, but I do not mean the plot. The various little twists are ear marked from the beginning and, yet, the film treats them as if they are incredible and totally unforeseen. This is a shame because the film could have moved through some of these elements quicker and not just relied upon them for surprises.

That said, the film's mythology and use of magic is incredible. Not only is it beautifully animated in this regard, but it always instills a sense of awe and incredible power that, for young kids, will make them want to run out and pretend to be Kubo. This is a terrific trait for an animated film aimed at kids and it is one this film has in bunches. It is an incredibly imaginative film that also serves as an introduction to Asian culture and beliefs regarding death and the connection between man and nature. Again, these sequences are brilliantly brought to life, but have even more power in the meaning of these moments and the weight with which it is communicated. This is a film with a deep respect for Asian culture and it shows.

Comedically, the film is strongest when Beetle is on the screen. All animated movies must infuse comedy to keep kids engaged and this one is no exception. McConaughey delivers the comedic lines brilliantly and the film drags a bit when he is off the screen. Beetle really gives the film the comedic energy and urgency it desperately needs. On that note, the film can somewhat slack off at times, losing the sense of adventure and pace demanded by its target audience. The film may miss the mark in entertaining children for this reason as the film's comedic introductions are not frequent enough and its story can take a bit too long to reveal itself.

More problematically, it is interesting to see this film be let off the hook for its casting. Sure, pile on The Great Wall where Matt Damon plays a white character from Europe that just happens to be in China, but let this one off the hook. All of these characters are voiced by white actors and all of the characters are Asian. This is not something I would detract from the film rating-wise, but how this one escaped controversy is very odd. There are enough good, talented Asian actors that could have fulfilled these roles, so it is a shame to see the film rely on talented, but white actors instead. Shocking that those who are more cognizant of these issues did not raise these concerns regarding these film.

That said, the film is impeccably animated with phenomenal visual effects. Its embracing of its mythology and Asian culture is incredible and often quite powerful to watch unfold. That said, its plot "twists" are too obvious and the film can drag in parts, while never utilizing its strong supporting cast enough in comparison to the quality they bring to this film. Overall, it is a good film, but lacks that extra bit to make it a great one.

Unthinkable with Samuel L. Jackson

surprisingly intense movie, I really enjoyed it

KARI KEKKONEN | D | RETIRED
NAME: Kari Kekkonen
BIRTHPLACE: Oulu, Finland
HEIGHT: 6'1"
WEIGHT: 185 lbs
NUMBER: 33
------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL CAREER STATS
S19 KEL: GP: 40, G: 10, A: 26, P: 36, +/-: 16, H: 42

SMJHL PLAYOFF STATS
S19 KEL: GP: 6, G: 0, A: 6, P: 6, +/-: 0, H: 6
------------------------------------------------------------

KAAPO KEKKONEN | C | RETIRED
NAME: Kaapo Kekkonen
BIRTHPLACE: Helsinki, Finland
HEIGHT: 6'3"
WEIGHT: 210 lbs
NUMBER: 19
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL CAREER STATS
S25 LAP: GP: 50, G: 2, A: 3, P: 5, +/-: -4, H: 75
S26 LAP: GP: 50, G: 4, A: 5, P: 9, +/-: -13, H: 94
S27 LAP: GP: 50, G: 6, A: 9, P: 15, +/-: -2, H: 35
S28 LAP: GP: 50, G: 7, A: 10, P: 17, +/-: -2, H: 96
S29 LAP: GP: 50, G: 13, A: 21, P: 34, +/-: -15, H: 85
S30 LAP: GP: 50, G: 23, A: 22, P: 45, +/-: 4, H: 130
S31 LAP: GP: 50, G: 20, A: 18, P: 38, +/-: 5, H: 162
S32 LAP: GP: 50, G: 18, A: 28, P: 46, +/-: 27, H: 183
S33 LAP: GP: 50, G: 17, A: 22, P: 39, +/-: 20, H: 210
S34 LAP: GP: 50, G: 12, A: 25, P: 37, +/-: -2, H: 131
S35 LAP: GP: 50, G: 10, A: 22, P: 32, +/-: -3, H: 115
S36 LAP: GP: 50, G: 11, A: 20, P: 31, +/-: 10, H: 138
S37 LAP: GP: 36, G: 9, A: 17, P: 26, +/-: -1, H: 72
S37 WKP: GP: 14, G: 1, A: 0, P: 1, +/-: -4, H: 19
TOT : GP: 650, G: 153, A: 222, P: 375, +/-: 20, H: 1545
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL PLAYOFF STATS
S25 LAP: DNQ
S26 LAP: DNQ
S27 LAP: DNQ
S28 LAP: DNQ
S29 LAP: DNQ
S30 LAP: DNQ
S31 LAP: DNQ
S32 LAP: GP: 5, G: 1, A: 3, P: 4, +/-: -2, H: 15
S33 LAP: GP: 12, G: 2, A: 3, P: 5, +/-: 0, H: 38
S34 LAP: GP: 7, G: 1, A: 3, P: 4, +/-: 3, H: 23
S35 LAP: GP: 5, G: 1, A: 1, P: 2, +/-: -4, H: 4
S36 LAP: DNQ
S37 WKP: GP: 12, G: 0, A: 2, P: 2, +/-: -2, H: 35
TOT : GP: 41, G: 5, A: 12, P: 17, +/-: -5, H: 115
------------------------------------------------------------

TATU MÄKELÄ | D | RETIRED
NAME: Tatu Mäkelä
BIRTHPLACE: Tampere, Finland
HEIGHT: 5'11"
WEIGHT: 180 lbs
NUMBER: 65
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL CAREER STATS
S40 BUF: GP: 50, G: 5, A: 17, P: 22, +/-: -28, H: 14, SB: 86
S41 BUF: GP: 50, G: 10, A: 21, P: 31, +/-: -3, H: 9, SB: 78
S42 BUF: GP: 50, G: 9, A: 21, P: 30, +/-: 2, H: 13, SB: 65
S43 BUF: GP: 50, G: 6, A: 24, P: 30, +/-: 1, H: 8, SB: 51
S44 BUF: GP: 50, G: 6, A: 28, P: 34, +/-: -6, H: 10, SB: 63
S45 BUF: GP: 50, G: 4, A: 37, P: 41, +/-: 10, H: 130, SB: 71
S46 BUF: GP: 50, G: 6, A: 36, P: 42, +/-: 25, H: 139, SB: 73
S47 BUF: GP: 50, G: 5, A: 23, P: 28, +/-: -4, H: 137, SB: 76
S48 BUF: GP: 50, G: 7, A: 25, P: 32, +/-: 9, H: 151, SB: 70
S49 BUF: GP: 50, G: 6, A: 22, P: 28, +/-: 5, H: 159, SB: 66
S50 BUF: GP: 50, G: 6, A: 20, P: 26, +/-: 14, H: 152, SB: 72
S51 BUF: GP: 50, G: 3, A: 23, P: 26, +/-: 8, H: 143, SB: 50
S52 BUF: GP: 50, G: 9, A: 21, P: 30, +/-: -3, H: 141, SB: 71
S53 BUF: GP: 50, G: 5, A: 14, P: 19, +/-: 23, H: 50, SB: 98
TOT : GP: 700, G: 87, A: 332, P: 419, +/-: 53, H: 1256, SB: 990
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL PLAYOFF STATS
S40 BUF: DNQ
S41 BUF: GP: 7, G: 3, A: 2, P: 5, +/-: -3, H: 0, SB: 10
S42 BUF: GP: 5, G: 0, A: 1, P: 1, +/-: -9, H: 2, SB: 10
S43 BUF: GP: 9, G: 0, A: 5, P: 5, +/-: -1, H: 1, SB: 8
S44 BUF: DNQ
S45 BUF: DNQ
S46 BUF: GP: 17, G: 0, A: 12, P: 12, +/-: 11, H: 59, SB: 28
S47 BUF: GP: 13, G: 0, A: 5, P: 5, +/-: 2, H: 32, SB: 18
S48 BUF: GP: 22, G: 2, A: 10, P: 12, +/-: 2, H: 64, SB: 32
S49 BUF: GP: 5, G: 0, A: 5, P: 5, +/-: 5, H: 15, SB: 8
S50 BUF: GP: 6, G: 0, A: 5, P: 5, +/-: -2, H: 18, SB: 12
S51 BUF: GP: 8, G: 2, A: 5, P: 7, +/-: -3, H: 15, SB: 11
S52 BUF: GP: 15, G: 4, A: 5, P: 9, +/-: 4, H: 47, SB: 26
S53 BUF: GP: 4, G: 0, A: 0, P: 0, +/-: 0, H: 6, SB: 13
TOT : GP: 111, G: 11, A: 55, P: 66, +/-: 6, H: 159, SB: 176
------------------------------------------------------------

KOLJA KEKKONEN | D | RETIRED
NAME: Kolja Kekkonen
BIRTHPLACE: Lappeenranta, Finland
HEIGHT: 6'3"
WEIGHT: 225 lbs
NUMBER: 8
------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL CAREER STATS
S53 DET: GP: 3, G: 0, A: 1, P: 1, +/-: -1, H: 2, SB: 0
S54 DET: GP: 50, G: 2, A: 8, P: 10, +/-: -6, H: 15, SB: 37
S55 DET: GP: 50, G: 4, A: 12, P: 16, +/-: -24, H: 32, SB: 24
S56 DET: GP: 50, G: 4, A: 17, P: 21, +/-: -20, H: 52, SB: 71
S57 ANA: GP: 66, G: 6, A: 20, P: 26, +/-: 14, H: 52, SB: 70
TOT : GP: 219, G: 16, A: 58, P: 74, +/-: -37, H: 153, SB: 202
SMJHL PLAYOFF STATS
S53 DET: DNP
S54 DET: GP: 7, G: 0, A: 0, P: 0, +/-: 0, H: 2, SB: 3
S55 DET: GP: 4, G: 0, A: 1, P: 1, +/-: -2, H: 3, SB: 0
S56 DET: GP: 5, G: 2, A: 2, P: 4, +/-: 0, H: 3, SB: 7
S57 ANA: GP: 21, G: 2, A: 13, P: 15, +/-: 5, H: 13, SB: 34
TOT : GP: 37, G: 4, A: 16, P: 20, +/-: 3, H: 22, SB: 44
------------------------------------------------------------

KEKW KEKKONEN | C | RETIRED
NAME: Karl-Erik-Karl2-Wojtek Kekkonen
BIRTHPLACE: Lohja, Finland
HEIGHT: 6'4"
WEIGHT: 220 lbs
NUMBER: 69
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL CAREER STATS
S61 BUF: GP: 66, G: 10, A: 28, P: 38, +/-: 21, H: 59, SH: 134
S62 BUF: GP: 66, G: 19, A: 36, P: 55, +/-: 9, H: 84, SH: 194
S63 BUF: GP: 66, G: 17, A: 14, P: 31, +/-: -13, H: 91, SH: 148
S64 BUF: GP: 66, G: 16, A: 51, P: 67, +/-: 36, H: 82, SH: 212
S65 BUF: GP: 66, G: 25, A: 41, P: 66, +/-: 33, H: 136, SH: 230
S66 BUF: GP: 66, G: 38, A: 43, P: 81, +/-: 18, H: 64, SH: 222
S67 BUF: GP: 66, G: 40, A: 45, P: 85, +/-: -6, H: 76, SH: 224
S68 BUF: GP: 66, G: 47, A: 46, P: 93, +/-: 45, H: 51, SH: 326
S69 BUF: GP: 66, G: 35, A: 31, P: 66, +/-: 22, H: 43, SH: 269
S70 BUF: GP: 66, G: 33, A: 48, P: 81, +/-: 18, H: 66, SH: 297
S71 BUF: GP: 66, G: 36, A: 41, P: 77, +/-: 37, H: 55, SH: 257
S72 BUF: GP: 66, G: 25, A: 35, P: 60, +/-: -1, H: 58, SH: 281
S73 BUF: GP: 66, G: 31, A: 41, P: 72, +/-: 23, H: 48, SH: 305
S74 BUF/WPG: GP: 66, G: 17, A: 47, P: 64, +/-: 33, H: 101, SH: 164
TOT : GP: 924, G: 389, A: 547, P: 936, +/-: 275, H: 1014, SH: 3263
SHL PLAYOFF STATS
S61 BUF: GP: 9, G: 2, A: 6, P: 8, +/-: 4, H: 11, SH: 24
S62 BUF: GP: 9, G: 3, A: 1, P: 4, +/-: 2, H: 5, SH: 25
S63 BUF: GP: 12, G: 1, A: 2, P: 3, +/-: -1, H: 32, SH: 33
S64 BUF: GP: 11, G: 2, A: 2, P: 4, +/-: -6, H: 12, SH: 41
S65 BUF: GP: 18, G: 4, A: 7, P: 11, +/-: 8, H: 34, SH: 62
S66 BUF: GP: 16, G: 11, A: 9, P: 20, +/-: 3, H: 13, SH: 49
S67 BUF: GP: 4, G: 2, A: 2, P: 4, +/-: -3, H: 3, SH: 20
S68 BUF: GP: 17, G: 6, A: 8, P: 14, +/-: -4, H: 11, SH: 75
S69 BUF: GP: 4, G: 1, A: 0, P: 1, +/-: -5, H: 2, SH: 13
S70 BUF: GP: 7, G: 1, A: 3, P: 4, +/-: -8, H: 2, SH: 25
S71 BUF: GP: 21, G: 12, A: 9, P: 21, +/-: 6, H: 24, SH: 97
S72 BUF: GP: 5, G: 0, A: 2, P: 2, +/-: -4, H: 7, SH: 25
S73 BUF: GP: 6, G: 3, A: 0, P: 3, +/-: -3, H: 11, SH: 33
S74 WPG: GP: 22, G: 3, A: 4, P: 7, +/-: -2, H: 15, SH: 37
TOT : GP: 161, G: 51, A: 55, P: 106, +/-: -11, H: 182, SH: 559
------------------------------------------------------------

KAL ÅKAR KEKKONEN | D | SEATTLE ARGONAUTS
NAME: Kal Åkar Kekkonen
BIRTHPLACE: The Wilderness, Gielinor
HEIGHT: 6'6"
WEIGHT: 240 lbs
NUMBER: 75
------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL CAREER STATS
S74 DET: GP: 66, G: 6, A: 14, P: 20, +/-: 3, SH: 83, H: 76, SB: 29
S75 DET: GP: 66, G: 8, A: 22, P: 30, +/-: 31, SH: 129, H: 123, SB: 114
S76 DET: GP: 66, G: 17, A: 21, P: 38, +/-: -10, SH: 193, H: 74, SB: 130

SMJHL PLAYOFF STATS
S74 DET: GP: 17, G: 3, A: 7, P: 10, +/-: 8, SH: 18, H: 16, SB: 5
S75 DET: GP: 14, G: 5, A: 6, P: 11, +/-: 2, SH: 40, H: 26, SB: 27
S76 DET: GP: 4, G: 1, A: 2, P: 3, +/-: -2, SH: 8, H: 8, SB: 8
------------------------------------------------------------

I watched Goon because I am a stereotype and adore it

by @NUCK @QuantumCowboy @engimatic @GLU @FlappyGiraffe @karey

Maxim Poulin || D || Winnipeg Jets || Kelowna Knights
Age: 19
Height: 6'1"
Weight: 205 lbs
Number: 52
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Career Statistics:
S38 GP 50, G 6, A 15, +8, PIM 32, HIT 52, SB 27
S39
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Playoff Statistics:
S37 GP 6, A 1, -2, PIM 2, HIT 4, SB 4
S38 GP 6, G 2, +1, PIM 0, HIT 5, SB 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Transactions/Achievements
S37 Free Agent Signed to Mammoths
S38 8th Overall to the Kelowna Knights
S38 Gold Medal Winner as a Rookie - Russia
S39 23rd Overall to the Winnipeg Jets
S40 Win Four Star Cup
S41 Win Four Star Cup
S42 Called up to Winnipeg Jets

l

Zinaida "Zina" Titova || ex-SFP Co || LW
Age: 20
Height: 5'5"
Weight: 150 lbs
Number: 16
------------------------------------------------------------
SMJHL
S34 Made Captain of the Mammoths
------------------------------------------------------------
Transactions:
S31 Signed with Montreal Militia
S32 Drafted 10th to Colorado Mammoths
S33 Drafted 17th to Seattle Riot
S35 Traded to Portland
S36 MIA with Mob, Retired
Jersey retired with Mammoths S38

7/10 - Now You See Me is a tough film. Undeniably, it is entertaining. Its tricky magicians put on one hell of a show and manage to distract the audience just enough to make you look away from the clunky execution of filmmaking behind the scenes. Its characters are bad. Its plot is cliche. Once you figure out what the trick up the film's sleeve is, the magic does disappear some. Plotholes, likely, abound. Yet, the sleight of hand and wool over our eyes is thoroughly enjoyable. It is fun to be tricked in this way because of the show that goes on. The reveal, the mystery, and the entire show put on by the film is more than enough to make me not overly concerned about the film's faults under the hood. The thing runs on pure adrenaline, even if the engine is bone dry and the brakes are shot.

With a great cast turning in charismatic performances, this fervent energy put forth by Now You See Me is greatly impacted by this cast. Having a great time, this large cast of talented actors have minor characters to chew on, but they play them incredibly well and breathe life into this film. While director Louis Letterier is largely struggling to keep up with the magic of the tale, the actors are always game and hamming it up in their roles. In particular, Woody Harrelson is perfectly cast and his performance underscores why he is perfect for this wise cracking mentalist. Alongside him, Jesse Eisenberg is great as a self-assured jerk, which is another great piece of casting. That said, how dare he call Isla Fisher fat. Has he seen her? If she's fat, then every woman is fat. That said, the fun lines and actors do blind us to how horrible these characters truly are. They are not paper thin, they are non-existent. The casting is so good because the actors just act according to their typecast. There is no nuance and no character development.

The plot, likewise, is all a ruse. The compelling premise is great and Letterier has a lot of fun with it throughout the film. Constant twists and surprises along the way keep the film feeling fresh and engaging. It is a film with a great imagination and lots of tricks in its bag. However, it does all cover up a thin plot. The end result is hard to wrap your brain around, half because the distractions and magic were so good and half because the plot makes no sense. The former outweighs the latter, however, because of the aforementioned energy and adrenaline of the film. Without this energy, the problems would be far more detrimental than they are, but it is hard to deny that the film is incredibly entertaining with the mystery and confusion of the plot being nothing more than part of its appeal. A good magic trick leaves you guessing and shocked with no clue as how it was pulled off. The film itself is just like this with the film being more about the experience and tricks it pulls, instead of whatever is up its sleeves.

The film does suffer from the bad romance between Mark Ruffalo and Melanie Laurent. They have some chemistry, but it is very cheesy and adds nothing to the film whatsoever. It is not cute and it does not add depth. It merely distracts from the good part of the film - the magic - and makes me realize just how truly awful this film is and deserves to be derided far more than it was. Fortunately, this is only a small part of the film so I can write it off and move it out of my mind while focusing on the more positive aspects of this film.

A bad, thinly plotted, thinly written, and distracting film, the greatest trick Now You See Me pulls it making me thoroughly enjoy it. For all of its faults, the film is the kind of summer film with serious pizzazz that rides on the charisma of its actors and the magic it creates. Now You See Me may not be good, but it is incredibly fun with infectious energy that makes you willing to look past its litany of faults.



7/10 - Witness is an incredibly methodical and thoughtful film by director Peter Weir. Described as a crime thriller, it may be more accurately described as a drama. Arriving in an Amish town after a young boy witnesses a murder in Philadelphia, Detective John Book (Harrison Ford) is forced to hide out with the boy's family to avoid detection from the dirty cops he has uncovered with the boy's help. Along the way, this big city cop with secular ways of doing so strikes up a romance with Rachel Lapp (Kelly McGillis), an Amish girl with limited exposure to the outside world. Though Peter Weir's film is often incredibly understated and its crime element is compelling, its musings on the difference between city life and the Amish is obvious and its ending is a bit too blunt.

First, the good. The romance between John and Rachel is subdued, restrained, and powerful. Of all the moments in this film, the simple looks between the two as the stare at one another is incredible. Weir gives us the climactic kiss, but even then, he refuses to let the lovers lose sight of reality. Instead of just having them move mountains to be together, the two are forced to face facts and realize things could never work. John is a hardened big city cop who has been raised in the world. Rachel is a woman who is Amish, she keeps the house, and she makes lemonade. That is her day. She was raised in relative seclusion in a very plain society. The two are simply too different for love to every really blossom or be prosperous between the two of them. Weir's films are often elusive to me in the pay-off, but here, this portion is so tremendously written that its subdued and grounded nature is endearing, painful, and real.

The film also benefits from great characters. John Book and Rachel Lapp makes for great and realistic lovers. But, aside from that, their characters are well developed. Book, introduced as a hard nosed city cop, is also quite gentle and caring. He is hardened to the world and carries a gun, but merely wants justice and has a clear moral compass. He is not a man that will stray from the path of justice for quick pay-offs. Rather, he will bide his time, gather evidence, and is open to believing the truth. This is underscored when young Samuel Lapp (Lukas Haas) identifies the man he saw as a killer. He accepts this and pursues it, in spite of the heat it will bring on him. For this, he is an incredibly brave man. On the flip side, Rachel is a woman that has walked with God all her life. Her husband recently died and she is Samuel's mother. She does what is expected of her and nothing more. She may be restrained and restricted, but shows that she can be a passionate person, if only her society allowed for her to be one. Unfortunately, her whole life is there and it is not something she wants to lose. This sense of being trapped by circumstances is a painful one to watch unfold, but Weir's ability to step out of focus and give to his two absolutely brilliant stars is admirable and lends the film serious gravitas.

Unfortunately, the ending does betray this somewhat. Though a reserved film, its ending is far too elaborate. It has complex choreography and set pieces as the guilty parties close in on John Book and look to silence him. It is more akin to a thriller in these sequences, which is what it is billed as, but it feels as though it betrays the essence of the first and second act. A slow, beautiful look at a man and woman from different worlds gives way to a suspenseful third act. This unfortunate diversion detracts from the overall film, but is also oddly inconclusive in the communication of its meaning. As with all "fish out of water" type films, the two sides learn from one another. John learns community, hard work, and humility. Rachel and the Amish learn about passion, know-how, and strength. It is underscored in the final sequence where John does kill the main villain. He merely takes his gun away and leaves him for the cops. In an earlier conversation, an elder explains to young Samuel that the Amish are not to kill and that guns are only meant for those who wish to kill. It is not a person's place to judge who must die and who is good or bad. We are simply ill-equipped to judge a person on those qualities. As such, John - demonstrating that he has learned - does not kill the man. Instead, the man loses out to John and the dozens of Amish men who have shown up to assist the Lapp family in their time of need. This scene is powerful and shows the strength of this community and its familial bonds. It is a sense of community and togetherness not seen in the big city. Yet, it stands juxtaposed to the scene immediately prior where John kills two other would be attackers. It may be in self-defense, but the elder Amish men made it quite clear that killing is not good regardless of whether or not it was in self-defense or to "preserve the good". So, did John learn or did he not? The film's ending is inconclusive, but given that it ends with him learning to leave things up to God at the end, it is clear Weir hoped to communicate that he did learn. Unfortunately, the film's ending is muddled in a sense and instead relies on an overt and hamfisted final image that - while powerful - is far too blunt of an approach and feels forced.

That said, the first two acts of the film are brilliant, if slow. This is not a riveting or typical Harrison Ford film. Rather, it is a slow burn film that really packs a lot of emotional power in those first two acts and it benefits tremendously from this. With terrific performances from Ford and McGillis to its credit, the film is also an incredibly intimate look at the daily life of the Amish and the troubles they put up with it in regards to locals or tourists. With a powerfully subtle - so subtle that if you look away, you could miss it - romance at the core of this "crime thriller", Witness is an understated film that will likely reveal its beauty better in repeat viewings.



8/10 - A brutal look at desperation and the human will to survive at all odds, They Shoot Horses, Don't They is a haunting film from director Sydney Pollack. Set during a dance marathon during the depression, in which contestants dance until they no longer can as couples for $750 a piece, the film is merely allegorical. As Pollack hints at the beginning and brings it back together again at the end, the poor folks on display are merely dancing for their lives. There is no dance marathon. The dance marathon is their life. They must compete against one another for the limited resources and, even if they win, they are forced to suffer and pay for that "victory". People die, people collapse, and people quit. Life is hard and demanding, never letting up even when you desperately need a rest. For those in the depression, the film shows how they must promote themselves and act like show monkeys in the hopes of catching the eye of somebody with wealth.

As the film progresses, contestants continue to wilt away. The hours reach the 1,000s and people are keeling over, yet life keeps demanding more of them. Forced to run, constantly move, and not allowed to sleep for too long, the film shows how life never ceases to place hurdles in front of all of us, especially the poor. For those who are behind already, the struggle to catch up becomes even harder when the target and finish line keep moving. There is no way to catch up without a set target and the film underscores this with no defined ending to the dance marathon, as it can go on and on until one couple finally emerges "victorious". Unfortunately for them, winning is no win as the target will, unexpectedly, move again as learned by Gloria (Jane Fonda) and Robert (Michael Sazzarin). This is not a marathon that can be won and neither is life with both leaving people with no easy way out for anybody. Either you give your life, take your life, or sell your life. All of these are portrayed here with death, suicide, and people striking it small with bit parts in movies.

Depressing and thoroughly haunting, the film is set during the depression, but could be set now. Recently, I saw an interview on television with a woman from Kentucky who voted for Trump. She credits Obama with helping some people, but that his policies did not help her. She thoroughly believes Trump will help her escape poverty. Yet, the most harrowing part of the interview is when she asks, "Why must my children work two jobs a piece to get by and not yours?" I paraphrased a bit, but that was the gist of what she asked. This plight of the poor and disenfranchised is one that continues now and has led to desperation akin to what is depicted here. The characters in They Shoot Horses, Don't They are on their last leg. No matter how humiliating, they will do anything they can to attract the attention of the audience and gain sponsors and supporters. They will sell themselves for this success because, otherwise, living is both too hard and impossible.

The actors truly sell this incredibly well with all of them playing characters at their wits end. They are at each other's throats and shows the desperation. The final scene between Fonda and Sazzarin is impeccable, emotionally raw, and tinged with desperation and depression. Pollack's direction is unshowy, as he lets the characters do the talking. They communicate what is needed and portray it brilliantly. However, he gives the perfect weight to emotionally power scenes. None of them are comical or overdone. Rather, they are raw, authentic, and haunting to watch occur. The pain shown in this film is not always easy to watch, even if it lacks a more visceral nature. Rather, it is this emotional pain that begs the question as to why these people must suffer. If we shoot horses that are suffering and in pain, why not humans as well? There is no way back for them, even if they are not terminally ill or in physical pain. The emotional pain life has given them, the demand, and the exhaustion have left these people at rock bottom.

Haunting, tragic, and relevant to this day, They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is largely allegorical for life, creating a parallel between the marathon, its demands, and the inability to escape from its reach and life itself. The pain, the demands, and the hoops we must jump through to become noticed are given weight, power, and pain in this film from Sydney Pollack. Yowzah does this one ever hurt to watch though, as its portrayal of desperation and depression goes hand-in-hand and never ceases to hurt.



9/10 - With each passing David Cronenberg that I watch, I become convinced that my latest viewing in his filmography may just be the weirdest one yet. Naked Lunch may live up to this billing, at least until I watch another Cronenberg film. What billing is does live up to is that, as of now, it is my favorite film of his. Surreal, dark, and defying interpretation, Naked Lunch is a nut that is not just tough to crack, but it fights back. It is a film that, naively, I believed I had pinned down as we neared the ending. However, the one thing the film left me with, above all else, is to exterminate rational thought. To approach this one rationally is to approach it wrong. It is not a rational film, just as the world around us is highly irrational. It is the job of the writer to capture this irrationality and put it on display, as William Burroughs has so brilliantly done in his semi-autobiographical Naked Lunch.

After killing his wife accidentally via "William Tell" trick, William Lee (Peter Weller) begins subconsciously writing a novel at the same time he gets caught up in world of governmental secrets exposed to him by his typewriter, which transforms into a bug. This is brought to his attention when he becomes addicted to a bug killing powder that, as his now deceased wife eloquently explained, "Makes you feel like a bug." Rationally, one could argue that the film is merely a result of his drug use. They are hallucinations, as William believes, that do not really exist. Yet, there is so much evidence that these things do exist that it causes cognitive dissonance. There is no way these things could be real, right? Well, it is a David Cronenberg film, so of course these things could be real.

Irrationally, the film makes a lot of sense and its purpose is quite clear. It is semi-autobiographical on the part of Burroughs, who has a drug addict, writer, and convicted of manslaughter for pulling a "William Tell" trick and accidentally shooting his wife in the head. His novel, published in 1959, was incredibly controversial. Yet, in essence, the film is about writing and writers. The gateway to this alternate universe is the typewriter. From there, William receives his missions and, apparently, writes a stellar novel. Writers live in their own minds. To tell a story, one must delve deep within themselves and find a story worth telling that they could visualize. William's tale, therefore, is real. All of it. Every odd encounter is merely part of the writing process and the path his brain takes in order to spit out this novel of his. These visualizations and alternate reality are merely the high given to him by writing and living on the literary edge. Thus, he is addicted to writing and the high he receives from the written word. His world and the film itself is autobiographical of Burroughs beyond the similar life details. Rather, this is his world. Accentuated by drug use, Naked Lunch is the mind of a writer given to other writer's to let them know they are not crazy. Writing is a mad science to a degree and this film articulates the intricacies and oddities that the mind goes through when writing. In essence, writing is a drug that grants you a passport to an alternate reality. Yet, it is a bug that refuses to be exterminated and an itch that simply must be scratched.

To expose his story, in Naked Lunch this is Interzone, a writer must go undercover. Yet, he can lose sight of himself and begin to believe in his own cover story. By doing this, he loses sight of reality and of who he actually is in the real world. The fake story, Interzone, is one that he merely experiences and delves into when he needs to write. William realizes that he is losing sight of reality in the film when he cries on the ground after saying goodbye to two friends, fearful that he will never see them again. This fear comes from the knowledge that he is losing sight of reality. The high and power given to him through storytelling is one that makes the real world feel like a poor imitation of the reality he has carved for himself by himself. This is why the writers here are obsessed with their typewriters. It is their needle. Their vial. The instrument used to make them feel real and enter reality once more. As such, it is addictive.

The film itself, while defying rational thought, it is also about the extermination of rational thought. Writing enters us into a world of fiction. It defies rational thought and can be surreal. It can depict reality according to the artist. This ties together two scenes in the film. One, the opening where William's two friends are speaking about writing. One argues that rewriting is a must, while the other says it is a sin because it betrays your original thoughts. William says then that all rational thought must be exterminated. Later, Tom Frost (Ian Holm) communicates to William without his lips. His lips say something else as his words talk to him about consciousness and the killing of his wife. In essence, these two come together and make sense to a degree. Via Burroughs, Naked Lunch argues that writing must not occur consciously. William has no idea he is writing a novel. Writing must also not occur rationally. Along these lines, the film just flies by with outrageous moments that seem to defy logic and probability. How could these things exist in a rational and sane world? Well, they could not most likely. Writing is an unconscious act that defies rationality. It is a stream of thought where the brain simply spills itself onto a page. One of William's typewriters does not even have a page insert and he cannot see what he is writing into the head of the bug. It does not matter what he writers. His writing is unconscious and disconnected from himself. This is why it can feel like a covert action from a hidden government entity. It is not of you, it is of the mind. Thus, to be a successful writer, one cannot think about writing or what they are writing. They must simply give themselves over to the writing instrument and allow it to guide their hands to the right buttons and the right story. The best stories are unconscious and the product of irrational thought where the author does not simply follow conventions of storytelling. Rather, the author gives himself over to an unseen entity that writes the words for him and takes the story into directions thought impossible or improbable. Naked Lunch is a visualization of this belief and the poster is as well where the author and typewriter are shown to be one. The typewriter is the eyes, mouth, and nose, with which the author sees, speaks about, and smells the world. It is the gateway with which he feels and experiences the world, defying the definitions of reality experienced by any other person.

Hypnotic, surreal, and Cronenberg to the core, Naked Lunch is very weird, but only if you view it rationally. Viewed correctly - irrationally - Naked Lunch is actually not that weird. That said, it is a trip and a psychotic drug experience that takes the viewer deep into the mind of a writer. It defies definition and, though I offered one here, it an onion that be pealed in many ways. However, like an onion, it does pack a punch and will make you suffer for cutting it and pealing its layers.



4/10 - Self-indulgent and self-assured, All That Jazz is a self-portrait by Bob Fosse, in which he is portrayed as Joe Gideon (Roy Scheider). Split between a comedy film he is editing and a Broadway musical he is beginning to choreograph and cast, Gideon is confronted by the Angel of Death (Jessica Lange) and by his hard living life filled with drugs, booze, smoking, and women. With Joe having heart issues and being forced to face his own mortality, his life comes back to haunt him. Unfortunately, Bob Fosse's direction of his own tale is far too self-indulgent, obvious, and unenjoyable. As Joe's health declines, the film feels more like self-deprecation and a man feeling remorse only because of his circumstances. He is a character that is impossible to like and one that we cannot root for, in large part because of Fosse's own negative characterization of himself. Directed by this self-hatred, All That Jazz just feels like a therapist sob session in movie form.

My biggest problem with the film is the last hour to half hour or so for a variety of reasons. One, the constant overlaying of the sequence from his comedy film that he was editing earlier in the film. Films that do not trust their audience to put things together on their own are the scourge of cinema. I hate being treated like a moron and this film feels like Fosse is looking at me forlornly and says, "I am sorry, but you just do not get it." Thus, this monologue sequence in which a standup comedian describes the five stages of death is played every five minutes - not an exaggeration - for the last hour or so. Joe gets sick and battles with death. This is clear as he hallucinates on a hospital bed and has open heart surgery. We know things are not going well for him and that he is near death. Yet, the film needs to keep reminding us that he is going through the five stages of death. We are unable to put it together ourselves or remember earlier in the film at all. Doing it once, is maybe understandable. Just to refresh us and alert us that this is set to be important. Otherwise, we may write it off. That is fine. However, Fosse overdoes it significantly and beats the viewer over the head with this quote to the point that I wanted to punch the comedian in the face and shut off the film. I did not need to see it 1,000 times to get the point that Joe is going through the stages of death.

Second, the final musical number. While the music is good throughout, this sequence really underscores why this film is self-indulgent. For Joe Gideon, he is the center of his own world. Nobody else matters and he acts in his own self-interest throughout. As mentioned, this feels like Fosse feeling sorry for himself throughout the film, which is equally as aggravating. That aside, this musical number goes on for way too long and is far too over the top. People selfishly expect the world to change with their death. But, no, things will keep going on. By making such an extravagant ending that goes on for as long as it does, Fosse seems to be making a celebration of his own demise and forgiving himself for his own sins on behalf of those he wronged. This celebration for himself at the time of his death is Fosse at his most self-indulgent in this film and highlights his unwillingness to share the spotlight. Not only are other characters marginalized, but he even has a conversation with himself on his death bed. A prime chance to recognize his own faults, he instead plays into them and expects to just put on a show for everybody else regardless.

Fosse, in his spate of self-indulgence, further spirals out of control during the insurance negotiations and open heart surgery sequence, in which he cross cuts between the two. Joe Gideon is the focus of the show and always has been. After this, a fan sees fellow director Lucas Sergeant (John Lithgow) and declares that he is her second favorite director after Gideon. Fosse cannot stop kissing his own character's ass for the life of him. He is a bad man who cheats on his wife, yet he makes excuses for this behavior and questions why fidelity is a good thing. He refuses to admit he leads women on and uses them for their bodies. He may be a great choreographer and director, but he is a remorseless asshole. Even his own mortality cannot stop his own selfishness and self-love. Joe is the kind of guy that sleeps with women and tosses them away because he cannot sleep with himself and keeps seeking somebody who is just as good as he thinks as he is. Unfortunately, nobody can top his own perception of himself. In the director's chair, Fosse depicts this asshole and feels sorry for himself and he tries to create sympathy for this loser as we watch the world kiss his feet and Joe sip his own kool-aid. Fosse is physically incapable of criticizing himself and the film suffers mightily for it, hence why it feels like an expensive pity party. Fosse begs you to sympathize for Joe Gideon because he cannot rationalize his actions either. To sympathize with Joe is to let him off the hook and I refuse to do so. Fosse is apparently beginning to feel remorse and is begging for forgiveness by seeming to portray his character negatively, but he always follow up a negative moment with a scene that is self-affirmative and defensive.

All That Jazz does have a couple redeeming qualities though. It has great music and Roy Scheider is phenomenal. The cinematography and choreography are also all top-notch, even if the sex-filled number is annoying and tedious. There are many scenes that go on for too long in the second half, but the first half is littered with scenes that I wish could go on forever. Here, Joe Gideon is bearable and a great dancing instructor. You can see how hard working he is and how passionate of a man he can be. Unfortunately, he has his shortcomings and these come to pass in the second half with nary any critique of these actions. That said, the music and the acting is really what saves this one and sells it as being anything but a self-indulgent vanity picture. Sadly, this is not enough to help it overcome its litany of faults.

Self-indulgent, vain, and unapologetic, All That Jazz seems to be Bob Fosse's way of showing he is not all that bad, in spite of his personal faults. He refuses to own these faults and instead beats you over the head with his supposed brilliance. Worse, he does trust us to understand he is dying in this film and the stages of death discussed in the film, so he beats you over the head with it repeatedly until you, the moronic viewer, can actually begin to comprehend what he is doing. Because, ya know, he is just so damn brilliant and talented. All That Jazz is ultimately insipid, self-assured, and annoyingly self-reflexive. It is a film with style, visual flair, and musical brilliance, but it lacks a soul and suffers from cinematic angina that causes it to have a massive heart attack when it realizes it may not be as brilliant as previously assumed.



8/10 - The Outlaw Josey Wales is the first of Clint Eastwood's revionist westerns, though not his first western. Telling the story of a man fighting against the Union after they burned down his home and killed his family, the film is vintage Eastwood. A no nonsense film with a stoic performance from the man himself, the film is riveting, engrossing, and everything one can expect from an Eastwood western. Methodical and a thorough anti-war film, The Outlaw Josey Wales is a revenge film in many ways as Wales waits to confront the man who killed his family in the name of the Union.

The film gets its anti-war kick from the characterization of both sides. Nobody is left unscathed in this film. The Union are shown to be barbarians. They may be fighting against slavery, but are bad man who are racist to the core and wish harm on the Indians. They kill all opposition, such as Josey Wales, without mercy. They kill without reason just for stepping in their way. They are brutal savages. Unfortunately, so are the Confederates. Not only are they slave holders, but they betray Josey Wales to the Union. They also help in the rounding up and execution of those who do not submit to the Union. They are traitors and betray people out of their own self-interest. In this way, this is a very cynical film by Eastwood as he shows how both sides are bad and are out for themselves, not for country. Though there may be good men on both sides, the leaders are corrupt and not people to be trusted.

This same thing is portrayed through the Indians. The white men are not all bad. For example, Josey Wales is fine and enters into agreements with the Indians and even partners up with one, Lone Watie (Chief Dan George). However, many white men kill Indians and Eastwood shows this as he and Lone are approached by a man selling Indian scalps. Of course though, Indians do kill white men from time to time. There are no innocents on either side, but Eastwood film is a revisionist western. It shows that white men and the Indians can get along and if anybody were the savages in the wild west, it was the whites who were brutal to themselves and the natives. With no regard for human life, the white men are the villains here. Though the film seems to be setting up a battle with the Comanche, it quickly dissipates and peace is made, whereas peace cannot be made between Josey and the white Union men after him.

Terrifically acted across the board, The Outlaw Josey Wales is one of a string of revionist westerns by Eastwood and is a terrific film. The Sergio Leone influence can be certainly seen in the climactic scene at the end where Eastwood does close-ups of all the men's faces, akin to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The slow pace and emphasis on Eastwood's largely silent, stoic, and brave character, the film is largely a celebration of the legends and heroes of the old west. Though he does show the bad guys in equal measure, it is certainly no Robert Altman revisionist western. Whereas Altman criticizes heroes, Eastwood's film largely celebrates them, picking them out amongst the sea of evildoers. Though forever changed by what he has seen, Josey Wales largely gets a happy ending as he is able to stay with Laura Lee (Sondra Locke) and is revered in the nearby town of Santa Rio. He gets a bit of a hero's welcome and is let off the hook for his heroic actions in the face of the men who meant him harm.

Gorgeously shot, the film is a terrific western, great entertainment, and a stirring example of what Eastwood is capable of as a director. This is a film that stands the test of time and remains as eminently watchable in 2017 as it was in 1976.



6/10 - The Kentucky Fried Movie is an incredibly mixed bag. The film starts off hot, but a long 30 minute entry into this anthology skit bogs it down and then the return to the frenetic start is not nearly as funny as it was in the beginning. It feels like a film version of Saturday Night Live and, similarly, there are some hits and there are some misses. That said, the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams comedy is readily apparent here and always terrific fun, even if it lacks the polish it would have in their later films.

The best skits in the film comes in the beginning. With the comedy trio's typical visual gags, juvenile humor, and penchant for random humor, The Kentucky Fried Movie's opening had me in stitches. "Argon Oil", "AM Today", "Catholic High School Girls in Trouble", and "The Wonderful World of Sex" have unpredictable visual gags that come at you fast and furious. The film has the most fun in these skits and really soars comedically. These four scenes prominently feature the brand of comedy that the comedy trio would master for Airplane! as they are exploitative, sexist, and slightly racist, yet undeniably fun. The skits have great timing as well and play out jokes perfectly, while the skits themselves never go on for too long and wear out their welcome.

That said, the film loses steam with the Enter the Dragon parody, "A Fistful of Yen". It is funny, but it is 30 minutes long. For an anthology that is about 80 minutes long where the next longest skit is just six minutes, having one that goes on for 30 minutes is egregious and inexcusable. It does have some funny gags, but is far too much of a parody and too racist to be acceptable and enjoyable. The film tosses in further references at the end, but nothing really works too hot in this skit aside from some funny gags and jokes along the way. Nothing about this section was worthy of being nearly half the movie. If it were the whole movie, it would have gotten a 1/10 rating.

After "A Fistful of Yen", The Kentucky Fried Movie does add in a few solid skits at the end. Though none as good as the aforementioned openers, the final few including "United Appeal for the Dead" and "Eyewitness News" are strong with good levels of absurdity and good, well-timed references between the two. Unfortunately, while they are funny, the rest of the skits in the second half largely fall flat and simply do not work. This is a shame given the strong start.

The Kentucky Fried Movie is a dumb, juvenile, crass, sexist, and racist film that specializes in low-brow humor. For anybody familiar with the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams, this is perfect for one of their films and, as an early entry in their filmography, the film is occasionally hilarious. The opening shows their comedic brilliance as, in spite of the film's stupidity, it is undeniably fun and entertaining. Unfortunately, a skit that goes on for way too long in the middle and the weak finale leave this as a film that opens with a roar and goes out with a whimper.



8/10 - Going into watching Lion, I expected a cliched feel good film. I expected it to be overly manipulative and, while a solid film, nothing particularly special. My expectations were misguided, however. A powerful, spiritual, and lyrical journey to find one's own identity, Lion is a film that snuck up on me, but left me in absolute ruins. The power of this film is not to be understated as Lion is a film that never ceases to be powerful and emotionally impactful. It discards the cliches, develops characters, and is a film whose emotional power is well earned and never manipulative. For a feature-length debut for director Garth Davis, Lion is a film with incredible strength, gravitas, and a film that is a full-fledged drama that shows the potential of feel-good cinema.

Refusing to be bottled into cliches, Lion is a film that finds power from the very beginning. Set in India, young Saroo (Sunny Pawar) is lost on a train and winds up 1,600 KM away from home. Home, a very small place in rural India, is the polar opposite in terms of language and build than Calcutta, which is where he winds up. Dodging child traffickers and abuse left and right, this sequence not only highlights Saroo's journey, but the journey of other children. As the epilogue describes, 80,000 Indian children go missing each year. This journey to Calcutta experienced by Saroo highlights the abominable conditions of homeless children in India. Heartbreakingly enough, there are a large number of them he encounters who are rounded up by nefarious characters. Even in the orphanage, the treatment is horrendous. However, Saroo's life is changed when he is adopted by John (David Menham) and Sue (Nicole Kidman). An Australian couple, Sue had a vision that she would adopt an Indian child and, sure enough, she turned her vision into a reality with Saroo. In his portrayal of Saroo, Sunny Pawar is brilliant. Obviously, he is adorable. But, he never seems to be acting. This feels like his life and one that he is familiar with, even subconsciously. Pawar cannot be older than five or so, but he is phenomenal in this film and gives a natural performance for a film that demands one. His confusion and authenticity lends the film considerable gravity, but so does the introduction of his adoptive brother Mantosh. Adopted by John and Sue a year after Saroo, Mantosh is broken. Whatever happened to him and whatever he saw has left him shattered internally, constantly hitting himself when he is upset. Though this is a film about Saroo finding his birth parents, weight is given to Mantosh's role in the film. Highlighting just how lucky Saroo was to escape his circumstances unscathed, Mantosh is a sobering adult. He stays away from his parents and Saroo because he knows how bad he is, which is heartbreaking. Divian Ladwa is brilliant in this relatively small role and makes the most of this broken man.

The film, after initially showing Saroo getting used to life in Australia, jumps ahead to Saroo as an adult (Dev Patel). Dating Lucy (Rooney Mara), the duo "meet cute", but that is not hard when Rooney Mara is in the film. Together, Patel and Mara have insatiable chemistry and the two work terrifically well together. Rising above the classic cliche of leaving Lucy as just Saroo's girlfriend with no grit of her own, Lion ensures that it is clear Lucy has a life of her own (even if she is fake). She has her own emotions, passions, and interests. Suddenly, however, these diverge when Saroo becomes obsessed with finding his birth parents. Though perhaps going on for too long, Saroo's descent into anger, resentment, and panic as he searches fervently on Google Earth for any clue as to where his family could be. He resents himself for not finding them sooner and can only imagine the pain and anguish felt by his mother. The film is incredibly somber in these moments, punctuated by the score by Hauschka and Dustin O'Halloran. Nominated for Best Original Score, the score may be a bit too noticeable at times, but it is brilliantly orchestrated in spite of that concern.

However, the moment we are all waiting for is Saroo finding his birth mother. The moment is chilling. It is one of the most powerful scenes put in a film all year. Yes, it is manipulative. Yes, it is sentimental. But dammit, I almost cried. I had to fight back the tears to be able to still watch. The look on his mother's face, the embrace, her hand running through his hair and on his face, the little peck on the forehead Saroo gives her, UGH. I was in ruins. There is no way to deny this film's power in this moment. It may be manipulative and something out of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition after Ty Pennington shouts, "Move. That. Bus!", but man is it ever effective. It is a sequence that has anticipation, power, and one where director Garth Davis steps back and allows us to feel the full power of the moment. Yet, he is not done making my eyes wage war on the tears. Following it up with a scene where Saroo calls his adoptive parents and reassures them that he still loves them and that his birth mother understands he views them as his family, man oh man. Nicole Kidman and David Wenham nail this scene on the receiving end as they both hold back tears as their adoptive son expresses his love for them. This understanding and connection between the adopted parents and the adopted child is impeccably captured here and fully met with the brute emotional force.

However, while the emotional power is found full bore in those final moments, Garth Davis shows incredible prowess by finding the emotion and power in small moments. Sue bathing young Saroo for the first time and wishing he will tell her his story. Young Saroo calling out for his brother in fear. Young Saroo wiping away Sue's tears. Sue explaining her vision to Saroo and explaining that they simply wanted him. Saroo seeing a food that he had last seen with his brother not long before he went missing. This film is littered with these moments and the weight is never lost on Davis. Rather than manipulating or turning it into schmaltzy nonsense, he gives these moments room to breathe and lets his actors do the communicating for him. In return, Dev Patel and Nicole Kidman turn in performances that give me chills to even think about. In particular, Kidman is stunning as the emotionally raw, fragile, and passionate Sue. The aforementioned scene with Saroo where she explains why her and John adopted their children is incredible. The tear in Kidman's eyes and around them show the exhaustion she feels as her two adopted kids shut her out to wrestle with their own demons. Of course, this is followed up with a short moment where Sue finds out Saroo wants to find his birth mother and she assures him she would support him all the way. Maybe I am easily moved, but this film's entirety just left me in ruins. If I had let myself give way and cry openly in the theater, I would have gotten through at least a full multi-pack of tissues (the kind found in wholesale stores with eight packs sold together). This movie is just that emotionally raw, emphatic, resonant, and powerful. It is more than just "Oscar bait". It is a journey to find own's self and, though our journeys may differ from Saroo's, it is an equally important one. The reassurances from Sue to Saroo and Mantosh that they do not need to go on it alone is just heartbreaking and truly hits home.

Davis' touch is largely felt in the way the story is told. His feature length debut, I hesitate to call much of the editing match cuts, but they are akin to that at times. From showing young Saroo getting hit on the head and matching it with Lucy rubbing Saroo's head, the film simply flows. It feels natural, authentic, and washes ashore like the tide. It is simply free flowing and poetic. Each cut comes at the appropriate time and transitions brilliantly into the new sequence. This gorgeous editing and natural flow given to the film is met in equal parts by the stunning cinematography. Greig Fraser turns India and Australia into his own personal canvas as he captures the beauty in nature. Matching the natural, authentic storytelling with gratuitously gorgeous shots of the trees, open terrain, and the sun, Fraser finds harmony with the editing and Davis' directorial work. Visually, the film has a power all its own that matches the narrative and written material of the film. While the latter are more obvious and apparent, the former serves as the backdrop for this emotionally spiritual journey and is a stunning collage of color and beauty in its own right.

Lion is a feel good film. Underscoring this with its epilogue of real life footage of the reuniting, the film is not challenging cinema. Yet, director Garth Davis lends the film power and terrific style, showing prowess far beyond his experience. Dev Patel and Nicole Kidman's performance match this with brilliant performances that rank among their very best. Rooney Mara's character is not resigned to just being the star's girlfriend, rather she is given a life and Mara breathes beauty and life into this opportunity. Yet, the film's tale of chance, reuniting families, and highlighting India's missing children issue finds incredible resonance. As previously mentioned, it is a film that connected with me on a deep emotional level. Though derided as cliched, simplistic, and manipulative, I found it to be a film that shows the power of feel-good cinema. It rises above the cliches, is gorgeously edited, shot, and written, and its more manipulative moments are well earned thanks to tremendous writing and acting. Lion may be seen as a film undeserving of its praise, but it is a film that provided one of the more moving and uplifting experiences I have had in a movie theater in a long time. It is not for everybody, but it is one that - in the moment - leaves an indelible mark on the viewer, regardless of if they have been touched by adoption. It is such an important and powerful tale, it will be able to reach you regardless of your upbringing, as everybody has wondered who they are, who they are meant to be, and what will become of them. For this reason, it is a film that exceeded all of my expectations and highlights the awe-inspiring wonder of our world.

6/10 - Where is the line between a messy and convoluted film and one that is brilliantly mind bending? Danny Boyle's Trance largely walks this line and, at times, proves to be properly phenomenal. At others, the film unravels and shows just how thin it was stretched by Boyle. Though stylish, compelling, and a truly trippy experience, Trance has some moments that simply do not add up and, even then, its plot is nothing more than Inception by way of Boyle's fast paced point of view. While proving to be a riveting experience at times with how Boyle constantly pulls the rug out from under you, it is merely a slice of entertainment that serves to divert you attention away from the sad twist awaiting you at the end. That said, it is a brilliantly shot film with a terrific visual style. Unfortunately, it simply does not add up to being an equally great film.

With a penchant for lens flares during dream/trance sequences, Danny Boyle's Trance is a gorgeous film. The lighting, translucent walls, and vibrant colors adorn this film at every turn and really make it a visually splendid endeavor. Boyle introduces a few oblique angles in this one of an apartment building, hinting at how things may go wrong in this place of residence. A beautifully taken shot, the glowing of the street lights on wet cobblestone and rock exterior of the building is a tremendous film. Even if it is a dangerous place, it is a place that beckons the viewer just as it beckons Simon (James McAvoy). Manipulated, confused, and lost from the very beginning, Simon is a man who is unaware of his past, his present, and what is truly real as a result of the hypnosis, hits on the head, and actions of his past. McAvoy is good in the role, even if it does not come close to the brilliance of his turn in Split. Alongside him, Vincent Cassel is slippery as an eel and Rosario Dawson goes fully nude (even down below) in a good role. Thus, the film is not just a mishmash of colors, but also a great opportunity for these actors and one they take full advantage of throughout.

Boyle infuses the film with his usual style. His fast paced film editing technique comes in handy here with quick cuts and a lot of panache behind the camera. Yet, the very peak of this film is the opening. The heist sequence during the art auction is brilliant. It is plotted out well, incredibly well captured, and drop dead tense. This is a film that comes out firing on all cylinders with a compelling first act that sets the entire plot into motion. Boyle also has considerable fun with the plot itself, allowing it to spiral out of control at times and become borderline messy and too convoluted. He embraces this and paints the film as a beautiful disaster at times to varying effect. That said, even when the film becomes too much and makes no sense, it is fun to watch Boyle fling everything at the wall without a care for what sticks and what does not stick. As a talented director, he is in full control of this insanity and, likely, a lot of it does not make sense to him either, but to try and understand this one would lead to simply not understanding the purpose of the film. It is a film that puts you in a trance and leads you down various allies. It is not to be understood, but rather, it is an exercise in visual style and fully dynamic.

SPOILERS

Unfortunately, the film does not always quite add up plot-wise. The biggest issue in Trance is the ending. The twist reveals that it was Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson) who had put Simon in a trance and led to him assisting in the art theft. She manipulated him and made him forget his past relationship with her in order to end his obsession and get rich off of the deal regardless. Yet, in the beginning, we see she does not know Simon. She plays it off that she does not in front of him, yes, but Boyle includes a scene where she looks up Simon on the internet and investigates recent news stories about him, including one about the heist. She acts like she does not know who he is, because if she knew who he was, she would have known about the heist and who Simon was without the help of Google. This is not something that is rectified and is something that seems odd. The film is subversive and tries to distract the viewer from fully understanding, but it becomes clear that the twist is added for shock value, rather than it actually making any sense with the rest of the film. There are hints - restaurant, the book, etc. - that do add up to the ending, but that internet search sequence is glaring and problematic.

END SPOILERS

Hypnotic, confusing, and a visual feast for the eyes, Danny Boyle's Trance does not always work, but it is a riveting film that provides solid entertainment throughout. It is a film that seems to be making things up as it goes, but for his part, Danny Boyle infuses incredible style and has a lot of fun with the mind bending psychological thriller.



8/10 - Woof. The Handmaiden is one perverse piece of eroticism. An erotic thriller that shows mastery of suspense akin to Alfred Hitchcock, but with a blending of eroticism akin to Brian De Palma, Paul Verhoeven, or Adrian Lyne, The Handmaiden is a brutally violent and erotic film. Blending eroticism with extreme violence like that found in films such as Basic Instinct, The Handmaiden is a lovingly crafted film that is equal parts horrifying and titillating throughout its run time. Though it suffers from Park Chan-wook's films always feeling too distant and disconnected (personal opinion), The Handmaiden's stark beauty is impossible to deny and this is what lifts it above his other films for me. That said, the plot's suspense and thrills are secondary to the visual beauty of this film, which is striking.

Changing the novel's location from Victorian England to Korea under Japanese rule, Park Chan-wook's film still feels Victorian. With the regality and the building design often reflecting the castles and mansions one could find in Victorian England, The Handmaiden still shows that influence. Yet, of course, these buildings are entirely Japanese/Korean. The interior design reflects this in the home of Uncle Kouzuki (Cho Jin-woong), as it is entirely Japanese and feels like something one could find in a film by Akira Kurosawa. Lavish, regal, and alive in its own rights, these buildings are intricate, detailed, and absolutely lovely. The interior and the exterior are gorgeous with the camera finding just the right ways to capture this beauty. Often shooting from behind the trees, the home is usually somewhat obscured in the darkness, instilling an ominous feeling about this place. The trees add to the distance communicated by the entire film, as Park Chan-wook never fully let's you in and keeps you an arm's length away from the proceedings. This is captured in the cinematography, but even then, the visuals are strikingly gorgeous.

This production design is further felt by the aforementioned cinematography that takes full advantage of the beauty on display. Every shot is gorgeous and lovingly crafted. Not a single frame of this film feels out of place and really flows together and is entirely engrossing. This is a dark, disturbing film, but the visuals communicate an odd beauty and romance to this violence and disturbing level of sexuality. Of course, it is benefited by the framing and staging. Every moment is precise, definitive, and decisive. Not a foot is put wrong in this film where each actor communicating their character brilliantly and breathing life into the film with every step they take. It is the movement of the characters that makes this a full-fledged visual masterpiece as it manages to add yet another layer to visual approach of this film. Beyond the production design, staging, and cinematography, the costume design is also brilliant with each design representing the lavish and royal lifestyle of its characters. The design's are intricate, well put together, and lovely to look at throughout the film.

Though an erotic psychological thriller with a penchant for violence and disturbing moments, The Handmaiden is also darkly comedic. For instance, one such comedy scene finds Sook-hee (Kim Tae-ri) holding up Lady Hideko (Kim Min-hee) to prevent her from hanging herself. Upon learning distressing news, she runs off to cry only to quickly realize she has left her Ladyship strangling herself from the branch. Additionally, the multiple depictions of tentacles and the octopus in the basement are hysterical tongue-in-cheek additions by Park. And of course, the scene where Hideko has intercourse - supposedly - with a knife. Really off-the-wall, uncensored, and truly outrageous moments that add some darkly comic twists to a film that is dark, dark, dark.

Sexually, The Handmaiden is very much like a Verhoeven film. Though more pristine and less gritty, the scenes are shot to titillate. Park Chan-wook exploits his seemingly lesbian characters for the enjoyment of male viewers with classic lesbian sex scenes occurring that, regardless of their practicality, exist solely to entertain the male audience. This is very much like what people like De Palma or Verhoeven would include in their film, though it would be shot differently. Park Chan-wook's stages these sex scenes almost symmetrically at times and very rigidly. The scenes are tense, sensual, and almost regal is how they appear and look. It feels more like a Todd Haynes sex scene from Carol in this regard, as it feels pristine. Now, of course, Haynes' lesbian sex moment is far more withdrawn and focused on the passion and love. It is intimate, not exploitative. The Handmaiden exploits its characters' sexuality for the purposes of male entertainment, which is a shame.

Though flawed and distant, The Handmaiden is the only film from Park Chan-wook that I can certainly say I liked without reservation. Stoker was pretty good, though not one I adored. Oldboy is an okay film, but simply not my style. The Handmaiden, however, is an often terrific film with great visuals and shocking sexuality unseen in Western cinema. That said, it does further solidify that Park Chan-wook is simply not my cup of tea compared to how others react to his films. They are fine, but nothing revolutionary.



7/10 - One of these days, these painfully cute romantic comedies will drive me up the wall. You've Got Mail is particularly egregious with Joe Fox (Tom Hanks) lying to Kathleen Kelly (Meg Ryan) throughout the film. I should hate this. I know that. It is really stupid and cheesy, but I cannot help myself. I keep watching these mushy and cute romantic comedies and I keep loving the blasted things. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan have insatiable chemistry and my heart is broken, ok not broken, but disheartened when I realize they stopped making movies together after this. I need more dammit. This is a tough film to review because it is so non-descript that there is really nothing to chew on. There is no meat here, as it is just cliched and capitalizing on the chemistry between the two and on Hanks' rising star power.

That said, the real highlight here is the chemistry. Hanks and Ryan are tremendous together. Their banter, negative encounters, and positive encounters, always feel authentic. They feel like real people and always feel connected to one another. Both turn in great performances as well, really displaying their respective charisma and maximizing on its potential in romantic comedies. Though Joe Fox is a jerk for lying, Hanks is such a charismatic actor, it is not hard to still want Kathleen to see past his awfulness.

Additionally, the film is a bit ahead of its time. Yes, the AOL dial-up is from the past and glorious, but meeting people online is more common nowadays and this film really captured that anxiety. Will they like me? What do they look like? There are ways to avoid it now, but some still do find themselves in this situation. Somehow, Nora Ephron captured this brilliantly with both characters being terrific in displaying the anxiety and, of course, Joe's reaction with his friend Kevin (Dave Chappelle) to seeing Kathleen waiting for him.

Interestingly, the film is also a compelling look at business. Book store rivals, Joe Fox is heir to the throne of a large company. Kathleen is heir to the wooden chair of a small storefront. The two are combative in business, hence why their meeting was so truly awkward and unlikely. Ephron plays on that angle a bit too much in the romance, hence the lying. But, in its portrayal of a big business steam rolling a small one, it shows both sides incredibly well. Yes, it is tragic to lose that small store that was always on the street and connected with the local people. However, the big store is not all bad. The employees may be less knowledgeable and management more disconnected, but it has larger reach and is more affordable. For books, this is a great thing as it allows reading to reach more people and the extra amenities in the store do foster community and establish the store as one that people would like to be in with a good book in front of them. Yet, it attracts incredibly negative attention for derailing popular local stores, even though they too provide a valuable service.

Impeccably cute, but a little grating at times, You've Got Mail is simply an excuse to watch Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan hang out for two hours. It may be surprising, but this has a lot of entertainment value on its own. Plus, did I mention how cute this film is? Ugh is it ever cute.



7/10 - An ode to mothers, The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio is a heartbreaking, heartwarming, and truly powerful tale of a suburban mother in the 1950s-1960s. Evelyn Ryan (Julianne Moore) is a real woman and the mother of the source material's author, Terry Ryan (portrayed in the film by Ellary Porterfield). The mother of 10 kids and constantly battling poverty, Evelyn competes in jingle contests. A nostalgic look at how this mother helped to ensure ends were met by being the best contest participant and constantly winning free goods, free food, and money, the film is a beautiful depiction of this incredibly strong woman that fought tooth and nail for her kids to eat at all costs.

Pairing together Julianne Moore in a starring role and Laura Dern in a supporting role with a female director, it quickly becomes clear that this film is about to be a feminist romp. It is glorious in this fashion as it shows just how horrible the conditions were for women in this era. They are restricted to the home. Men doubt they do anything at all and women themselves downplay what they do and their own intelligence. Meanwhile, when men are left with the kids, they are inept and incapable of relating to ther children, highlighting just how hard a mother's job was back then. Director Jane Anderson does a tremendous job not making the film preachy in this regard and instead shows how these women contribute, celebrating their accomplishments. They may not make the money, but they compete and raise the kids, which are crucial to the health and prosperity of the family. Yet, it also shows the toll it takes on the men with Kelly Ryan (Woody Harrelson) constantly battling his masculinity with co-workers mocking him for his wife's success as a contest entrant and his own inability to bring home enough money. She refuses to demonize the husband, however, instead opting to give a tender characterization of a broken man.

This broken man is one with a lot of anger. He hates himself thoroughly. His most egregious actions are fueled out of self-hatred and a low self-esteem. He feels like a chump for not being able to provide for his family, so he takes it out on himself in tremendous fashion. Watching a baseball game and getting blind with rage, drinking a six-pack daily, and locking the kids out of the house to cry on his own for fear his wife left him, are all moments that are incredibly powerful. Harrelson does a great job portraying this man that is so easy to hate and demonize, but both Evelyn and the director refuse to demonize him. He is a sympathetic character, if you can look past the rough exterior. For a man who carries himself so gruffly, he is a truly broken and shattered man on the inside and it is tragic to watch unfold.

Yet, the star here is Evelyn. Kelly is an alcoholic, self-deprecating, and filled with rage. The family can never get their head above water financially. The kids are mischievous and there are ten of them. But, through it all, Evelyn is smiling and happy. She loves her life, even with all of its faults. It is a testament to women's strength throughout in this regard as Evelyn is a bright star amidst this black sky. Julianne Moore brilliantly portrays this woman who gets absolutely nothing. She works hard and slaves everyday with nothing in return. She passionately wants a few things, but sacrifices day and night for her family. It is powerful and emotional to watch unfold and a struggle that is not lost on her children who bravely fight for her whenever Kelly gets mad. The bond between Evelyn and her children is gorgeously and gracefully portrayed throughout, with this bond being the real highlight of this film. Moore portrays Evelyn with equal grace, strength, and power throughout. Evelyn is a woman that, despite her restraining factors, is an inspirational to everybody for how she gives and gives without any expectation of getting something in return. This is why when she gets a few things from Kelly or her kids, the film becomes so powerful and moving as it is one of the few things she can actually call her own.

Terrifically written and acted, The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio is a beautiful ode to mothers and the sacrifices they make, while also being a depiction of the struggles faced by all suburban stay-at-home mothers in this era. It is a truly moving experience and though the film is not perfect, it is one that really packs an emotional punch.



8/10 - Slow paced and precise, John Huston's Key Largo is a terrific noir film that paired together Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall for the last time. Sticking them together alongside gangster Johnny Rocco (Edward G. Robinson) in the hurricane wracked Hotel Largo in Key Largo, Florida, the film is largely contained within the hotel and is a brilliantly staged and crafted noir film. Riding entirely on their characters, as the plotting is quite loose, the film tosses these people into a powder keg and waits to watch who explodes. Director John Huston let's the actors breathe and sweat freely as the hurricane bangs around outside. Tense, thrilling, and entirely engrossing, Key Largo is a terrific film noir with fun characters and a fun setting.

As always, Bogart and Bacall are terrific together, even if Huston never puts them together. Frank McCord (Bogart), is a former Army Major during WWII and knew Nora Temple's (Bacall) husband in the war. Passing through Key Largo as a floater, Frank had come to speak to both Nora and her father-in-law James Temple (Lionel Barrymore). However, upon arriving at the Temple's hotel (which was closed because it was the summer), there are mysterious men in the hotel also staying. As he learns, they are the henchmen of notorious gangster Johnny Rocco. Awaiting the arrival of some men who will buy product from them, Rocco's men quickly see to it that the situations spirals out of control. Brushing shoulders with the law, Native Americans, and a brutal hurricane, Key Largo is a film that is set to pop off at any moment and concludes with a brilliant finale on a boat. Tense, thrilling, and leaving you clutching the edge of your seat as Frank McCord faces down Johnny Rocco, the film's finale is one that cements it as a great film. However, its beginning is not be written off.

The tense moments in the end are matched with a sequence in the middle where Rocco gives Frank a gun and, essentially, challenges him to a duel. Frank refuses to shoot, however, as he does not value killing a man like Rocco or any man. It reveals a lot about his character as he is not just out for himself and only willing to kill those who get in his way, but a certain part of him clearly refuses to kill unless it is necessary. Later, he becomes potentially necessary and his beliefs regarding Rocco and his life changes. However, Frank McCord is a man who has seen death in war and does not wish to see more of it, unless required. Meanwhile, Nora is a sharp, astute woman who is unfortunately not given a huge role, but Bacall makes the most of it. She is passionate and, in her eyes, you can see just how much she loved her husband. Yet, Frank comes into her life and it is clear she is feeling passionately towards him. As the gangster, Edward G. Robinson is tremendous. Cigar chompingly brutal, Robinson is a classic gangster character and shows his know-how in the role, instilling fear and chills wherever he goes. He is a no nonsense kind of guy who always has a gun at the ready, but that is the only source of confidence he has. Take the gun away and he is nothing but a short, obese, and truly terrified man. Robinson plays this terrifically as an over-the-hill gangster hoping to relive his glory days.

The film is also quite kind to the Native American characters. They get abused and left outside during the hurricane, but they are really people. The film ensures they are painted as innocents caught in between Rocco and the Temples/McCord during their showdown, rather than any target of anger. They are innocent people. The film also hints that the whites in Florida have stolen the land from the Native Americans and establishes Mr. Temple as a man who goes out of his way to help them. In this way, Key Largo really is ahead of its time in its portrayal of Native Americans and is quite sympathetic to their cause in Florida and nationwide.

Terrifically engaging, even if quite slow, Key Largo is a film with great acting and a great setting. A fiery finale is the cherry on top of a tense and winding noir set on the exotic location of Key Largo. The film does also deserve some praise for the shots and depiction of the hurricane. I have no idea if it is real footage or was done on set, but regardless, it is impressive. The damage done inside and out are terrifically depicted and serves as a great backdrop for the storm brewing inside the hotel for the entirety of the film.



6/10 - Deathtrap is not so much a whodunnit as it is a film about whodunnits. It is incredibly meta as playwright Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) and student Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) ramble on about the murder plots they are living in at the time. Toying with turning it into a play called Deathtrap, but unfortunately revealing the truth behind the cover-up, the film is one that constantly defies expectations. It is loaded with twists and overacting, while also being dragged down by a bad ending with bad visuals. That said, Deathtrap is some easy fun throughout with Caine and Reeve having good chemistry together as the humor and mystery get terrifyingly meta. While not a great film, Deathtrap is enjoyable and one that is incredibly easy to enjoy.

After stumbling upon a tremendous script by a former student, Sidney Bruhl resolves to murder his former student. Concocting a plan with his wife Myra (Dyan Cannon), he invites poor Clifford over to execute the plan and steal his script. A complicated film from there on out, Deathtrap has a lot of moving parts, not unlike the rubiks cube in the poster. It is a complicated film at times with how fast the plot moves, but have no fear because the characters will invariably explain the plot to you in an attempt at meta humor. This meta humor rarely works as effectively as it should with the mystery being the main draw. How will it all end up? Who will end up victorious, even if they have blood on their hands? It is in the mystery that director Sidney Lumet's film finds success, as the film's mystery is compelling put together and really grips the viewer from the very beginning. The ending is a mystery and one that never tips its hand throughout the film, leaving the audience entirely in the dark as to what will occur. Plus, tongue-in-cheek references to how well past scenes worked for misleading the audience are somewhat funny and greatly appreciated.

However, Deathtrap's mystery is not perfect. The ending is pretty bad. The suspense and mystery lacks a great pay-off that is too nonsensical and comical to actually fit in tonally with the rest of the film. For such a well thought out plot, it sort of gives up at the end. Worse, the strobe lights are blinding. Set during a lightning storm, the power goes out leaving the characters to scramble around in the dark, only brightened by the lightning outside. This is overkill and left me fighting a headache and having to look away from the screen. It hurts and would probably cause a lot of issues for somebody with epilepsy. As such, this ending is not even visually appealing as it goes too overboard and gets so wrapped up in being meta, it forgets to actually tell a story beyond the story.

Deathtrap also suffers from the acting. Dyan Cannon is very bad in this film. She exclusively screams and screeches, making any scene without her pure bliss. She is horrific, but sadly, her co-stars are not great either. Michael Caine, typically a great actor, simply mishandles this one with an over-the-top performance. Christopher Reeve, not a great actor, rides his toned abs and torso to an average performance. Impressively, he does this all while looking like a male model from a men's winter fashion magazine. Unfortunately, he is the best this film has to offer in terms of acting, which may be an indicator as to one of Deathtrap's greatest weaknesses.

Ultimately, Deathtrap is a fun ride. It is enjoyably mysterious and meta at times, but it can become grating with the latter at times when it oversells that element. However, a bad ending and bad acting hold the film back and leave it as nothing more than enjoyable, yet forgettable, fun. Fortunately, it just so happens to be a lot of fun to experience and watch unfold.



8/10 - Spider is a film that left me feeling quite cold initially. Not nearly as weird as David Cronenberg's early work, Spider is a more reserved film with an hour and a half of Ralph Fiennes exclusively mumbling. He has a few lines, but mostly just mumbles those too. Thus, it was a hard film to pin down and truly wring enjoyment out of from beginning to end. However, the finale is what cements this as a brilliant work. Far more reserved and grounded than Cronenberg is known for, Spider is an exploration of the mind of a broken man. Why is he forced to live out his days in an asylum after being seemingly fine as a child? Well, Cronenberg gives you the unexpected answer in a finale that elevates the entire film into being a very good character study.

Mumbling, bumbling, and stumbling his way through the film, Dennis "Spider" Cleg (Ralph Fiennes) is a broken man. In a halfway home after leaving the asylum, he relives part of his childhood in his mind. Living with a devoted mother, Mrs. Cleg (Miranda Richardson), he has an alcoholic father Bill (Gabriel Byrne). His mediocre life gets worse when he believes he sees his father begin to find another woman attractive. Soon, this turn into a full blown affair and possible murder. This shakes the very core of the boy and, whatever mental issues he had before, become exacerbated and truly take hold. The boy is traumatized by what transpires and it leaves him turning into his own mind and tying strings around his room like a spider web. The broken adult version of Dennis shows no signs of overcoming what he has seen, still visibly shaken and incredibly meek.

This character study of a man and an exploration of what troubles him so is incredibly sympathetic. Blocking out traumatic experiences and the horror it causes him when he realizes what really occurred in beautifully captured by Cronenberg. Fiennes never has a freak out, he just looks dead in the eyes and carries this look throughout. He just floats through life in a brilliantly reserved and sympathetic portrayal of this man. Cronenberg, for his part, makes the trauma real and authentic. Seen through the eyes of a boy, it is easy to see how things can be misunderstood and such traumatic incidences certainly leave him pushing the events out of his mind. The finale reveals the truth and is incredibly well handled and makes a lot of sense. In this way, the film becomes quite shocking due to the unexpected nature of the finale and how all of the pieces fit together. In many ways, the film is like a puzzle and Cronenberg hints at that throughout. After a glass window shatters, the asylum workers put together the window again to ensure all the broken pieces are there. The end result looks like a puzzle and a spider web. For Dennis, he also tries to put together a real puzzle, but gets incredibly frustrated and throws it across the room. This is also symbolic for the viewer as the film takes some time to come together. The pieces do not fit perfectly and instead get caught up in the web spun by Cronenberg himself. It can be a frustrating and challenging experience as this is a reserved film that refuses to give way to dramatics.

A character study that shows how we compartmentalize things and the damaging impact it can have on our psyche, Spider is a film that messes with your mind and thrills in equal measure. Yet, it is a film that does not feature kooky David Cronenberg. Rather, he avoids theatrics and shock, instead going for a slowly unwinding mental knot of confusion and trauma. For his part, Fiennes is brilliant, even if his lines are limited. He truly shows his range here as he plays a man mostly through just emoting and looks in his eyes. He is not forced into acting crazy or having breakdowns at any point. Rather, his pain is far more subtle and somberly portrayed. Spider is a film that explores mental illness with grace and class, refusing to turn the mentally ill into mere props for entertainment. Instead, it shows the horror that the mind can produce for those that suffer from any form of mental illness.

8/10 - Another western from Clint Eastwood, this one is less of a revisionist western a la The Outlaw Josey Wales and more a straight classic western. Playing a nameless preacher, Clint Eastwood rides in on a pale white horse (okay, dirty gray, but thematically, the horse should have been whiter) to save a town in California from a ruthless businessman. Striking down justice in the name of God, this preacher is more than a man. He is the fourth horseman of the Apocalypse, which apparently means he brings death with him. Considering there is a line of dialogue that explicitly implies he brings death with him, the logic seems to check out. Regardless of whether I just saw that in the opening of the Wikipedia page for this film or not, it does make sense and further hints at both the religious and anti-business themes of the film.

Overtly religious with repeated references to God, prayer, and the power of faith, Pale Rider is a film where the godly strike down with brute force on the godless heathens. A man who uses a gun to do the deed, Eastwood's preacher rides into town and quickly drives home the main thematic portion of the film. Informing Coy LaHood (Richard Dysart) that a man cannot serve both God and money, the preacher sets up the main anti-business and pro-environmentalist theme. Coy LaHood is a brutal man who wishes to run the citizens of Carbon Canyon out of town. Killing livestock, dogs, and scaring them half to death (an old man went the other half way there), Coy LaHood and his son Josh (Chris Penn) do some mining in LaHood, California. Ruthless and slaves to money, the LaHood family uses a hydraulic method of mining that, honestly, I did not quite understand. Bottom line is though, it "rapes the land". This is where the film establishes itself as pro-environment with Eastwood's preacher a man sent to destroy those who wish to desecrate God's land and harm God's people in the name of profits and business success. They are people do not know God and, as such, will be stuck down during the course of the Apocalypse and unable to enter Heaven.

Therefore, his killing of people is secondary to the destruction of their business. He first goes and blows up their claims in LaHood before coming to the town and exacting justice. One could interpret Marshal Stockburn (John Russell) as being a Satan-esque character, but at the very least, he is a demonic figure. The fourth horseman, Eastwood's preacher, is set to square off with him and the Marshal's six (six) deputies. Seems like an odd number of deputies. Slaves for money who will do anything for a pay-off, the Marshal and his men are the chief enemies of the preacher. However, those who desecrate the land and whore it out for money or are simply whores for money are his enemies. As such, he exacts revenge upon them and their property, reigning down a plague upon their holdings and futures as members of the living.

The film further divulges its anti-corporate beliefs when the preacher sides with the townsfolk. He remarks about how men like LaHood have no place here. In essence, the Pale Rider has been called to this town by God to punish LaHood for his greed. Business and greed can be separate, but not often. As such, it his duty to excise this man who is filled with greed from this land and spare the people who are the children of God in the neighboring town. However, this is not his only Godly duty. He is also sent to exercise punishments on those who commit sin. After riding into the LaHood's claims, young Carbon Canyon girl Megan (Sydney Penny) - who had taken a liking to the preacher - is the victim of an attempted rape by Josh. Not only is this a common theme for Eastwood - in The Outlaw Josey Wales, Sondra Locke's character is nearly raped if not for Eastwood saving her - it also further solidifies the film's religious footing. In the Bible, Matthew 5:30 reads, "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell." Thus, to punish Josh for this sin of attempted rape, the preacher puts a hole in Josh's hand. The film hits on those earlier as well when Club (Richard Kiel) is sent to beat up the preacher. Hitting him in the private parts with a mallet (I had to pause the movie after this one), it hits at his masculinity and his pride. The man is so huge, he just assumes he will be able to bowl anybody over. However, the preacher manages to bring him down a size and turn him into an ally instead of a foe as a result.

Taking the classic western storyline of a man arriving in a town at the brink of disaster and turning it Biblical, Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider is a film about punishing the sinful. Punishing greed, pride, and lust, Eastwood's nameless preacher character uses a gun to exact the will of God, bringing death wherever he goes. However, it is in the name of cleansing the Earth of the sinners who wish to "rape the land" and destroy the greatest gift given to them as a result of greed and in service of their master; money. Spelling this theme out a bit, Eastwood does go beyond this with elements regarding the the holy battle between Marshal Stockburn and the Preacher, as well as his handling of Josh and Club. An anti-business, pro-environmentalist western, Eastwood's film is one that damns greed and seeks to protect the environment and livelihood of common folks against those that wish them harm.



5/10 - Remember the awful scene in Finding Dory, an otherwise good movie, where the animals all drive the truck? Ever want to see a full movie about animals walking the streets and driving vehicles? No? Well, too bad! Here is The Secret Life of Pets, a largely cute and harmless slice of family entertainment with a too-good voice cast and good animation. Decently funny and likely the best film a five-year-old has ever seen, this one is yet another film from Illumination and my first time coming across their films. Largely disposable entertainment, it simply lacks the heart good animation needs to be more than just watchable for adults. Pixar gets this and so does Laika (from what I have seen). Sadly, this one is just a series of jokes with a disposable and cliched plot.

Fortunately, the voice cast really does liven this one up a lot. Louis CK, Ellie Kemper, Eric Stonestreet, Lake Bell, Kevin Hart, Jenny Slate, Albert Brooks, Dana Carvey, Hannibal Buress, Bobby Moynihan, and Steve Coogan, are all well-cast voice actors who deliver terrific roles. Hart's bunny may be a bit racist since Hart is black and the character is a street-wise gangster type, but regardless, he does the voice incredibly well. The rest of the cast is also quite strong, making the most of this paper thin plot. In particular, Steve Coogan's small roles were a real highlight and added great character to this film. Fortunately, these voice actors are also all quite adept with comedy and it shows, as each punchline really do hit quite well.

The talented voice cast is met with good animation that really captures the size and odd beauty of New York City incredibly well. Shots from across the river of the city skyline do look quite good, even if the animation is not some of the best around. It does the job well and looks okay, making it more than passable for children and adults alike.

Unfortunately, the plot is terrible and just a rip-off of Toy Story. I can deal with it being inspired by Toy Story, but it just rips it and every buddy comedy off from the very beginning. It never tries to innovate or become unique, instead opting to play it safe and put pop song band-aids over its open sores. This does become pretty annoying, even if the pop songs are poppy and the comedy works. It is impossible to look past entirely, though the plot will likely feel fresh and interesting young children, hence Illumination can get away with it, but as an adult who has seen more than three movies in my life, it does become overly predictable. A shame since the concept of giving an inside look at pets when their owners are gone is a cute idea for an animated family film. Unfortunately, it got the conveyor belt treatment.

Funny, cute, and disposable, The Secret Life of Pets is a marketing opportunity for Sing, PetSmart, YouTube, and more. It also gives a spot for the talented cast to show off their impeccable voice acting ability. While not a great - or even good - film, The Secret Life of Pets is fun and will make the whole family life and be entertained for a little over an hour (merciful length really, prayers to the parents who will have to watch this one weekly/daily).



8/10 - Another Philip Marlowe detective tale, Farewell, My Lovely is a slick and sleekly shot film that beautifully captures the grime of Los Angeles and the journey of Marlowe in the film. Spinning a thick web that leaves Marlowe constantly trying to get his head above water, the film starts innocently enough with Mr. Marlowe (Robert Mitchum) being hired by former convict Moose Malloy (Jack O'Halloran) to find his girlfriend, who had not written to him in six years. However, Marlowe and Moose cannot help but attract unwanted attention from mystery gunmen, the cops, and a dirty judge. How do these all fit together? Marlowe has no clue and neither will you in this spellbinding and complex neo-noir from director Dick Richards.

Constantly being the eight ball, Marlowe is quite easily fooled throughout this film. He buys into fake evidence, walks into set-ups, and takes the bait whenever a murder is about to happen. This allows the nefarious folks behind this to constantly use him as a cover to blame for the murders and anything else that occurs, which forces him to slow up and Moose - the target - come out of hiding. He is a fool and largely quite easily convinced that the sky is green in this film. However, he is whip smart in how he balances this ineptness with a clear picture of the full story. He knows this has something to do with the solo bank job Moose pulled that got him locked up. Could it be a hidden partner in the background? Did somebody snitch on him? In the context of the film, this is constantly in parallel with Joe DiMaggio. After updating us on what he discovered, Marlowe gives us a quick update on DiMaggio and his hitting streak. With each passing day, he adds another day and finally breaks the hitting streak record. This is symbolic of how those behind this controversy keeps getting hi ts - misdirections, murders, and pay-offs - that keep putting Marlowe behind him. But, he bet with his pal George that DiMaggio would keep getting hits and break the streak, showing how Marlowe - though down for now - is also two steps ahead of the opposition.

Finally, after he catches up with the nefarious folks, Marlowe updates us on Mr. DiMaggio hitting streak. Unfortunately, he failed to get a hit in the most recent game, which seems to be a shame since the opposing pitcher was a "run-of-the-mill" guy. In essence, the hitting streak of these terrific criminals that seemed untouchable got undone by your average private dick with a coat, hat, and gun. Brilliant.

In the lead role, Robert Mitchum is terrific as the street-wise detective that is not really noteworthy, but always scratches out a win. Marlowe is a hard-nosed guy that is easily tricked, but he is no fool. Mitchum captures his grittiness incredibly well, while also perfectly pulling off the gruff tone of voice he has come to be known for over these years thanks to Humphrey Bogart and Elliott Gould. He is the force that this film rides on, as in any noir or neo-noir, and Mitchum makes the most of it with a terrific turn. Alongside him, Charlotte Rampling is perfection as the femme fatale. We see her enter the screen and we know she is the femme fatale. There is no hiding it, this woman is bad news. Her long legs, manner of walking, and seductive actions towards Marlowe further highlight just how dangerous she is to the case and Mr. Marlowe. Yet, we would all totally buy in and do whatever she asks. When she asked Marlowe to sit next to her on the couch, I wanted to go sit there in his place. She is alluring, seductive, and just pulls you in like a magnet. In essence, she is the perfect femme fatale, leading the detective over to the edge and at the brink of falling off.

A terrific neo-noir adaptation of another Raymond Chandler novel, Philip Marlowe is an iconic detective for good reason. Constantly being knocked down, Marlowe never gives up and keeps getting up to take the beating that is coming for him. Brilliantly portrayed by Mitchum in Dick Richards' precise and methodical film, Farewell, My Lovely is quintessential noir.



7/10 - A hypnotic, kaleidoscope-esque look at glam rock in Britain during the 1970's, Velvet Goldmine is absolutely insane and incredibly ambitious on the part of Todd Haynes. He threads a tale with glittery string and eye make-up that almost completely works. It may be a bit too overplayed and convoluted, but Velvet Goldmine is a gorgeous, glitzy, and glamorous mess of a film that is incredibly admirable. It is a film that wraps you up in its insanity and drags you along for the ride, even if you have no idea what ride that is exactly. That said, none of the characters know what the ride is either, so it is really only fair. Occurring in a daze of drugs and self-absorption, Velvet Goldmine is probably best viewed while high, but even while sober, it is a fun ride.

Featuring a tremendous cast including Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Ewan McGregor, Christian Bale, and Toni Collette, the film portrays each of them as loose and free people in or around the glam rock trend. As rock stars Brian Slade (Meyers) and Curt Wild (McGregor), the film has the most fun with both of them being wildly over-the-top and absolutely insane stars. In one sequence, Curt Wild actually strips naked on stage during an otherwise normal rock concert. These two are leaders of the sexual revolution and know it, embracing sexuality, nudity, and any sexual encounter that comes their way. The duo have an insane time on the stage and off of it with the actors brilliantly portraying their roles. Meyers and McGregor really soar here and draw the eyes on them, while making it more than worth our time. McGregor particularly nails his role as a free spirit with a kooky, hypnotic, and drug-infused performance as Curt Wild.

That said, as with any Haynes film, the film is a huge comment on both the time period in which it occurs and on sexuality. The film violently embraces sexual freedom and champions these men as leaders of the sexual revolution. Even more importantly, it shows that these men are not gay. They may have gay experiences, but find value in both sexes and are bisexual. To wear make-up and women's clothing, it does not necessarily make a person gay. Rather, it is an expression of what they feel inside and Haynes shows this terrifically. Even more, he depicts this embracing of taboo as having a huge impact on those around them. These people are here to show that this is not some weird, shameful action. Instead, it is merely who they are and you can either accept them or not, but they will be who they are. Their parents are pissed, reject them, and send them for shock treatment. But, their fans adore them and are willing to ride the wave with them. Unfortunately, it is not easy and they must find the right crowd and people actually open to new things and change. Though initially booed at performances, Slade and Wild soon become hits that are free to embrace every crevice of their personality and explore it openly.

The film does get quite bogged down by Arthur Stuart (Christian Bale) in the modern day, however. A man touched by the openness of these glam rockers and who was at many of their concerts, while being exposed to the live of open sexuality practiced by these men, his investigation feels tacked on. Perhaps Haynes or the studio thought the film was too experiential and distant, so they needed another character to act as an audience surrogate, but it does not work. He investigates where Brian Slade went after an infamous performance act and it adds another wrinkle to the film, but it ultimately detracts from it. Unfortunately, the film ends with wrapping up Arthur's story, which is largely uninteresting and unengaging, leaving the film with an unsatisfactory finale.

Fortunately, Velvet Goldmine is still a terrific film that takes on a fairy tale feeling thanks to the opening narration by Janet McTeer. Hinting at the ambition Haynes had with this film, this narration sets the tone and dream-like feeling of the film. Though a little bloated with Bale's role in the film, it is an incredibly dynamic and hypnotic film that more than entertains and also shows the events that led to the de-tabooization of sexuality in all its forms.



7/10 - It's uncanny, she's exactly the kind of moron you described.
-Larry David as Boris Yellnikoff

An hour and a half of Larry David complaining about the world and the human race directed by Woody Allen. There was no way I would not like Whatever Works. Accompanying this is a message of following your heart. No matter how bleak things may be in the world, as astutely pointed out by Boris Yellikoff (David), we all might as well embrace our desires, wishes, and dreams. If it provides happiness, do it and expect nothing less. If something makes you unhappy, stop doing it immediately. Though we all may die in the end and are a doomed race, certain to lead ourselves to extinction, we all have the right to make life less unbearable by finding something or somebody we love. Even if it is wrong in your mind, nothing that makes you truly happy and fulfilled is wrong (with exceptions, e.g. murder or killing people, but that is the exception not the rule).

Portraying an advanced Woody Allen character, Larry David is not just misanthropic, self-absorbed, cynical, and intensely pessimistic, he is Larry David. He may be playing a Jew named Boris, but he is Larry David or, at least, how I would imagine him to be in real life. That said, he does quite well here with incredibly smart and witty lines throughout, as well as lines so cruelly mean and open that it is impossible not to laugh. He is a brutally honest man who would be well served with a filter, but why filter your thoughts when you will die anyways? This is the line of thinking he is obsessed with it, but it is clear as to the source of his revolt and anger towards the human race: he is unhappy. He may be a perfect match for his first wife and his second wife is Evan Rachel Wood (talk about winning the lotto, eh?), but he is still unhappy. By the end, he has finally realized this and though an intensely negative person still, he has opened himself up to enjoying life and all of its futile little events.

This journey is one experienced by every other character. Melody (Evan Rachel Wood) is a simple girl from the south who ran away from home and got married to Boris because she was "at an impressionable age". Yet, he opened up her world to possibilities she never considered. By the time Randy (Henry Cavill) comes into her life, she is now ready for love and able to be a mature, smart adult at the same time. Her mother, Marietta (Patricia Clarkson), shows this same thing, but as an adult. Left by her husband for another woman, she quickly embraces her hidden sexual passion and love of photography. Heck, even her husband John (Ed Begley Jr.) gives himself over to happiness by pursuing a relationship with another man. Against their beliefs of how people should be and act, the entire family from the south has finally had their minds opened to happiness. It may seem that they were "cultured" or "shown the world", but they really just became willing to take chances and embrace who they really are. In essence, they went with "whatever works", not what the beliefs instilled in them since birth had taught them to think was perfect or the right path for somebody to take.

Though the film is pretty typical Woody Allen fare in terms of its negativity and belief that life just happens randomly, especially when it comes to love, Whatever Works is still an incredibly fun film. Its protagonist may be a bit off-putting, but he is also oddly charming and a perfect fit for an Allen film. With the rest of the cast, the film further develops its themes of life's randomness, while also ramming home the film's militant beliefs regarding religion and life. That said, it is neither anti-religion or anti-life. It is a film about a man so wrapped up in himself and unhappy, he is unable to see beyond the wall he built around himself to protect him from the outside world. In that way, though witty and whip smart, the film is also oddly tragic in how it shows Boris continue to drive people away and burrow himself deeper into routine and anger. Once you look past the rough spots though, he is a good man who simply hates himself and once he learns to stop hating himself, things can improve. Thus, though tragic, Whatever Works is a film that ends with assured beauty and a crucial message to embrace whatever makes your life worth living.



7/10 - Director Peter Berg has found a niche. He is not a good director in the least. He is guy that claims to be "one for them, one for me", but his films continuously seem to be "one for America, and then another for America" at this point. Deepwater Horizon is no different. Yet, it is somehow a good film with a great sense of scope. A celebration of average joe heroes who saved lives during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the negligence on the part of BP that led to this disaster, Deepwater Horizon is an accessible, smart, and powerful film that may pull a little too hard on the viewer's heart strings at the end, but is undeniably thrilling and a riveting portrayal of the disaster. It is not a film that rushes to the finale, rather building tension until the pressure is too much and the whole thing blows up into a cloud of fire.

Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg) is the Chief Electric Technician on the Deepwater Horizon. James "Mr. Jimmy" Harrell (Kurt Russell) is the head honcho. The two show incredible courage throughout the escapade and save people left and right, even after they are battered and broken. Casting Wahlberg and Russell in these roles is a stroke of genius as they are perfect fits for these modern heroes. Going above and beyond the call of duty, the men sacrifice themselves and their bodies to try and save as many people as possible. Racing across the ship to try a last ditch effort to save the rig and then jumping from the rig itself, Mike Williams' actions after the explosion are incredible, including saving multiple men from the accommodations. Injured and with one eye swollen shut, Mr. Jimmy is a man that never stops to take his hand off the wheel. Once he gets up, he is not going down again until everybody is safe and the rig is clear. Even afterwards, he calls roll to determine who made it off and who lost their lives. Wahlberg and Russell are classic tough guys and really show why in this film with good performances as these real life heroes.

Yet, this really drives at the point of the film. Williams in particular gets the most character development of anybody with a wife and daughter waiting his return at home. He is a family man, the quintessential American. With a single American flag waving on the ship and in the aftermath (oh the national anthem call out, "THE FLAG STILL WAVING OR WHATEVER"...i.e. the flag is still waving as the rig burns in the background, poetic and overtly patriotic), Berg stuffs the heroism down our throat, but makes it work. The film is tense, thrilling, and action-packed. He may go too American and too hard on the celebration of heroes in this one, but these men do deserve praise for their actions and then patriotism is limited to just a few shots. In essence, he reins it in a bit for this one and lets the men do the talking.

However, the key to this film is the explosion and the ensuing fire. With phenomenal sound effects and tremendous visual effects, this is where the huge budget for the film went it paid off. The film will probably not be profitable because of the budget being too high, but as a film, it really paid dividends. The film U-571 is still cited as one of the best films to test to see if a new sound system is working out well, but it may need to be updated to Deepwater Horizon. The sound is simply that good. The explosion, the chaos, and all of the tension leading up to it is impeccable and really what this film rides on throughout. Without it, Deepwater Horizon would not be nearly as good as it, especially considering how little meat is on this bone. Using a pair of men as scapegoats for everything and not covering the punishments faced by BP, the film does include some real court footage but leaves out any information regarding the financial repercussions for BP. The only updates are regarding the dead and the two men who were shown in the film as being direct causes for the disaster. Unfortunately, the film does such a poor job of developing anyone other than Mike Williams, the death of the other characters are not felt at all, instead being reduced to background carnage. Seemingly recognizing this, Berg shows a montage at the end of the real men with their families. A touching moment, it does feel like a band-aid to make up for the fact that he only focused on one man for the whole film.

Thrilling, entertaining, and with tremendous sound editing and visual effects, Deepwater Horizon is a film that is a bit thin with regards to its writing, but never ceases to be a powerful and utterly compelling experience. That said, boy does it ever do justice to Mike Williams and his wife. Not to be disparaging, as I am the last one to criticize based on looks, but these people are not Mark Wahlberg and Kate Hudson. Not even close. Few are, but these people are just your average citizens, yet Berg casts Mark "Muscles" Wahlberg and Kate "Brad Pitt's New Girl" Hudson as them. I would be honored if I was the Williams family.



7/10 - Strangers on a Train is a quintessential Hitchcock film. Featuring voyeurism, obsession, and the never ending quest for the perfect murder, the film is one that hits on all of his trademarks and knack of suspense and murder. A thoroughly mysterious film that keeps you guessing until the very end, Strangers on a Train introduces us to Bruno (Robert Walker), a man who came up with the perfect murder. Guy Haines (Farley Granger), is a tennis pro with an unfaithful wife who will not divorce him. This angers him greatly, as he wishes to marry his girlfriend Anne Morton (Ruth Roman). Offering to kill Guy's wife for him if Guy kills Bruno's father, this is reasoned to be a perfect murder as the two men have no connection to one another. Thus, who could ever put together the dots? What is perfect on paper is not good in reality though, as the obsession and insanity of Bruno is slowly revealed.

A truly insane man, Bruno is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Walker. Shifty and constantly leaving you on edge, you can feel the tension of the opening scene with Guy. Wanting desperately to slink away from his, Guy is trapped with him on the train and forced to hear his insane fairy tales about wanting to kill his father and offer to kill Guy's wife for him. As the film progresses and Bruno slips further and further into insanity, it is impossible not to be captivated and left in suspense as to what will occur once Bruno starts to put the plan into motion. Yet, Farley Granger is so good as Guy that you never quite know what he will do. Obviously, he wants to avoid the detection from the police, for fear he will be seen as an easy suspect. But, will he follow through and kill Bruno's father? Granger is so shifty and unassuming, it is a great source of suspense as to how he will respond to the death of his wife, who he had earlier expressed a desire to strangle. He plays an innocent man with an incredibly guilty demeanor, constantly leaving the viewer in suspense as to whether we are getting the full picture.

Yet, the star here is Bruno. Stalking Miriam (Laura Elliott), Guy's wife, at an amusement park, he simply follows her at a too-close distance. Classic Hitchcock voyeurism, it feels akin to James Stewart in Vertigo if he could care less about appearances and just walked behind his mark. He stalks her and the constantly increasing sense of dread is impeccable and leaves you anxiously awaiting just what he will do to poor Miriam. Similarly, his obsession with Guy is one born out of sexual infatuation. It is certainly hinted that he may be a little bit gay, or at least bisexual, with how infatuated he is with Guy. The way he looks at him and speaks to him even hints at maybe a mutual attraction that Guy certainly cannot indulge. This obsession is one that is a constant thread in this film and one that, again, is a trait of Hitchcock's. In essence, this film is so Hitchcock with so many Hitchcock films, it feels like a non-violent and non-sexual De Palma film.

That said, the film is a bit thin. The female and supporting cast are poorly developed with no intrigue with their characters. Then again, that may be merciful due to the bad overacting on the part of the female actors in the film, especially Ruth Roman. As a result of the thin nature of the plot, it can drag at times and become far too stretched out, never managing to keep the tension and suspense for the entire film. The scenes that do have suspense and thrills are top-notch, but the gap scenes are lacking that extra it factor. Unfortunately, it is an it factor that could have been spruced up in today's age with far more overt homosexuality added to the film. Even more, it would add another layer to Bruno and Guy's characters that would really add to the suspense of whether or not they would follow through on their evil murder plot.

Strangers on a Train is a good Hitchcock film, but one that would definitely benefit from a remake that could play more into the homosexual subplot and give the film far more meat (heh). That said, great turns from Robert Walker and Farley Granger make this a fun thriller that keeps you guessing throughout.