Star Wars: The Force Awakens

*********Spoillers*****************

Like Jurassic World, I went into Star Wars: The Force Awakens knowing that no matter how good this film was it could never live up to the original Star Wars films. The most beloved score in cinematic history, the greatest villain of all time: Vader, a film made in an era where character development and not special effects was the heart of film, and the nostalgic attachment many of us have for Star Wars are all elements that could not and would not be replicated. Lucas caught lightning in a bottle with his first Star Wars films and to expect JJ Abrams to do the same could only lead to disappointment. Yet unlike Jurassic World where I had enjoyed the film’s predecessors, Star Wars: The Force Awakens provided an opportunity for me and for all Star Wars fans: a chance at redemption for a series that more recently left a bad taste in our mouths. Like most Star Wars fans I accepted that it could not live up to the originals, but went in begging for it to be better than the prequels; the result was somewhere in the middle.

Characters/ Acting

When I first saw the cast list for Star Wars: The Force Awakens my initial reaction was confusion: “Daisey Ridley? John Boyega? Who are these people? Why are unknown actors the lead roles in something as big as Star Wars?” But then I considered the cast of the original Star Wars: Mark Hamil, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford.; none of these people were known actors in 1977 and they turned out to be the perfect cast. Perhaps anonymity and a clean slate was the perfect recipe for the new Star Wars? It seems the casting director got it half right.

Rey (Daisey Ridley): Daisy Ridley’s performance turned out to be one of the highlights of the film for me and yet another example of how effective a strong female character can be on the big screen. From the start she appears self-reliant as she is able to scale the innards of fallen star destroyers for equipment which she sells for food to survive. Once I got past my initial surprise that she has a British accent, I was able to focus on her character and I liked what I found. Rey is an interesting character because of all the complex issues surrounding her: her desire to know and be reunited with her family, her admiration for Han Solo who she looks up to as a clearly capable and like-wise tough individual, her struggles to understand her relationship with the force while at the same time wishing she could reject her greater role. In many ways her character is far superior to that of Luke in A New Hope, who I have always found a bit bland and somewhat whiny, if only because she is playing the roles of Luke and Han Solo simultaneously. Ridley performance reveals a spectrum of toughness, compassion, and wit that has me looking forward to her next role.

Finn (John Boyega): Not all no-name actors are destined for greatness in this film, however, and the proof lies in John Boyega’s performance. I cannot blame him for some of the terrible lines he was given in the film such as “Hell of a pilot” which were not only cheesy but were often unnatural to the context of his situation, but I can fault him for his delivery of these lines as well as many others. His facial expressions, his speech, and sometimes his lack of engagement when other characters were acting left me disappointed in his performance. While going into the film I was interested in getting to know Finn’s character, by the end I was asking myself repeatedly “why is his character necessary to this film?” The more I consider Finn’s character the more I wonder whether the filmmakers themselves knew what to do with his character.

 Like Rey, Finn tries to serve many functions at once: he is the C-3PO comic relief, the love/friend interest of Rey, the side of Solo that doesn’t want to be a hero but just wants to run, and sometimes he is the hero or at least makes an effort to be. Unlike Rey’s character though which is strengthened by all these complex characteristics which mesh well together, Finn’s is pulled in many different directions that glaringly contradict. How is the audience supposed to reconcile the fact that sometimes he is the haphazard, comic relief often in need of rescue himself, such as when he is carried off by the creature in the ship and saved by Rey, while at other moments he is trying to be the hero and go into the Death Star to rescue Rey (only to actually contribute nothing to her rescue). While there are functions that he serves as far as advancing the plot, the melting-pot of personal traits given to Finn did not blend well and was not aided by the mediocre to sub-par acting skills of John Boyega.

Adam Driver (Kylo Ren): My favorite character of any story ever written or filmed is Darth Vader, so naturally the character I was most looking forward to seeing and learning about was Kylo Ren. For the first part of the movie I was very pleased; Ren had the cruelty, dark voice, and cool mask which made Darth Vader so menacing, as well as a unique new lightsaber and an interesting backstory to go with his character. There was a lot of potential for what could be done with his character not only in this film but the others to come. And then he took off his mask…and what was revealed was a weak, pathetic twenty-something-year-old who was a slave to his fear and having a tantrum. Vader was ripped away and replaced with Hayden Christensen. I cannot fairly assess Adam Driver’s performance as his face was given so little screen time, but the moments when his face was revealed I was wishing he would put the mask back on.

Story/ Writing

As much as I would rather not compare Star Wars: The Force Awakens to Star Wars: A New Hope, the fact that this film is in many ways a retelling of the first Star Wars film requires me to do so. From the droid which escapes an imperial force with data critical to the rebellion right up to the destruction of yet another Death Star, this film is littered with not just references but borrowed ideas from the original. Even the characters themselves are in many ways an obvious recycling of the past: Luke is Yoda the wise teacher who has gone into solitude and must be sought out for training, Han is Obi-Wan the wise, old guide who is there to provide direction for the characters until they become self-reliant at which point he is killed by Kylo-Ren who in turn takes the place of Vader the ambitious former Jedi struggling with the inner turmoil between good and evil. The parallels are not subtly introduced but are readily apparent from each character’s introduction. I am conflicted by how to react to Abram’s decision to make the film so much like A New Hope. 

On the one hand it makes the film very predictable. For example, once you realize that the film is essentially A New Hope you can begin searching for each character’s equivalent and plugging them into the storyline; for example, once it became clear to me that Han was Obi-Wan, in my mind his fate was sealed. But then again I am conflicted because this is Star Wars not Inception or The Usual Suspects; we don’t see Star Wars for its intricate plot. Return of the Jedi proved to us that we could see the same old story and still love it because it’s Star Wars (just so long as it actually had a plot, and acting, and characters we cared about, unlike 3 movies which are undeserving of the title of Star Wars…) Abram’s intent, much like the newer Star Trek movies, was to give us the nostalgia we have been craving so badly and in this he succeeded. So while some will bemoan that another Death Star was destroyed or that the plot was predictable, this is an instance where that’s fine by me. Because anyone reading this review is more than likely familiar with the plot of A New Hope already, and if you aren’t you should probably crawl out from under that rock you’ve been living under and go check it out, I will refrain from outlining the general plot of the story but shall instead focus on a few elements of the story and the plot which I found to be noteworthy.

Seeing “A long time ago in a galaxy far far away” and the credits begin to roll up was met with thunderous applause by audiences across the world and deservedly so. This famous introduction is iconic to Star Wars and should not be taken for granted.

The character of Maz felt like a missed opportunity to me. Some vehicle was needed to bridge the passing down of Luke’s lightsaber to Rey, but did it half to be a 1,000 year old female, orange knockoff of Yoda? The whole visit to her place seemed very forced and the appearance of the Cantina –like band members was one of the few instances where I had a problem with referring back to/recycling the original film. It was unnecessary and seemed to be nothing more than a throw in just to say it had been included.

The scene where C-3PO was reintroduced ahead of Leia was cleverly written and a good source of comic relief. It was also a subtle reference to the old one-sided relationship Han and C-3PO once had.

One thing I always expect to see when going into a new Star Wars film is a variety of cool new spacecraft so I was disappointed that this film had hardly any and none of consequence. Kylo Ren’s ship, which should have stood out as a display of his authority (much like Vader’s) was nothing more than a folding “V.”

My favorite scene in the film is the introduction of the Millennium Falcon and the subsequent chase scene with the TIE fighters. Really brought me back to the feel of the originals and was a very clever way to introduce the skill set of both main characters

BB-8 is awesome and the perfect example of how effective subtle humor can be (much like R2-D2 was) rather than the sometimes forced comedy of Finn

Why was the film so rushed? There were so many chase scenes or scenes where the characters were running to do different things that there was hardly a moment for them to stop and just talk. This is a significant point because it is during these moments where everything slows down that characters develop most. For example, consider the dialogue between Han and Luke at various moments in A New Hope: sitting and talking in Mos Eisley, sitting and talking in the ship, walking and talking to go find Leia; it was in all of these moments that these two developed from feelings of mutual dislike, to friendship and admiration for one another. Other than the various scenes where Rey was bending over a wounded Finn or vice versa, there was hardly any time for the characters to stop and interact. I’m surprised that Rey’s character was able to develop at all amid all the chaos of this film and not surprised that Finn’s character suffered for it.

What kind of a name is "Snope" for a villain? This is so much the opposite of intimidating that I wonder how it made its way into the film. Maybe Lucas snuck it in somehow...

Any scene where the X-wings and TIE fighters were engaged with each other was awesome to behold and maintained the ships of the old films with an exciting new twist: better CGI. That these scenes were rare in the film was a wise decision on Abram’s part as it allowed the audience to spend more time focusing on the character’s story without being overwhelmed by special effects.

A Star Wars movie where nobody lost a hand???? What is this madness?!

Conclusion:

Better than I could have ever hoped for and having seen it three times now I love it more each time. My few criticisms of the film should not take away from how much there is to love about this movie, but rather they should be viewed as reminders that we should not allow the present hype surrounding this film to blind us to its flaws. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a much needed improvement in the series from the sequels but still leaves some room for improvement. While much of the film paid homage to A New Hope, some of its story, characters, and ideas provide a potentially strong foundation going forward in the series. Hopefully Rian Johnson can execute on these ideas in the second film and not only make sure we never again suffer disappointment and disgust like that of the prequels, but also give us a whole new trilogy to fall in love with.

Grade:

WRAP: 85%

BONUS: Rey's origin

There are many fan theories as to which character Rey derives her Jedi powers from. The most common theories I've seen so far are:

1. She is Han and Leia's daughter

While this theory seems implausible to me since Han and Leia would have known they had a daughter, though it's possible their daughter was stolen and they presumed her dead, those who adhere to this theory argue that it would be perfect to have her revealed to be Kylo Ren's sister, much like Luke and Leia. This seems to be a stretch for me.


2. She is Luke's daughter

People who subscribe to this theory suspect that the reason Rey seems to have such a strong connection to the force is that she must be a Skywalker. Luke is a plausible age to be her father, if a little old.

While Luke is the obvious choice and seems to be the more likely candidate than Han/Leia, allow me to offer a different answer:

3. Obi-Wan Kenobi's Granddaughter

Why you ask? Three reasons:

     1. The voice that calls to her during her lightsaber vision is that of Kenobi not Luke, forming a connection between them that seems otherwise unexplainable
     2. She has a British accent. This may seem a small thing, but I don't think anything JJ Abrams put into this film was done unintentionally and selecting an actress with a British accent only makes sense if her relatives have a similar accent since she grew up basically alone afterwards.
     3. The most telling clue for me however is the lightsaber, namely that it's blue. When Luke constructs a lightsaber in Return of the Jedi it is clearly green and while he uses a blue lightsaber in A New Hope and Empire, the lightsaber he is using is that of his father which is ultimately destroyed in Empire by Vader. But what about Obi-Wan's lightsaber? His lightsaber in a New Hope and throughout the prequels is always blue and we last see his lightsaber being picked up by Vader after Vader kills him in A New Hope. That means it could easily have survived somehow and acquired by Maz who never says the lightsaber is Luke's only that how she got it is a long story. I believe that Luke still has his own green lightsaber, that this lightsaber is Obi-Wan's and is a clue about Rey's ancestry.

Mad Max: Fury Road

Before starting this review, I must begin by saying that I have not yet seen the first 3 Mad Max movies so any references to the previous films comes not from my viewing of the film but from research I have done into the connections between this film and its predecessors. While there are several small connections through stylistic decisions and story elements (both of which I will touch on later), this film is hardly a traditional sequel and can easily be viewed as an independent story.

I went into this film not sure what to expect; I was familiar with the critical acclaim that the first Mad Max movie enjoys and yet I have never particularly enjoyed high speed chases or movies with action for action's sake, which the trailers made this film out to be, because they tend to lack substance when it comes to acting and have a plot that is usually one-dimensional. Mad Max not only broke away from this action-film mold, it exposed how limited this genre really is while offering a new formula for future action films predicated on fewer cliché story elements and strong female characters while still maintaining spectacular visuals. I went into Mad Max expecting just another action movie, what I saw was a film that could potentially revolutionize the action genre.

Characters/Acting

                Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron): The film may be called Mad Max and it may start and end with him, but anyone watching Charlize Theron’s captivating performance of Imperator Furiosa soon realizes that Mad Max is actually about her with Max providing the vehicle (no pun intended) for her story. The film begins with Max’s capture at the hands of several War Boys but from the moment Furiosa is introduced (less than ten minutes into the film) she takes over as the film’s true main character. It is she who is trying to free the birth mothers and take them to “the green place,” her story of redemption for past sins as much as Max’s redemption, and she who the film’s villain, Imortan Joe, is trying to kill (in fact Joe never so much as acknowledges Max’s existence at any point during the film.) Not only is the story written with Furiosa as its focus in both plot and dialogue, but Charlize Theron’s acting performance dominates the screen, drawing the audience’s attention with the raw intensity that we’ve come to expect from male action heroes like Bruce Willis and Liam Neeson, but do not usually associate with female characters. Charlize Theron’s performance is a refreshing defiance of the typical female role of helpless love interest and shows that a strong female lead playing an emotionally scarred, physically tough character can be just as believable as male actors. This film, and Charlize Theron in particular, left me wondering why more films don’t have stories written for strong, independent women if characters like Furiosa are the result we can expect. I will discuss the role of women in Mad Max in further detail when I break down the film’s plot.

                Mad Max (Tom Hardy): While in many ways Charlize Theron stole the show, I still thoroughly enjoyed Hardy’s performance. Where the character of Furiosa wore her emotions on her sleeve, the audience had a much more difficult time discerning what Max was feeling or thinking due to his extremely limited dialogue and his largely quite demeanor: an intentional move on the part of Director and Writer George Miller. Hardy’s performance was subtlety at its finest. Since his dialogue was so limited he could not act through his words, as most roles do, so instead he used his eyes and his body language to convey his character’s inner turmoil. The jittery manner in which Hardy moves throughout the film is one example of how he effectively demonstrates Max’s borderline insanity without speaking, another being the way his eyes are constantly shifting back and forth in his head. It is challenging for any actor to have to act through his eyes and not his words and Hardy certainly deserves praise for his performance as Max, especially since it would have been easy for him to have been overshadowed by Furiosa’s much more emotional character. Instead, the two characters work as a perfect balance of personalities.  

Nux (Nicholas Hoult): Hoult is hardly recognizable as War Boy Nux from his previous role as Beast in the X-men series in personality as well as appearance. He plays this role so convincingly that it is hard to believe that the high octane, restless character of Nux is an act for Hoult. Nux is the character who develops the most over the film’s progression, evolving from a religious fanatic motivated by fear to a willing member of Furiosa’s group who ultimately sacrifices himself for his companions. Hoult is certainly not a great actor at this point but this role shows the potential for a promising career.

Directing

As a writer, director and producer of Mad Max Fury Road, as well as all of its prequels, George Miller is firmly in command of the Mad Max Saga and deserves most of the credit for its success. With this film, Miller reminds us that action films do not have to follow a generic directing style of point and shoot, as so many do, but can incorporate unique and creative methods into even such common place scenes as a car chase.

One method Miller utilizes to great effect is always shooting the character currently on screen so that they appear in the middle of the screen; this allows the audience to more easily focus on the character being shown without having to find them in the chaos of so much action. This is a subtle decision that is more noticeable in films like Transformers where it isn’t used and the audience is either left with a subsequent migraine from searching the screen or simply misses out on half of what is being shown. 

Unlike Michael Bay, Miller also realizes that not every scene requires an action scene, but sometimes a character or an idea is more effectively represented when the audience doesn’t see anything at all but has to rely on their own imagination. An example is the scene where Max comes back from killing the bullet farm's leader, dragging a bag of weapons and covered in blood. The audience never sees Max kill the bullet farmer but they never have to, instead the idea that Max is a badass who can take on a car full of enemies by himself is still conveyed and the viewers spared a potentially taxing fight sequence.

Miller should also be applauded for his decision to use as little CGI as possible (only about 10% of the film is CGI) in order to make the film appear and feel as realistic as possible (the flames shooting out of the guitar are in fact real). Using the Australian landscape combined with enhanced color filters to make the film as vibrant as possible, Miller was able to achieve his goal of creating a uniquely colorful post-apocalyptic world; this was a conscious effort by Miller to prevent the audience from feelings of bleakness and destitution. This method was simple yet also highly effective.

As the director of the previous Mad Max films, Miller also incorporated some of his old techniques into this new film to give it the same feel as its predecessors. The opening title sequence which shows Max and the pursuing War Boys at a much higher frame rate, creating the illusion that they are running at high speeds, was used in the original Mad Max film as well. The scenes which superimpose the presumably dead girl and an older black man are also ways of effectively connecting Max to his past without a lengthy explanation. Even having Australian actors such as the Bullet farmer, some of the old women from the green space, and Furiosa’s lieutenant, was a way for Miller to maintain the feel of the older films. There are plenty more examples of ties to the previous films, but I'll spare this review for the sake of brevity. 

Another area where Miller imprints his directional style is his transitions throughout the film. There are several moments in the story where there is a shift in the story’s pacing, usually from a high action sequence to a much slower one, and a lesser director might have struggled with these transitions appearing choppy. Instead, Miller uses scenes like these to further enhance the audience’s feeling that they are not only watching a car chase, but they are experiencing it. One example is the scene where we see the flare in the desert after storm slowly dim and fade to darkness as the music builds and then suddenly the scene switches to bright morning sunlight with bright sand and a very slowly rising Max. This quick shift from high speed to an abrupt halt is not unlike suddenly braking in a car and gives the film greater depth in a very subtle way. Another example of this technique is that right after Max is caught while trying to escape being branded and has been shown at a higher film rate, he is thrust back inside the cave and we are immediately shown the brand on Furiosa’s neck. In addition to creating a car-like transition, this also serves as a way of introducing Furiosa and immediately creates a connection in the audience’s mind between her and Max.

Miller also makes great use of the film’s score to further his car-like effect. Miller incorporates rock music for scenes with a lot of excitement and at the height of action sequences, while he uses a classical style score when the pacing slows or comes to an abrupt halt. One notable exception to this is the very brief scene with the bullet farmer’s car charging in pursuit over the marsh and he uses classical music to build excitement. 

Miller’s directing in this film is brilliant because it is both everywhere and nowhere at once. For the most part he does not rely on artsy or flashy directing techniques, but uses subtlety to manipulate his audience into feeling a certain way without their noticing. Miller also shows the restraint in this film that so many action film directors, like Michael Bay, lack.

Story/Screenplay

Too often action films are left in the hands of directors who seem more interested in creating explosions than creating and telling a fast-paced narrative (Michael Bay being the prime example, but there are plenty of others including, more recently, Peter Jackson and George Lucas). Thankfully, George Miller seems to care very much about his characters and their story, and it shows.

Much of what makes Mad Max so interesting and distracts the audience from the fact that it is essentially one long car chase is the story. Miller and his co-writers have taken a very popular and commonly used theme of post-apocalyptic society, and through the incorporation of creative story elements and powerful themes have crafted an interesting and unique story.

The presence of so many strong female characters is what makes this film stand above so many action movies and is a large factor in its overwhelmingly positive reception among critics. This film is one of only 42% of films to pass the famous Bechdel test (which asks if a film has: 1. more than one female character, 2. that these women talk to each other and 3. that they talk about something other than men) and it is no surprise that it passes this test considering George Miller hired feminist Eve Ensler, author of the Vagina Monologues, as a consultant in order to make his female characters strong. One example of this female strength is the scene where Max hands over the sniper rifle to Furiosa, acknowledging that after he had missed she should take the last shot. This is a powerful representation that she is Max’s equal not only in screen time but in strength of character.

Having the leaders of the former “green place” all be women as well as the women who were trying to escape meant that almost the entire cast of protagonists in the film, with the exception of Max and eventually Nux, were women and as such these women were afforded ample opportunity to display their skill and strength of character. Having so many capable and independent female characters made this film more interesting to watch, particularly because it meant the worn out theme of the damsel in distress didn’t have to be further exhausted. More films should follow the example being set by Mad Max and embrace its message: women can handle as strong of roles as men and having such female roles greatly enhances the story. 

The overall topic of people as commodities versus the birth mothers’ reminders that “We are not things” was a stronger than average topic for action film and gave the story of Fury Road solid weight. It also worked well to further the theme of women as strong characters by portraying them in conflict with Immortan Joe’s notion that he can possess them.

In addition to breaking the mold with his strong female characters, Miller also showed rare restraint for a director in regards to his characters. Unlike the overly grotesque characters of a film like 300, Miller was able to incorporate some rather gruesome imagery without it reaching the point of being uncomfortable to look at. The War Boys' boils, the deformed son of Immortan Joe, and even Joe’s death, are all examples of how he reached the boundary of disgusting without crossing over into grotesque. In doing so, Miller maintained the balance of creating a unique and interesting world but keeping the audience’s attention on the characters and story.

George Miller and his co-writers also strengthened this film’s story by avoiding the temptation to fall into overdone and tiresome clichés. Having the intestinal fortitude as a storyteller to kill off Nux, a young boy who the audience grows to like and sympathize with, rather than sparing him to preserve a happy ending, was a bold and commendable decision. The greatest trap, however, that Miller avoided, was the temptation to have Max and Furiosa form a romantic relationship by having Max kiss her when she was on the verge of death. Not only would this have weakened her character significantly and turned her into yet another damsel, it would have shattered the bond they had formed over their shared desire to achieve redemption. Sometimes it is not what directors and screenwriters do that makes their stories successful, it is what they choose not to do.

Another significant part of what made this movie interesting and unique was the many creative concepts that Miller brought to this post-apocalyptic world. The types of War Boy warriors: pole cats, flamers, war rigs, etc. as well as the many different car designs, especially the rocker vehicle, gave the audience something to look at as well as making the film less like a typical car chase. The concept of Mad Max being a universal donor and used as a blood bag, which ends up saving Furiosa, was also very clever. At the heart of the story is the concept of the War Boys being half-lives who are trying to reach Valhalla while also worshipping V-8 engines; this along with the idea of "witnessing" with chrome and being reincarnated shiny and chrome like cars is a very creative concept of a fictional religious cult.

My favorite scene in the film is when Max and Nux are fighting chained together. The camera work here is awesome and it is also the first time the audience sees all three main characters together. It is also the moment when Nux’s potential as a protagonist is first revealed.

Conclusion:

Mad Max: Fury Road is a revolutionary new action film which incorporates strong female characters and a unique story in addition to breathtaking visuals. These visuals are not overdone and neither is the story. This film is fast paced and action packed, yet somehow also makes great use of subtlety through Miller’s directing and Hardy’s acting. Charlize Theron’s performance is incredible, particularly in the still limited genre of an action film, but even more impressive than her acting is the creativity and skill that director/writer/producer George Miller brought to this film.

Grade:

WRAP: 95%

True Detective S2E1

I'm going to open my review with a blunt opinion: True Detective Season 1 is one of the finest, most perfectly crafted pieces of art in television history and I will fight you over that.
Now that we've got that out of the way, I think it goes without saying that beginning this review with some kind of brief overview of season 1 would take a lifetime too long and send me on a thousand different tangents, none of which are relevant to the subject at hand.

Almost 18 months have passed since we were first introduced to Marty Hart, Rustin Cohle, and a satanic cult with murderous tendencies in the murky bayous of Louisiana. That universe is gone now, as the anthology continues in an entirely new world with a casting bill twice as long as the last and a story that will certainly prove to be a complex web of serendipidously connected stories. We've got a lot to explore, so let's get to it!

[SPOILERS AHOY!]

Let's begin with a quick breakdown of every major character we come across in the Season 2 premiere, 'The Western Book of the Dead'
Ray Velcoro (Colin Ferrell): A burnt out, emotionally traumatized, "seen-way-too-much-shit" detective working for the city of Vinci, a fictional suburb of L.A. who serves as the inside-man/muscle for...
Frank Semyon (Vince Vaughn): A former mobster-turned-legit businessman, currently running Vinci's casino scene and working to transition into big time real estate investment through a major California railway, who's primary benefactor (city manager Ben Caspere) has mysteriously disappeared.
Paul Woodrough (Taylor Kitsch): A California Highway Patrol officer with an obviously shady past who finds sole release through his job and the sensation of flirting with death.
Ani Bezzarides (Rachel McAdams): A roughened LAPD officer in pursuit of a missing person as she battles with a host of unknown personal demons stemming from her family which includes a pornstar sister and a father who oversees a Hare Krishna enclave.

See all that info? That's all covered in the one episode. Every character's story is introduced and briefly tapped into in the span of one hour, and that's not even including some of the more important supporting cast! Herein lies the gamble that Pizzolatto has wagered with Season 2 of True Detective. By doubling the major cast size, the new season walks a fine line between crafting a Game of Thrones-esque mural of interconnected stories and a potentially clumsy, convoluted mess; a police drama equivalent of 'Love Actually'.

I say this fully aware that the season is only one episode deep and there is plenty of time for everything to eventually make sense. Then again, I'm forced to compare 'The Western Book of the Dead' to its Season 1 counterpart 'The Long Bright Dark' and the focused, irresistible chemistry between Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey. Right off the bat, we are introduced to a fascinating and relentlessly back-and-forth dynamic between Marty's tough-as-nails but folksy down-home persona and Rust's nihilistic, hopelessly bleak outlook of the future and life itself. It was fun from the very beginning to see Marty incredulously endure Rust's endless barrage of twisted personal philosophies stemming from a past of dangerous self-destruction, always retorting with the sort of sarcasm and frustration you'd expect from a classic buddy-cop flick.

This duality of personalities maintaining a perfect balance and providing a rich flavor to its character development is part of what made Season 1 such a thrill to experience. Here, Pizzolatto may be risking not only biting off far more than he can chew, but sacrificing that very sort of chemistry between characters for the sake of adding complexity.

There is, of course, plenty to admire in this new chapter of the modern noir universe we've come to love. The acting is characteristically on point, with Colin Ferrell's Velcoro and Vince Vaughn's Semyon leading the pack. Their dynamic seems to be what will drive the bulk of this season's story, though there is plenty of potential for Kitsch and McAdams to grow in equally intriguing fashion. On their own, each story develops at a good pace, and I think it's fair to say we can expect the full range of arcs to flesh out in a meaningful way. It's only a matter of whether or not we as a viewing audience can retain the barrage of information we're subjecting ourselves to.

The cinematography is downright gorgeous, which is once again something we've come to expect from True Detective. We're treated to some fantastic shots of the interchanges on the outskirts of L.A., and the final shot panning back from a seaside ledge where our heroes finally meet upon the curiously displayed corpse of city manager Ben Caspere is certainly the winner of the episode. There is a particularly effective scene towards the end, where Semyon and Velcoro are seated at opposite ends of a long booth in a seedy dive-bar. It's a moment of teasing emotion. There is a lot we have yet to learn about the relationship between Velcoro and Semyon, and a single dimly lit image tells us more than dialogue alone can explain.

Finally, some credence is obviously owed to the writing. At the end of the day, True Detective is and always will be Pizzolatto's brainchild. The fact that he can tap into the deepest, darkest psychological fears of his viewers with utter ease remains abundantly clear. He's instilled that haunted apprehension in every major character, the kind that was on full display with Matthew McConaughey's performance in Season 1. But again, this brings us back to the greatest potential pitfall of this season: We have four major story lines, each driven by a deeply disturbed character that displays a different part of Rust, yet there is not a Marty in sight. Of course whether or not one will develop later on this season has yet to be seen, and we all know that Pizzolatto has done more than enough to prove that we the viewers are in capable hands.

Final Verdict: 70/100 (WRAP)

Season 2 premieres with an incredible amount of ambition. Dense and complex to a fault, but displaying the acting talent and razor-sharp dialogue we've come to know and love from True Detective. Although it risks suffocating beneath the mountain of story arcs it has developed, 'The Western Book of the Dead' serves as a fine prologue for what will no doubt be an entertaining thrill ride of a second season.

-Ben Krein

Gone Girl

I went into this film with an enormous amount of respect for David Fincher for his directing in both Fight Club and Se7en (Panic Room and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo were also well done but nothing special). Gone Girl was quite a disappointment. There was very little to this movie other than Pike's performance that stood out as anything above mediocre. Fincher was certainly not at his best and neither was Affleck. 

Acting

Ben Affleck:

I should preface my analysis of Affleck’s performance in this film by mentioning that I consider him to be a middle of the road actor. He’s come a long way since Good Will Hunting in which he helped write a unique and good screenplay but acting-wise he did little more than ride the coattails of Matt Damon’s success as his talentless, childhood friend.  Since then he’s played the painfully annoying Captain Rafe McCawley in Pearl Harbor, Daredevil (a film so bad the audience wishes they had been blind after seeing it), Doug MacRay in The Town in which he came off forced and overly dramatic. Argo, however, was a pleasant surprise and Affleck seemed much more natural in his role as Tony Mendez.

His performance in Gone Girl was somewhere between MacRay and Mendez. At times Affleck seemed very believable as the frustrated victim of a crazy and manipulated wife. The scenes in which he comes off as untrustworthy and indifferent towards his wife, such as the speech he gives to his neighbors at the awareness event, are well done and more dynamic than what we are used to seeing from Affleck. There are other moments, however, where he comes off as painfully forced and regresses to the point where we are reminded that it's Ben Affleck we are watching, rather than Nick Dunne. The scenes at the end of the film after Pike has returned and we are supposed to feel for Nick's uncomfortable and downright scary situation are not compelling at all. Part of this was a failure of the story to provide a practical ending, but Affleck's uninspiring performance should shoulder some of the blame.

Rosamund Pike’s performance in this film was, mostly, phenomenal. She played the loving wife, the scared victim and the crazy psychopath all so convincingly that it was difficult at times to tell which role was real. The only downside to her performance was that for the first half she was in very little of the film and was limited to reading from the diary. This restriction on her character was a necessity for the author Gillian Flynn (personally I think it would have been better to have just told us from the beginning that she kidnapped herself and to show her more since there was only about 30 minutes in which there existed any real doubt for the audience as to Nick's innocence) but I still would have liked to have seen more of Pike. Keeping the disappointment I felt for the story's end aside, I thought Pike's performance was a roller coaster that sloped upward and built with the film's heightening plot until it abruptly careened down a hill as the film's plot reached its conclusion. As Pike's juggling act of playing the victim and the wife gave way to one insane psychopath it reduced the significance of her range and confined her to the limitations of the story's hopelessly implausible ending.

Neil Patrick Harris plays Desi: a millionaire and Pike’s crazed former lover turned stalker. That's about all I can say of this rather limited and barely necessary appearance by Patrick-Harris. A waste of a decent actor to not have involved him more in the story and makes me wonder, having not read the book Gone Girl, if the film wouldn't have been better off had not been written by Flynn as well in order to allow a different writer to adapt the story to fit the talent within this film. Affleck is not strong enough to play the lead, Pike was brilliant but her screen-time was unwisely limited, and Patrick-Harris's role was so pointless it could have been played by a mailman. 

Story

After Nick's wife Amy goes missing, his relationship with the police is created and immediately strained to indicate they are suspicious he might be involved, a suspicion that is easily transferred to the audience. In fact from the police, Pike’s diary, the news’ portrayal of Affleck, and Affleck’s own actions, this audience is strongly made to believe that he is guilty, which quickly turns this film into a “who done it.” That is, until writer Gillian Flynn breaks away from this murder mystery cliché and convinces the audience of his innocence (performing the same 180 in character perception that defense attorney Tanner Bolt (Tyler Perry) says he and Affleck must pull off to convince the public of his innocence.)

While normally I would applaud a writer and director for taking a risk and going against a cliche for the sake of innovation, I can't help feeling that this film might have been better had it stuck to the format of a conventional murder mystery. Once the plot evolved from a "who done it" to a clear establishment of Affleck's innocence, much of the tension that had been building in the audience's mind fizzled out. It seems that Flynn intended to replace the audience's suspense over whether or not he was guilty with concern for whether or not she would get away with her frame-up. This transition was poorly executed because it required the audience to suddenly build up feelings of sympathy for a character (Affleck) they had just spent half the movie learning to distrust. The failure to connect with or care about what happens to Affleck's character proved to be a major hindrance to the film's story.  

Another brief criticism I had of the movie was the unnecessary and uncomfortable amount of sex. I am not against showing sex in film but I prefer it to have a purpose, otherwise it becomes a cheap ploy to keep an audience entertained. I understand that the scenes of their memory in which we saw Affleck and Pike having sex was meant to show us how in love they once were but there are other ways of achieving this end. The same is true of the scene with Amy and Desi which seemed nothing more than a cheap excuse to see Rosamund Pike having sex. 

The greatest criticism I have of this film was its ending. After watching Affleck accused of murder by his neighbor, denounced by his in-laws, interrogated by the police, and almost imprisoned all on the account of a woman he now realizes has a history of falsely accusing another man of raping her, the audience is somehow expected to believe that he not only doesn't turn her in but decides to stay with her?? This resolution is so ridiculously improbable and unsatisfying that it actually undermines what good this film had to offer. What had at least been an interesting story, despite some weaknesses, loses all credibility with this preposterous conclusion. Not having read the book on which this film is based, I am forced to assume that this ending is the product of Flynn as it in no way resembles the brilliance of Fight Club or Se7en.

Directing

On a positive note, Fincher’s decision to show passages from Amy’s diary to convey her thoughts to the reader and then to transition to having her do voice-overs was a unique and helpful addition to just flashbacks which are much more typical of Hollywood. We see not just how their relationship developed but are given a window into her mind. These clever insights into Amy's mind were a subtle and clever way of introducing the audience to her insane methods that effectively supplemented those actions actually presented on screen. 

What marks the failure of this film's directing is not that it was poorly directed, but that it was nothing out of the ordinary. It lacked the signature twist ending audiences have come to expect from a Fincher film and the reason for this, like most of the film's drawbacks, lies with the film's story.


Conclusion:

Grade: Crap 49%

This film teeters on the edge of being good and had a lot of potential to be a solid film, but a terrible ending and limited storyline prevent it from realizing its potential. The directing was also rather ordinary which is a disappointment for a Fincher film and Affleck seemed to digress back to his former uninspiring acting performances. Rosmund Pike is the clear star of this film but even her performance is not enough to save it.

Inception

For many, this film is synonymous with complexity—and rightfully so. Its intricate plot has more than just dreams within dreams but also ideas within ideas. There is more to Inception than just its plot twists, however. Inception is above all the most innovative idea to come out of Hollywood since Donnie Darko and an exhibition of fantastic cinematography, good acting, a moving score, and a compelling plot. This review, like Donnie Darko, requires some explanation as part of the analysis.

Acting

Inception is a star-studded cast of Leonardo Dicaprio, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Tom Hardy, with Michael Caine making a limited appearance. It is worth noting that Christopher Nolan is one of very few directors to use some of his actors in multiple films. Gordon-Levitt, Hardy, Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard (Mal), and Cillian Murphy (Fischer) all appear in his Dark Knight trilogy for example. None of these actors give the best performance of their career, but all are proven actors and give this film the performances it deserves. Dicaprio and Cotillard give the strongest performances as Cobb and Mal, and Gordon-Levitt is impressive as Arthur, but none of these actors are really challenged in this movie as they are overshadowed by the intricacy of the story. A perfect example of this is Ellen Page who normally plays very challenging roles (An American Crime, Juno, Hard Candy, etc.) but here gives a rather straightforward performance as Ariadne. Inception is a rare exception where great acting isn’t necessary for an exceptional film.

Cinematography:

There are several awe-inspiring visual scenes in this film which showcase Nolan’s skill as a director. The first of these scenes is when Leo is dunked in slow-motion into a bathtub while enormous tidal waves come crashing through the sides of the building. Nolan shows us first one scene and then the other, back and forth, creating a transition for Cobb from one dream to the next while also building tension for the audience as first we first feel concern that he will drown in Saito’s palace and then that he will drown in the tub. These feelings of anxiety are instantaneous, not drawn out like most action scenes, which make them more effective as there’s no time for the audience to become bored or lose interest in the character’s peril. Nolan also uses this back and forth technique to show what’s going on inside Cobb’s mind; we see a scene of what is happening in real time, followed by a clip of Cobb’s children, then back to real time, then an image of Mal, then back to real time. This is a simple technique and used quite often by directors but what makes it special in this movie is the amount that it is used and the role it has in helping the audience figure out what happened to Cobb. It’s not just his thoughts we are seeing but his memories and these help us to piece together the narrative of what happened to him. This technique also works as part of the story’s framework by providing a space for Mal to exist in addition to Cobb’s dreams.

Another example of the beautiful cinematography in this film is when Cobb and Ariadne meet on a Paris street corner and we see a book display and fruit stands begin to explode, then the glass from the nearby buildings, then the buildings themselves and then even the ground erupts all forming a slow-motion tornado of destruction around Cobb and Ariadne who remain perfectly still. When Ariadne asks about “what happens when you mess with the physics of it all” and turns a street upside down forming a cube is a great visual to help the audience grasp the ability of an architect to mess with dreams, just as the Penrose steps example is a clever way for Nolan to explain how dreams can be built as paradoxical mazes. Many of the scenes in this film are simply spectacular to behold because of their overwhelming amount of detail and magnitude: the buildings shown in limbo, the first maze Ariadne designs, Saito’s palace, the zero-gravity scene in the hotel, etc. These scenes exemplify the level of complexity that Nolan achieves both visually and through his writing.

Story

There are too many unique elements to dreaming and inception in this story to cover them all, but a list of some of them would include: that five minutes in the real world gives an hour in the dream, the concept of architects who design dreams as mazes, that there are projections of the subconscious who can turn on those who do not belong in the dream, totems, that dreamers use bank vaults as places to hide secure information, the concept of a forger as someone who imitates real people within a dream rather than the conventional definition, etc. Because Inception has so many of these original ideas, all of which are new to the audience, much of the movie must be dedicated to explaining these concepts to the audience. How these ideas are explained and how much time is given to their explanation is critical to the film’s success because there is a balance that must be met between providing enough information that the audience can understand what’s going on but not so much that the audience is overwhelmed and loses interest in the story. Nolan’s execution of this balance is flawless. By using multiple characters to teach the audience (Cobb, Arthur, and Eames) and dividing new concepts up between scenes, Nolan keeps his ideas fresh and manageable for the audience.

“An idea is like a virus: resilient, highly contagious. The smallest seed of an idea can grow. It can grow to define or destroy you.” This is how Cobb characterizes an idea and is clearly the definition at work in the film. The audience learns about the process of inception very gradually over the course of the film. We are initially told that it is a means of planting an idea into a dreamer’s head and, if successful, making them believe it is their own. Then Eames makes it clear to us that this process is very difficult to master because it requires the most basic stage of the idea in order for it to work. Lastly a much darker piece of inception is introduced: that the idea can destroy the one who receives it. Nolan intentionally leaves out this information until the final confrontation between Cobb and Mal, as it is the key to understanding what happened to Mal and the reason for Cobb’s guilt. Part of the Nolan’s genius in this film is the way he presents the story of the inception of Fischer and the bargain with Saito to the audience as if it were the main story of the film when really he is distracting us from the real story which is Cobb’s relationship with Mal.

A dream within a dream and the concept of inception are the defining characteristics of Inception for most viewers, but the real heart of the film is the backstory of Cobb and Mal. Throughout the film we are aware that their relationship is significant since Mal works as a multifaceted bridge between the real world, the dream world, and Cobb’s memories both for Cobb and for the audience. She is the real antagonist of the film as her character is constantly at work to stop Cobb from succeeding. We see her interference in the dream world from the very beginning of the film where she tells Saito about him and attempts to torture Arthur. She is Cobb’s cause of pain in the real world (the reason he cannot go home to his children) and she also haunts his memories’ Ariadne discovers Cobb keeps certain memories of her locked away off an elevator in his mind (“These are memories I have to make right” he tells Ariadne.) Part of the genius of this story is that at first the audience is meant to believe that Mal and Cobb’s relationship is a vehicle for explaining Cobb’s character and the reason he must perform inception on Fischer in order to go home. But towards the end of the film when Cobb enters Limbo and reveals that he performed inception on Mal which led to her suicide, we begin to realize that it’s the other way around; the Inception of Fischer is the vehicle to explain what Cobb did to Mal and the reason for his guilt. Mal is the basis for the film’s theme of questioning the reality we live in and the source of doubt for Cobb and for the audience as to whether Cobb lives in the real world or whether he is still dreaming while his children keep him grounded in the real world.

As dark and serious as the film’s story is, there are also brief moments of humor worked into the story. “You musn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling” Eames tells Arthur while lifting a grenade launcher to fire at a troublesome projection. The audience can enjoy this moment of levity and still feel the tension of hoping they escape without being shot. This happens several times over the course of the film, usually right before moments of extreme tension, which add to the audience’s entertainment without changing the feel of scene. The successful infusion of humor into such a serious film shows just how layered this film really is.

Music:

Hans Zimmer is famous for his powerful soundtracks and this one just might be the highlight of his career. Zimmer delivers a raw musical score that seems to fill the viewer with the emotion of his music and places them within the scene. The power of Inception’s score creates a balance with the otherwise overwhelming visuals of the film’s cinematography. The man who gave us the Dark Knight, Lion King, and Pirates of the Caribbean’s scores has outdone himself with Inception.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 100%

A film to be watched again and again, Inception is a thought-provoking, mind-bending film for the ages. Its complexity is not limited to its story, but extends to its cinematography, and its score. This film takes special effects, which are sometimes the downfall of a film, and uses it as a strength to build on an already creative script. In today’s age of movies where three sequels to Avatar are being made and Hollywood is often criticized for its lack of imagination, Inception is the creativity we’ve all been searching for. 

Donnie Darko

Sometimes the best films are those you have to watch multiple times to fully appreciate. Such is the case with Donnie Darko. This film is so complex that in the director’s cut, writer and director Richard Kelly includes segments in between scenes explaining the rules of time travel to better explain these elements in the film. This film is one of a kind and therefore deserves a one of a kind review. Because there is so much complexity to this film which could easily be missed by someone who hasn’t seen it a dozen times I chose to provide my understanding of the themes and story of the film in addition to just a straightforward evaluation.

Characters

Jake Gyllenhaal’s breakout role may still be his best. Since this movie he has really come into his own as an actor with strong performances in Nightcrawler, Zodiac, Source Code, etc. As good as he’s been in those roles, though, there will always be a part of me that sees him as Donnie—the troubled and misunderstood teenager trying to make sense of his delusions. With so many movies having already been made about troubled teenagers whose parents don’t get them, seemingly every movie in the 1980s, it would have been easy for this age-old cliché to have detracted from such a complex story. Instead Gyllenhaal delivers a performance that is anything but cliché.

In English Class Gyllenhaal is the shy and quiet student, at home he is a sarcastic and vulgar teen, in his therapist’s office he is a vulnerable patient, around Gretchen a nervous teenage boy, and with Frank he is a possessed sleepwalker. While it is the many complex themes of the film which make it so unique, these themes are made possible through Gyllenhaal’s performance as Donnie Darko becomes the vessel through which we see into the portal (this film.)

Apart from Donnie there are several other actors whose roles serve two overall functions: the foils or “bullshitters,” as Mr. Darko calls them, whose narrow minded perspective on life provides a contrast to Donnie’s and the enablers who engage with Donnie’s view on reality and help him try to understand the truth. His sister, Maggie Gyllenhaal, serves as the overbearing but good hearted older sister who brings out the rebellious teen in Donnie. Other foils include his gym teacher Kitty and the source of her obsession Jim Cunningham both of whom preach his cult’s view of fear and happiness. Both of these characters show us the frustration building inside Donnie as they present oversimplified explanations and solutions of life’s problems which Donnie knows to be insufficient: “The world isn’t black and white,” he tells Kitty.

In addition to these “bullshitters” there are those characters who aid Donnie in his quest for the truth: his therapist, Grandma Death, his English teacher, and his science teacher. These characters are of far greater significance to the film as in addition to showing us the depth of Donnie’s character they are what progress the story. These “manipulated living,” as they are referred to in chapter 7 of the film, are portals of information for Donnie which drive him closer to enlightenment and ultimately help him to make a decision about his fate. In order to reset the universe to its original course Donnie requires the insight provided by these characters who function as Deus Ex Machina “God from machine” by providing the necessary resolution to the seemingly unsolvable problem of a collapsing space-time continuum.

Secondary characters like the English teacher, Drew Barrymore, have a vital purpose even though their screen time is minimal. We only see Barrymore a handful of times in the film, but her introduction of the term “cellar door” and the themes from The Destructors are instrumental in giving Donnie the knowledge he needs to make sense of time travel even though she does not understand the implications of what she’s saying. The information pours from her without her understanding because she, like the other characters who help him, have become the tools of God to put Donnie back on the path of his own death or else risk the destruction of the universe. I cannot imagine a greater purpose for secondary characters in a film than to highlight the strengths of the main character all while helping him to save the universe.

Special Effects 

Before I get to the heart of the film, its writing and story, I felt that I would give a deserving nod to some of the creative effects that Kelly uses to make time supernatural elements like time travel and a six foot rabbit feel like they belonged in this film. The bubble-like pathway which led Donnie to the gun he later used to kill Frank was both a unique and understandable way to show the audience how Donnie was being led to his fate. Donnie’s inability to cope with Frank, whom he sees as threatening, was very effectively displayed by having Donnie try to stab Frank through the mirror only for the knife to bounce off. Scenes of waves crashing and a pupil dilating captured the feel of his hallucinations as well as the tearing apart of the edges of the framework of the universe. The dark, foreboding cloud served as a visual symbol of Donnie’s death.

Writing

The writing of this film by director and screenwriter Richard Kelly is brilliant for his ability to tell a compelling story involving a troubled teenager, a cult-like pedophile, a six-foot rabbit, and time travel all without confusing his story or his audience. In addition to the major themes of the film, Kelly also showcases his talent for writing in some of his minor scenes. The scene where Donnie and his friends have an extensive discussion about the sexuality of smurfs is particularly clever and reminds me of many of the conversations in Tarantino films.

At first viewing Donnie Darko might appear to just be a story about a boy who was supposed to die and the universe’s attempt to convince him to correct its mistake, but there is much more going on beneath the surface. What distinguishes most independent films, and especially this one, from blockbusters are the major themes that are intricately weaved into a complex story. Most films could not take on so many complex ideas without either overwhelming the audience or suffocating the story. Donnie Darko succeeds because all of the major themes in it, even those that are very different from each other, all tie into one theme: Donnie is meant to die.

The first major theme is introduced in Donnie’s English class where he discovers that destruction can be a form of creation in a story where children flood a school. Once this idea is planted in Donnie’s head we see him act on this knowledge as he floods the school, defaces the school’s mascot, and eventually burns down Cunningham’s house. This is the first time Donnie is given information from a Deus Ex Machina (in this case his English teacher) and then given a task which is meant to compel him to choose to end his life and restore order to the universe. By flooding the school and burning down Cunningham’s house he willingly commits acts for which Donnie knows he is likely to suffer great consequences: “I only have a few days left before they catch me” he tells his therapist. Yet ironically it is not fear which motivates Donnie to do these things, which Cunningham claims motivates Donnie, but loyalty to Frank who saved his life and, more importantly, a desire to “know his master plan” (Whether “his” refers to Frank or to God is never made clear in the film and whether it is one or the other is irrelevant since what the film is primarily focused on is Donnie’s figuring out that he must choose to die.) The audience is meant to understand that while the fear of being caught hangs over Donnie, pushing him away from any attachment toward this tangent universe, it is the search for knowledge that drives him.

There are several other themes which are raised in the film that also point Donnie towards his death. Time travel is of course a significant part of the film and while it is certainly used to make the film more complex and therefore interesting, its ultimate purpose is to make it possible for Donnie to change the past and die as he was originally supposed to (another example of Deus Ex Machina.) The acceptance of one’s fate and that we all die alone is a subtler but equally important theme that pops up several times in the film including towards the beginning of the film when Grandma Death tells Donnie that “Every living creature on Earth dies alone.” This is another example of how a theme which seems to stand on its own is really just a vehicle for getting Donnie to accept death so that he can more easily make the decision to save the universe. Death itself also serves as an important motivator as the one person Donnie loves, Gretchen, is killed by Frank’s car as a result of Grandma Death standing in the street (not coincidentally, right after Donnie cries out “Deus Ex Machina.”)

Gretchen’s death proves to be the most significant motivator for Donnie. The morning after Gretchen’s death, we see Donnie return home. Though Donnie is faced with plenty of reasons for not being invested in this tangent universe (those mentioned above as well as for murdering Frank) he still tries to flee from his fate by driving away with Gretchen’s body after he sees the cloud formation in the sky which he knows will bring about his death. Sitting on a hilltop overlooking the valley below, the film reaches its climax as Donnie is finally faced the decision of whether or not to sacrifice himself for the universe. Donnie gets back into the car, takes a long look at Gretchen’s body and realizes that the only way to save her is for him to die. Following his decision the screen immediately flashes the word “purge,” signaling an end to the tangent universe and a restoration of order. Ultimately Donnie was not motivated by fear as Cunningham alleged, but by his love for Gretchen.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 100%

The complexity of this story and its many themes all working towards one beautiful resolution is what makes this film such a masterpiece. Kelly’s genius is demonstrated by his ability to take longstanding clichés like the story of a troubled teen, young love, and an overbearing school and effectively combine them with as complex a concept as time travel. Gyllenhaal’s acting, Kelly’s directing, and one of the most thought provoking screenplays combine for one of Hollywood’s greatest creations.  

Nightcrawler

Acting

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Louis “Lou” Bloom an aspiring “nightcrawler” who hunts down accidents and crime scenes for footage to sell to news stations. Gyllenhaal’s doll eyed expression has flashes of Donnie Darko in them but is made even creepier by the broad faced grin which rarely ever leaves his face. Gyllenhaal’s slicked back hair is also vastly different from his normally clean cut look. Gyllenhaal is captivating in this role and shows a level of intensity he had not previously exhibited. An early example of this intensity, which he maintains throughout the film, is the scene where he fails to catch a fire on film after speeding wildly and talking at the rate of a coke addict. We see this same intensity man when Gyllenhaal is able to talk about Mexican food while Nina asks him twice about blood on his shirt. Gyllenhaal is careful not to play this role over the top but maintains his credibility as an unsympathetic psychopath.

Rick Garcia, playing himself, does pretty well as a not too serious and overwhelmed intern who serves as a foil to Gyllenhaal. As the movie progresses and it becomes clear that Rick lack’s Gyllenhaal’s intensity he becomes an increasing source of frustration for Gyllenhaal and is not able to keep up with his insane pace. He is the rational and “normal” character in the face of Gyllenhaal’s insanity and while he acts the part well he doesn’t exactly distinguish himself as an actor.

Directing

Director Dan Gilroy makes great use of close-ups to focus on Gyllenhaal’s doll-eyed face and upper torso, insuring that Gyllenhaal’s acting is the focus of the movie which, given his acting ability in this performance, he should be. A very unique element of this movie is the insight Gilroy provides as to how a news team operates and manipulates the news. The camerawork done by Gyllenhaal’s character is a clever way for Gilroy to show how effective camerawork is, particularly in the scene where Gyllenhaal and Rick are filming the two murder suspects and we see their filming through both men’s camera lenses while the rest of our screen around their lens is blurred. We see this technique used again during the car chase scene in which Gyllenhaal and Rick pursue the police chase of the remaining murder suspect and much of the scene is shown through the lens of Rick’s camera. 

Another technique Gilroy uses is controlling the pacing of the film. The film begins as a very fast paced but a straightforward enough storyline that the audience can easily follow it. Gilroy later makes use of the audience’s adjustment to this fast pace by slowing things down in order to build suspense at key moments and make it even more effective (the most obvious example being when he and Rick are tailing the two murderers and this scene feels like it is lasting forever because of the contrast with the rest of the movie.)

Story

The story begins as an almost cliché depiction of cutthroat journalists but quickly evolves to show these journalists possess a new level of emotional detachment from their stories. This is made clear when Nina tells Gyllenhaal to “think of our newscast as a woman running bloody down the street with her throat cut.” A few times the limitations of this detachment are stretched, especially with the reporting of the home invasion, but ultimately we see that the manipulation of fear and lack of sympathy wins out as again and again Nina encourages her anchors to scare the public.

Another main theme of this film is the relentless pursuit of success. Gyllenhaal tells the audience that “why you pursue is as important as what you pursue” while also promoting the idea of hard work being the only way to attain success. This keeps the audience wondering whether the success of his business is really his motivation or if there is something else motivating him. His collection of his successful stories more resembles a mass murder keeping a display of trophies than a businessman or entrepreneur driven to succeed. We see the beginning of Gyllenhaal’s psychopathic tendencies when he turns down Paxton’s offer to run a second van and the chance to make more money while also bluntly telling him that he feels like attacking him (the kind of matter of fact observational speech that sounds like a serial killer.) He repeats this process when he meets with Nina whom he bluntly tells which of her physical features he likes as well as threatening her job in the same meeting.

There are also several pivotal moments that mark the exposure of Gyllenhaal’s true nature. The first of these Pivotal moments transpires when Gyllenhaal realizes that he can move a dead driver’s body to create a better shot. This leads him to become fully invested in his work as a nightcrawler and gives him the arrogance that brings about much of his frustration which pushes him over the edge when it comes to finding increasingly gory stories and competing with Paxton. While a few of the other journalists maintain their lack of sympathy for the death and violence in the world, we see this lack of emotion taken to another level with Gyllenhaal when he films Paxton being taken away in an ambulance and Gyllenhaal refers to his accident as “profit” and again when he enters the home where a murder has just taken place in order to film the crime scene victims and all.

Another pivotal moment comes during his negation with Nina in which he refuses to bargain for a lower price—a complete role reversal from the beginning of the film when it was the construction manager who refused to lower his price with Gyllenhaal.

The final pivotal point happens when Gyllenhaal allows Rick to be killed by the second murderer telling him he “cannot jeopardize the success of his company for the sake of an untrustworthy employee.” This scene screams Godfather’s “it’s not personal, just business” and reinforces how psychopathic not only Gyllenhaal is but also Nina who represents the media as a whole. “You’re just like Lou” is the true message of this film, telling the audience that what so obviously bothers us and we so easily recognize as wrong in an individual, Gyllenhaal, is also going on in the media where these same psychotic tendencies are harder for us to detect but are equally reprehensible.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 70%

Overall I thought the film was quite enjoyable. Gyllenhaal’s performance was easily the highlight of this film and without it I think this movie loses most of its entertainment. I found the themes in this film about journalistic manipulation to be presented in a unique and clever way as well as being a refreshing message from Hollywood. This movie could have been a little faster paced as towards the end the plot began to drag a little, but I’m equally glad Gilroy resisted the urge to have some ridiculous plot twist at the end which might have compromised the integrity of the story and Gyllenhaal’s character. 

American Sniper

This film has generated a lot of controversy due to its subject matter of recounting real life sniper Chris Kyle’s tours in Iraq. American Sniper portrays Kyle as a patriotic and brave soldier who fights to protect his fellow men both on the field and after as both seek to recover from PTSD. This portrayal has led some to claim the film glorifies Kyle and that in actuality he was nothing more than a murderer. For the sake of this review I am not concerned with what the real Chris Kyle was like, but rather what to make of his portrayal in this film and the controversy surrounding what is actually shown.

Controversy

One of the first sources of controversy concerning the film itself is that this film is unfair in its characterization of Muslims and the Muslim faith. One scene in particular that is labelled Islamophobic depicts a child and woman who are both shot by Kyle while they are trying to blow up a tank. What concerns me about the characterization of this scene and the movie as a whole as Islamophobic is that the film makes clear in the scene where Kyle and a group of marines come across a Muslim man and his family in their house that all of the civilians are supposed to have left the city. This should have been an indication to the audience that the Muslims depicted in this film are not a representation of the Muslim population as a whole, but are restricted to only the radical terrorists who remained behind to attack US troops. Since real Muslims do not consider these people to be a part of the Muslim faith there is no reason for them to take issue with the depiction of these radicals as monsters like “The Butcher” who takes a drill to a child’s head. The fact that the film also showed an innocent Muslim family that was willing to help the US also shows that the portrayal of Muslims in this film was not slanderous as some claim. Eastwood’s intention was to make this movie as realistic as possible and that includes depicting radical extremists as they really act. People should be offended by what these groups do, not by Eastwood’s willingness to accurately portray them.

A second source of controversy centers on the depiction of Kyle as a hero. Some, like the ever corpulent Michael Moore, have since called the real Kyle and his portrayal in the film “a murderer” because he was a sniper. Here again the focus of outrage and offense is misguided. Focusing just on the character of Kyle, to label him a murder is as ridiculous as calling Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, or Gandalf murderers. Have we as a society sunk to such depths of self-loathing that the heroes who kill our enemies are vilified for their actions? The real focus of outrage in this film should instead be directed at two areas: the radicals who kill innocent civilians and the state of our veterans who return home and suffer PTSD. The real controversy should be over why more isn’t being done to end these two threats.

Acting

Bradley Cooper IS Chris Kyle. This film should start with a video of Chris Kyle speaking if only so that the audience can appreciate how accurate Cooper’s portrayal of Kyle was. Cooper put on more than 40 lbs. to look like Kyle and he studied his mannerisms in order to act like him. The end result was a performance that left Chris Kyle’s mother saying she saw bits of her son in Cooper’s portrayal. I can think of no higher praise for an actor. Cooper is almost unrecognizable in this role compared to his roles in Limitless, the Hangover, or American Hustle where he plays relatively the same suave pretty boy, while here he is a patriotic, soft spoken, Texas cowboy. Cooper’s performance is the centerpiece of this film and he delivers a masterful performance that might have won him an Oscar in a less competitive year.

Sienna Miller’s performance as Taya Kyle is much less impressive. While Miller does look extraordinarily similar to Taya without having to put on 40 lbs. her performance in this film is not nearly as entertaining. Perhaps the role of a worried and stressed out wife of a solider is inherently unenjoyable to watch, but Miller seems to exacerbate this unpleasantness. Her performance does not contribute much at all to this film and what is probably intended as anxious worry instead comes off as selfish and annoying. It certainly must be difficult for the wife of a soldier to go through the fear of losing her husband and not knowing what might happen to him and in seeing such worry the audience should feel sympathy for her. Watching Miller’s phone calls with Kyle and her insistent whining about how she couldn’t take his being overseas any more felt more like watching a soap opera than an Eastwood film. Admittedly, part of this whining could just be the nature of the role or what Eastwood wanted from Miller, but without that knowledge I must evaluate her for the performance she gave and overall I found the notion of a wife complaining about how lonely she felt while her husband is risking his life abroad to be an unnecessary side story that at times made the film feel disjointed.

Directing

Eastwood’s primary vision for this film, at the insistence of Chris Kyle’s father, was to create as accurate a depiction of Chris Kyle as possible in honor of his military. Eastwood succeeded in achieving this goal. He gave us the Chris Kyle that Kyle’s family, friends, and documentaries with Kyle all remember. While one could argue Cooper’s portrayal was void of any negative characteristics, biopics like this do not necessarily warrant negative attributes of their subject just for the sake of being “well rounded.” The lack of any negative side of Kyle was appropriate here just the movie Lincoln did not go over his suspension of habeas corpus or his statements that Blacks would be happiest being sent back to Africa. Perhaps it is a valid criticism to say that not raising the controversial side of such figures in history glorifies them in an unrealistic manner, but such is the nature of biopics in general and I cannot fault Eastwood for his decision not to include critiques of Kyle in a movie meant to honor his legacy. One could also argue that the strain Kyle’s multiple tours placed on his wife and family back home was a sufficient enough conflict of character to hush any who might claim this movie deified him. American Sniper shows that Chris Kyle was not perfect and had to make decisions at the expense of his family’s happiness.

One area of directing which I do take issue with in this film I have previously touched on. I thought there were too many scenes of Kyle at home and how unhappy his tours were making Taya. The first scene sufficiently communicated the tension and unhappiness of Taya to the audience. Subsequent scenes, with the exception of maybe one close to the end of his tours to show how it had progressed, were unnecessary and broke up the flow of the movie. Since this was a movie about Chris Kyle the soldier and less about Chris Kyle the husband, I would have preferred fewer scenes with Kyle on the phone with his wife, at home with his wife, his wife having their child, etc.

One area where Eastwood succeeded as a director in this film, apart from his portrayal of Kyle, was in creating the realism of each combat scene in the movie. The scenes with the mother and child trying to attack the tank, the child with the RPG, and the Butcher drilling a child’s head were all difficult to watch but they also provided the audience with insight into the mind of a US sniper. Watching these scenes through Kyle’s scope made you feel the same intimacy a sniper feels with his targets as well as the conflict a sniper feels when trying to decide whether or not his target is a threat. Watching the kid pick up the RPG it felt like the whole audience was pleading, along with Kyle, for the kid to put it down; you didn’t just want him to, in a powerful, gut-wrenching way you needed him to. There are several of these scenes like this that pull an audience into the movie to the extent that they feel a part of it and they are a mark of Eastwood’s skills as a director.

Story

Though some have criticized American Sniper for giving too much attention to Mustafa when in actuality he was a very minor part of Chris Kyle’s tours, I agree with this decision. It would have been an impossible task to have shown all 160 of Chris Kyle’s confirmed kills (out of his 255 probable kills) and would have made for far too dark of a movie. By narrowing the story of Kyle’s tours to one particular sniper the screenwriter was able to showcase Kyle’s talent without having to repeatedly show us kill after kill. By making the story more about Kyle than about particular missions or events, the audience was able to hone in on Cooper’s performance and to get a more detailed insight into what it’s like for a soldier to battle PTSD both on the frontlines and at home.

In general I thought the story was very well done. Showing us Kyle at a young age and before he became a Seal, provided the audience with a helpful understanding of his character without the distractions of fight scenes. It is important for the audience that his character have a solid foundation initially so that we can see how he develops as a result of PTSD. The overall pacing of the story was well done and other than a few scenes of Miller, no scene seemed unnecessary. It would have been very easy for this movie to have gone overboard with fight scenes and sniper shots, but it did not and as a result the impact of each scene was more meaningful. Not until the end did we really see a significant firefight and to have had one before then would have detracted from the tension of this scene. It is also worth mentioning that I heaved a sigh of relief when it became clear that they were not going to show Kyle’s death and I applaud American Sniper for not doing so. Seeing Kyle killed on screen, even in a reenactment, would have been unnecessary and honestly not as powerful as the more subtle decision to show his killer climbing into the truck with him. The focus on Kyle’s role as someone who died helping veterans with PTSD was a classy touch by Eastwood and a powerful reminder of the type of person Chris Kyle was.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 80%

Even though some choppy scenes and a subpar performance by Sienna Miller kept this movie from being great, the level of absolute silence I experienced in the theatre as the credits began to roll is unlike anything I’ve ever experienced and is a testament to how impactful this movie was. Most of the audience was moved to tears at having witnessed the story of a real-life American duty who sacrificed so much for all of us. For political reasons and misguided views of Chris Kyle as a person this movie will probably always be controversial and not receive the full recognition it deserves, but for all the lives Chris Kyle saved, for all the veterans with PTSD he helped, and for all the sacrifices he made as a navy seal, this was a movie that needed to be made.