Manchester by the Sea

************Spoiler Warning************

I knew very little about this film going into it beyond the fact that the story was about an uncle, Lee, who must take care of his nephew in the wake of his brother's death. Manchester by the Sea is less about Joe's death, however, than it is about Lee's struggle to cope with a tragedy from his past. Casey Affleck's performance is reason alone to see this film, but I was left wishing the film's writing matched its acting.

Characters/Acting

Casey Affleck: I will start by saying that Casey Affleck should (and probably will) win best actor at this year's Academy Awards. He carries this film with his portrayal of a detached, tortured, shell of a man whose only display of emotion is the rage he exhibits during the fistfights he is constantly picking.

Casey Affleck is especially good in the scenes where he is offered chances to rejoin society such as the woman on the phone and the woman at the bar who both try to flirt with him, Sandy's mom who asks him to come in for dinner, or Michelle Williams (Randi) who asks him to get coffee with her. Affleck's body language is a gateway into the soul of a man caught between torturing himself over his past and allowing himself to move on. Normally actors are to be praised when they convincingly display a wide range of emotions in a single character, but what makes Affleck's performance in Manchester by the Sea so impressive is how well he depicts someone struggling to contain their emotions. It's difficult to imagine him in real life as anything but Lee Chandler: a man tormented by the accidental murder of his three children eight years prior to the film.

Lucas Hedges: I was equally impressed by Lucas Hedges who plays Lee's nephew Patrick, enough that I am convinced that he too should take home an Oscar for best supporting actor. Typically an adolescent male who loses their parents and goes to live with a relative is portrayed as ornery, whiney, and annoying. Thanks to better than average writing and Hedge's talent, Manchester by the Sea avoided this dreadful cliché; the relationship between Affleck and Hedges was far more interesting than the rather exhausted coming-of-age theme. A lesser actor would have been dwarfed by Affleck's performance but instead the two formed an excellent chemistry which kept the audience entertained in the midst of an overwhelmingly depressing story.

 Hedges handles his emotional scenes with more subtlety and care than most actors his age (and many older actors for that matter), especially the scene where he endures a panic attack while trying to close the freezer. He is also very believable in the scenes where he must adopt a tentative demeanor in the face of his uncle's anger. This "walking-on-eggshells-" aspect of his character is a very realistic quality that is rarely portrayed on the big-screen. I look forward to future Lucas Hedges films and hopefully he's rewarded at this year's Oscars.

Michelle Williams: I don't mean to make the acting section of this review so Oscar oriented, but since the film was nominated for three acting awards recently, the topic merits some discussion. Having seen the film I'm surprised that Michelle Williams' portrayal of Randi was nominated for best supporting actress. I usually enjoy Michelle Williams and she will probably win in the near future, but she simply did not have enough screen-time to warrant an Oscar nom. Her best performance (called an "Oscar moment" by some) is excellent, but nothing out of the ordinary. One could argue that it's "just a supporting role" but Williams' character (and her performance) is simply drowned-out by Affleck and Hedges.

Directing

Kenneth Lonergan directed and wrote Manchester by the Sea. Usually when the writer and director is the same person, like Tarantino for example, I combine the two into a single category. I've decided to separate them in this case in order to briefly highlight some of the directing I appreciated in the film before moving on to the writing where I have much more to say about the film.

Dramas about everyday people do not usually require the same amount of input from a director as most other genres, therefore it's only fair that my assessment of Lonergan's directing be based on whether he did what was necessary to allow the film's story to be told. To that end, Manchester by the Sea is well directed. There are some beautiful shots of the New England countryside in the winter and the Chandlers boating, and the fire scene made for a shocking, albeit brutal, plot-twist. The bleak winter shots and the bitter cold effectively augment the film's dark tone. Lonergan also gives the audience a good sense of the people of the Manchester-by-the-Sea community: portraying them as somewhat gritty and yet a caring communal.

The film also suffers its share of weaknesses, however, most notably its score. Manchester by the Sea's score of mostly operatic pieces is an unnecessary distraction that sometimes competes with the film's tone. The audience's focus should be on Lee's constant struggle to keep his emotions under control, but this can be quite difficult when an aria is blaring from the surround sound. It was unclear whether Lonergan's intended purpose in using such emotional music was to create a representation of Lee's inner emotions which are fighting the emotionless mask he wears, or if the music's emotion was meant to enhance whatever emotion was taking place in the scene (as was certainly the case and to great effect in the scene where Lee attempts to kill himself). Either way, the film's score should have been relegated to the background more and perhaps removed from some scenes entirely. It is also worth noting that the film's pace, which is an area of both writing and directing, was too slow, even for a serious drama, and I found myself checking my watch 5 or 6 times during the film. Overall, the film's directing accomplished what it should have; mainly, getting out of the way and allowing the story and the acting to drive the film.

Story/ Writing
Manchester by the Sea's story was in large part a success (if you sense a "but" coming, you're not wrong). Lonergan's story explores a level of human suffering that I haven't seen since The Deer Hunter. What appears on its surface to be the tragic story of a man losing his brother and a son his father is really just window dressing for the death of Lee's three children. Lonergan also cleverly disguises this inner tragedy through the dialogue. When Lee shows up to Manchester-by-the-Sea to tell Patrick of his father's death, the hockey coach refers to him as the Lee Chandler in a tone of awe, as does the vice principal's secretary. This suggests to the audience that Lee is a hometown legend, perhaps a high school hockey phenom, rather than a man who is infamously known. The plot twist itself catches the audience completely off-guard. After watching Lee casually trudge through the snow to the gas station and back, no one is prepared for the shocking scene of his house burning down with his children inside and his wife screaming as she struggles to save them. The methodical buildup and then sudden reveal of this haunting scene is tremendous writing and it might be enough to capture best original screenplay if the film comes up short on best picture and directing (as I think it will).

Unfortunately, the scene of the house burning down is in many ways the climax of the film. The audience now knows why Lee is unable to function socially and why he is so void of emotion, even upon the news of his brother's death. The audience also understands why his wife left him and why he chooses to work as a janitor away from his brother and nephew. By this point in the film, the audience realizes why returning to Manchester-by-the-Sea is so difficult for Lee and the reason he doesn't want to stay with his nephew. All that remains for the second half of the film is continued exploration into Lee's suffering and resolving the living situation between Lee and Patrick.

Here comes the "but" you've been waiting for. The second half of the film is where the writing takes a turn for the worse. As the film continues to build towards a resolution the question in the audience's mind becomes "how are two people who obviously care so much about each other going to still live together when neither wants to uproot themselves?" Lee can't deal with returning to the town that reminds him of the horrible act he can never forgive himself for and Patrick has more than just a typical teenager invested in where he lives. So how can this conflict be resolved? Well it turns out that apparently it can't, at least not beyond Lee saying "I can't do it, but I'll have a spare bedroom so you can visit". Seriously? A movie that had such a unique and creative twist earlier in the film, that spent over an hour hours building towards a resolution, can't do better than "I can't beat it"?  Disappointing.

 Another weak point in the writing was the scene with Patrick's mother. While it's always a treat to see Matthew Broderick, I'm not sure what this scene achieved that wasn't already established through the mother's e-mail relationship with Patrick. She's hasn't seen her son in years but is now making an effort to re-connect, except due to nerves and an inability to cope with her own past she is not ready. The former we already know from the fact that she's emailing him, and the latter isn't particularly relevant to the story. So what if she's struggling with her own inability to cope with the past, she's hardly an important character for the audience to sympathize with and we already get more than enough of this from Lee. Many plausible explanations for this scene come to mind but none that justify such a clunky scene.

I liked the use of Joe's character as a means to bring Lee and Patrick together and as a window to their past relationships. I don't think the audience is meant to feel sympathy at his loss as most of his screen-time follows his death and it's difficult to build an attachment between an audience and a character when that character is already deceased.

The character of Silvia (girlfriend number 1) seemed to serve almost no purpose in the film other than to establish that Patrick had two girlfriends. Was this fact even necessary? All having two girlfriends seems to achieve is either that he's popular and/or that he's somewhat of a sleaze. The audience already knows he's cool because he's a star on the hockey team and he's a likable character. The sleaze element does establish that he's not perfect, but the audience already sees this when he gets in a fight with another hockey player prior to Lee showing up. If anything, having two girlfriends who don't know about each other is an unnecessary stain on an otherwise likable character.  

Conclusion:

Manchester by the Sea is by all accounts a good film, even an academy award winning film in my view. Its acting is easily the best I've seen in what amounted to a very weak film year and the director has correctly made it the focus of the film. I was disappointed in the film's ending and the pacing of the film, and as a result its score suffers in my view (A reminder though that this is not an educational grade where everything below a 70 is borderline failing, but a true 1-100 score.)

Grade:

WRAP: 70%

Author's Note:

My friend and fellow cinephile Mr. David Henderson is convinced that the ending of the film was meant to convey to the audience that Lee plans to kill himself. He bases this theory on several elements, mainly 1) while bouncing the ball with Patrick, Lee tells him to "let it go" down the hill, perhaps symbolizing his own decision to let go of life, 2) he tells Randi "I can't beat it", perhaps referring to life itself, 3) we never see Lee pick out the apartment he says he's moving to, perhaps evidence that there isn't one because he doesn't actually plan to go back to Boston, and 4) he tried to kill himself previously.

While I would prefer this ending to the more obvious ending, I don't buy it for several reasons: 1) when he is bouncing the ball is right after burying his brother and it seems like he just loses interest in it, which seems not out of the ordinary, 2) The "it" he is referring to is the town itself, which he has been battling ever since he returned and he is anxious to get away from (hence the title of the film giving the town its deserved significance), 3) he still tells Patrick that he's looking for a place with a second room so Patrick can come and visit. Why put this in there at all then if the audience is meant to understand that he will kill himself. Wouldn't this be significantly muddying the issue? I think so, 4) the film ends as it begins with Lee and Patrick going back to the sea where they fished and this is the close to the story's loop, 5) it's been 8 years since he tried to kill himself with 7 of those being with him living alone in Boston. If he were going to kill himself he would have done so before now, especially before reconnecting with his nephew.

But what do you think of David's theory? The ending as a whole? Let me know with your comments below!

Rogue One

****************** Spoiler Warning *******************

When it was first announced that Disney would be making three independent Star Wars films, I was unsure how to take the news. A part of me feared this could be another Hobbit situation where the studio was dragging out a franchise solely to make money, but when more information came out about the film's story, including the news that Darth Vader would be returning, my expectations grew (rebellions, it seems, are not the only things built on hope). After the damage done by the prequels, Rogue One has restored my faith in the Star Wars franchise in a way that even The Force Awakens could not.

Characters/Acting

Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones): Overall I enjoyed the character for what she was: a standard sci-fi/action role. Rogue One had many more action scenes than The Force Awakens and dedicated less time to developing its characters. Jyn Erso's weaknesses as a character can mostly be attributed to the writers' decisions but not entirely (I think this sacrifice was justified, but more on that later). Jones' was likable enough and I thought her performance strengthened as the film progressed, but she did not captivate me the way Daisey Ridley did with Rey or Carrie Fisher did with Leia. Both Ridley and Fisher endeared themselves to me early on in their films in a way Jones never did (especially Ridley). In the Story/Writing section of this film I'll discuss why that not only worked for this film but made sense. On the whole, Felicity Jones continued Star War's winning streak of casting strong female characters but, like Natalie Portman, her performance was hampered by a lack of development.

Cassian Andor (Diego Luna): Although I thoroughly enjoyed K-2SO (or "K-2"), Cassian was my favorite addition to the Star Wars universe. Unlike Jyn, the writers left more room for Cassian to develop and Luna thrived off of the opportunity. If both Cassian and Poe are supposed to resemble Han Solo as characters, this is a case where Rogue One's character came out ahead (at least so far). Cassian's willingness to kill Rebel allies for the sake of his mission brought some much needed darkness to the light side of the force. Cassian's inner turmoil over whether to kill Galen Erso gave him more room to grow as a character than Jyn's more cliché and simplistic struggle with not wanting to get involved. It's no surprise then that Cassian is the stronger character, though Luna's performance was also above average and certainly worthy of mention.

Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn): While Director Krennic was not as formidable or intimidating a character as most Star Wars villains (lacking a lightsaber, lightening hands, or a red/black face with horns) he was a stronger character than most. In only a handful of scenes, Krennic proved to be arrogant, irritable, ambitious, and merciless. Krennic's angry outbursts could very easily have been overdone, but Mendelsohn exercised enough restraint to avoid this all too common corniness (cough, Saw Gerrera, cough). The only real flaw concerning his role as a villain is that he was overshadowed by the return of maybe the greatest villain of all time: Darth Vader (or overall character in my opinion).

Story/Writing

My first reaction to hearing about Rogue One was my fear that these standalone films might only serve as a money grab for Disney. My second was "well, every new character is certainly going to die". The decision to kill off all of the main characters was necessary considering this film is meant to immediately precede A New Hope. I've seen some reviews where audiences and critics have criticized Rogue One for killing off all of its main characters. I find these critiques baffling. Since none of these characters appear in A New Hope (Jyn, Cassian, Krennic, the Rebel fleet admiral, etc.) their absence would not make sense and any possible explanation for their non-involvement in the film would seem implausible given each character's importance to their respective cause. The decision to make a standalone film about stealing the Death Star plans was creative and original--at least more so than The Force Awakens--even if it meant a death sentence for its main characters.

Since the fate of all the new characters was to be decided in this film, they did not have to develop as much as characters in the other Star Wars films. Rogue One was more about the story of capturing the plans than it was about the men and women who died stealing them; the heavy dose of action scenes worked in Rogue One because the audience was not meant to have too strong of an attachment to the characters (this is Star Wars and not The Deer Hunter after all). Had there been a greater need for the characters to develop, dedicating the final quarter of the film to a battle would have been to the detriment of the film (as it was in Attack of the Clones). Instead, Rogue One is one of the few instances where a liberal amount of special effects serves a purpose without compromising character development.

The first third of the film, especially the parts on Jedha, were by far the slowest. Forest Whitaker's portrayal of the paranoid general Saw Gerrera was somewhat corny and rather forced. It also seemed unrealistic to me that a zealot like Saw would not make more of an effort to escape the Death Star's attack on Jedha. Even though he probably would not have made it to the ship due to his slow, robotic legs, I would have thought his character would do more than simply resign himself to his fate, especially considering he, justifiably, had doubts about Jyn's commitments to the Rebel cause.

Bor Gullet, Saw Gerrera's pink, mind-reading monster, was easily the weakest scene in the film and felt extremely out of place. Why did Saw subject Bodhi to a mind-reading monster and then throw him in a cell anyway after his story was presumably confirmed? And did Bodhi really "lose his mind" if he can regain it simply by being asked if he's the pilot? One could argue that this scene's purpose was to show how irrational and paranoid Saw was, but that would have been established well enough by the Scene where Saw is reunited with Jyn. The Bor Gullet scene should have been cut on the editing floor.

The "cameos" by previous Star Wars characters throughout the film were a small but significant addition to the film. Keeping these appearances brief and plentiful was wise as it kept the focus on the story at hand while spreading them out over the course of the film.

The only cameo that possibly created a non sequitur was C-3P0's observation that "they're going to Scarif?" Well, in order for the beginning to A New Hope to make sense, C-3P0 must be aboard Leia's ship (Tantive IV), which means he too would have been going to Scarif aboard Admiral Raddus's ship. This can easily be explained as a mistake on C-3P0's part, but then why not just have him say "We're going to Scarif?"

George Lucas made what will probably be his last positive contribution to a Star Wars film by allowing Director Gareth Edwards to splice previously unused clips of Red Leader and Gold Leader into the film. These scenes made perfect Easter eggs as they were hardly noticeable nuggets which only true Star Wars fans would appreciate.

The scene where the Rebel fleet shows up outside of Scarif was extremely well done and made good use of the old John Williams' score. I haven't been so pumped up for a fight scene since The Charge of the Rohirrim in Return of the King. 

It took me a second viewing to warm up to the characters of Baze Malbus and Chirrut Îmwe. It's no secret that Kung Foo movies are not my favorite, so I was initially opposed to Chirrut's character based on his battle with the Stormtroopers on Jedha. Upon further consideration, however, I'll admit that the idea of having the Jedi temple guarded by a Shaolin monk makes a certain amount of sense. In regards to speculation I've seen from certain fans that Baze and Chirrut must be gay lovers (because obviously two male warriors have never been close in battle without being romantically in love), I'll say this: nope.

The Tarkin and Leia CGI scenes were impressive and I think the right choice given that the alternative choice was to find alternative actors.  I thought the Carrie Fisher CGI was especially impressive while I had to adjust to the Tarkin scenes as the film progressed. Also, why all the pretend outrage over the morality of using CGI of a dead guy? Please go back to complaining about non-kale foods and leave Star Wars alone.

Darth Vader is my favorite character of any narrative, whether the story be a book, movie, or oral poem. It was with great anticipation therefore that I awaited his return to the big screen. My already high expectations were exceeded by that final scene, a scene which I may one day count among my favorite movie scenes of all time. As great as it is to see Darth Vader use a lightsaber for the first time since Return of the Jedi, it was the way the scene was shot that left me craving a second viewing. And a third. And a fourth. Edwards gave us the Darth Vader that Star Wars fans know and love, without any attempt to one-up previous Vader scenes. There were no lightsaber acrobatics or excessive force choking. He just walks slowly and confidently through the hall as he cuts a path through the Rebel forces like he always has, occasionally using the force to throw troopers out of his way or disarm them. It was a brilliant choice to have Vader appear out of the darkness by the glow of his lightsaber and the whole scene perfectly echoed Vader's first introduction in A New Hope. For a Star Wars fan this scene is reason enough to see Rogue One.

Conclusion:

A unique, creative backstory to the Star Wars series and better than I could have hoped for from a "standalone" film. Despite the weaker characters, I enjoyed Rogue One even more than The Force Awakens, mostly because Rogue One had a unique plot. Despite Rogue One's extensive use of CGI fight sequences, it will stand as an exception to my usual critique of films without more character development. It's possible that my grade too heavily reflects the film's ending rather than the film as a whole, but I'd much rather a film end well and start slow than vice versa, not to mention few films end as well as Rogue One does!

Grade:

WRAP: 85%

Author's Note: I've called this film a standalone Star Wars film because others have done so before me, but it really isn't. Some, including the great Mr. Plinkett, have criticized the film because it would not work without the context of the other Star Wars films. It seems to me that they've entirely missed the point. Rogue One is not meant to work outside the context of the other films (as the film's conclusion proves). 

The Hateful Eight

The fact that I'm reviewing this film before Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, or Inglorious Basterds is potentially blasphemous but I wanted to share my thoughts on the film while it was still fresh in my mind. Quentin Tarantino is my favorite director of all time so any time one of his films is released I go in with high expectations and I am almost never disappointed. While I would not call the Hateful Eight a disappointment and in most regards I was quite pleased with the film, there were some elements that took away from my enjoyment enough that it has made grading this film difficult, but I shall do my best.

ACTING

A Quentin Tarantino film is synonymous with high quality acting performances often from non A-list actors and The Hateful Eight is no exception.

Samuel L Jackson/ Major Marquis Warren: Samuel L. Jackson, who is often a secondary character in most of his films, delivers the strongest performance of his career. Instead of the "angry black man" stereotype that Samuel L. has become known for, we see a much more versatile performance ranging from a pleasant gentlemanly nature to John Ruth, a cool, calm hatred toward General Smithers, concern for whether Mannix will decide to kill him, rage toward Daisy for spitting on his letter, to crying out in pain when he is shot (just to name a few examples). Samel L. is so comfortable and impressive in this role that I wish he was either given or chose more of these types of roles more often.

Walton Goggins/ Sheriff Chris Mannix: As good as Samuel L was, Goggins stole the show as the seemingly self-interested and suspicious "Sheriff." Goggins plays his dubious role convincingly: keeping the audience guessing as to whether or not he really is a Sheriff and whether Samuel L and Russell, both Union supporters, can trust this Confederate sympathizer. His performance is especially effective as he is believable as both the scoundrel who takes pleasure in exposing Samuel L's lie about the letter and making Russell feel like a fool, and as a sheriff who refuses to murder Samuel L in the face of Daisy's threat. That such a relatively unknown actor can be trusted with such an important role and deliver is classic Tarantino.

Kurt Russell, Bruce Dern, Michael Madsen and Tim Roth were all very capable in their roles though none of them in particular stood out. It was good to see Roth back as a villain again though his role was so limited that he did not have much opportunity to shine in this film (the latter could be said for all of these actors with the exception of Russell). Dern also deserves a nod for how well he played a bitter Confederate general though his racist rants were a bit over the top at times without really adding to his character or contributing much to the story (a criticism perhaps better reserved for Tarantino than Dern). In addition to the fact that there are too many main characters in this film to analyze them individually, I have lumped these men together here because part of what made this film unique and enjoyable was that these actors gave a solid performance as a collective not as individual roles.

Channing Tatum was somewhat disappointing as his screen time was so limited that the audience had to be told that he was a brother desperately trying to save his sister without really being shown or getting a sense of his character's personality. Unfortunately by having his easily recognizable name last in the opening credits this also somewhat spoiled the story for me as I spent much of the film wondering when Channing Tatum would make an appearance and was therefore not at all surprised when he shot Samuel L from beneath the floorboards. For such a limited role perhaps his name could have been omitted from the opening credits much like Spacey's in Seven.

Jennifer Jason Leigh/ Daisy Domergue: From the moment the audience catches its first glimpse of Daisy sitting with her big black eye and handcuffed inside Russell's stage coach, Jennifer Jason Leigh had me convinced by the manic look in her eye that she was a criminal. That I cannot picture Leigh as anything but a disgusting, dirty, criminal is a testament to how greatly she sold me on her character. The scene where she laughed maniacally as Russell puked blood onto her face was as realistic as it was disturbing. I'm not sure about anointing her with the supporting Oscar just yet, but she is certainly deserving of a nomination.

WRITING/STORY

I'm going to break away from my usual format of writing/directing as a single category because there are so many elements going on within the writing and shooting of this film that they must be addressed one by one (if you're shocked this review requires special attention be paid to its writing and directing remember that this is a Tarantino film after all).

The story of The Hateful Eight is the most problematic element of the film for me so I'll begin by addressing it first. When I first heard that The Hateful Eight was going to be a western my first reaction was "Another western? But he just did Django." If Tarantino's claim before making Django that he would only make another three movies is to be believed then it surprised me that he would choose to have two of them seemingly fall within the same genre. Isn't that a tad redundant? Now having seen the film my fear of redundancy has been realized in a way I never anticipated.

The Hateful Eight is, sadly, hardly more than a recycling of Reservoir Dogs except where we see the bank robbery take place and a Django and Pulp Fiction twist has been added. Think about it, a bunch of men trapped in a room, no one can trust each other, frozen arctic, Kurt Russell is there- no, wait, that's The Thing- let's try this again: a bunch of men trapped in a room, no one can trust each other, a crime has taken place that we the audience are unfamiliar with and we're trying to figure out who can be trusted, almost everyone dies in the end. Sound familiar? Along with Clue and every other "who-done-it" that might initially come to mind, the fact that this is a Tarantino film (and most people are dying) should have you thinking of  Reservoir Dogs (it's even got Tim Roth with a fake identity as well).

One key distinction between these two movies, however, is that in Reservoir Dogs the audience never sees the actual crime being committed which was a brilliant move by Tarantino because it emphasizes the fact that his dialogue and characters are so captivating that the audience didn't need to see the heist to be entertained or to follow the story. In Chapter 4 of The Hateful Eight, however, the audience is subjected to a fifteen minute long step-by-step walk-through of how the occupants of Minnie's haberdashery were killed and how Channing Tatum hid himself beneath the floorboards. This scene was completely unnecessary to the film as the audience had already learned all it needed to know from Sameul L's guesswork and was therefore void of any suspense. For a moment Tarantino forgot that what places him above most other directors is his understanding that dialogue is superior to visuals because the audience can imagine a scene like this better than a screen can ever show it.

Along with a general plot that bore striking resemblances to Reservoir Dogs, there were also parts of this film that borrowed from Django and Pulp Fiction. Like Django the concept of the evil white man who hates black people played a major role in this film. Now as both of these films take place in the Antebellum era it should not surprise anyone that such characters would appear in these films and are a realistic prop for this era. What I find problematic, however, is that the characters of Django, and in this case Major Warren, are portrayed as heroes who enjoy killing white men because they're white. "I get to kill white folks for money" says Django with a smile. While keeping my political views as objectively to the side as one can in this matter, I find it highly problematic in regards to the credibility of the story for the audience to be told that men like General Smithers are antagonists because they hate black people, yet somehow men like Major Warren who uses derogatory white slurs and takes pride in making a white man suck him off because he's white, or Django who blatantly enjoys killing white people, are the protagonists the audience should be rooting for. Such a ridiculous double standard lessened my enjoyment of Django (and added nothing to the story for anyone other than those in the audience who might hate white people) and it disappointed me to see this theme reappear in The Hateful Eight. My point: both of these films could have portrayed racist white men as evil without making black men seem cool in part for being racist themselves.

Showing the murdering of Minnie, the theme of the black man who enjoys killing white people, and the story of a man sucking Samuel L were all unnecessary to this film and not only didn't add to the story, they hampered it. Otherwise the dialogue, interesting characters, and the comical violence that we've come to love in Tarantino films still places this movie above most others.

DIRECTING

In addition to the classic Tarantino format of centering the story around captivating dialogue and comedic violence, there was a lot to love and some to dislike about the directing of this film.

One directional choice that this film executed to perfection was the introduction of its characters. From the initial meeting of Russell and Samuel L. to the final introduction of Channing Tatum, the gradual introduction of each individual character was reminiscent of the dwarves trickling up the path to Beorn's house in The Hobbit and had the same effect: the audience got to know each character without being overwhelmed all at once. This was a nice touch by Tarantino and helped build the audience's interest in both the characters and their plot.

The opening of the film, a tediously long zoom-out from the grave marker, was an homage to old Westerns and while much of the audience seemed to groan or rap their fingers impatiently on their arm rests, I appreciated this scene for its keeping with the Western genre. There were, however, times in the film where the scenes seemed to drag which is unusual for a Tarantino film. For the first time, one of his almost three hour films felt as long as its run time. One example is the scene where the characters inside the Haberdashery are shouting instructions on how to close the door. This scene, followed by subsequent door closing scenes, felt too much like watching Peter Griffin clutch his shin in pain for what feels like an hour. Other moments where the movie drug were when Daisy sits in silence and stares at Samuel L. in the stage coach, during the flashback to earlier that morning, and various intervals inside the Haberdashery where little was happening and Tarantino's usually gripping dialogue was on hiatus. Tarantino films are always long but they should never feel long.

Unlike some viewers, I have never taken issue with the violence in Tarantino films. Those who claim that it is over the top miss the point: it's supposed to be over the top as a source of dark comedy. There was a moment in this film, however, where I felt Tarantino stretched even my limits. Breaking Daisy's teeth and hitting her multiple times, shooting Samuel L. in his package, and blowing off the Mexican's head all felt like they had their place in any Tarantino film, but was it really necessary to show Russell puke vomit into Daisy's face? I guess this is still the man who showed us Vic Vega cutting off a man's ear, but somehow that felt less disturbing to me than vomiting blood onto someone's face, perhaps because the ear scene had "Stuck in the middle with you" to provide an irony that still held comedic value. I'll leave this as a subjective rather than an objective critique.

There were a lot of scene to enjoy in this film though markedly less than most Tarantino films. The scene where Samuel L. accuses Bob of being a liar and outlines the reasons for it was the highlight of the film as it showed off Tarantino's chops as a master of dialogue. The scene where Sheriff Mannix appears to be on the fence about accepting Daisy's offer brings the film's tension to its greatest climax and facilitates the height of Goggins' performance. Samuel L.'s account of how he killed Smithers' son would have been another remarkable scene had it not been for the unnecessary and out of place inclusion of forcing the man to suck him off. I would have liked to have seen greater use made of Tim Roth's character who seemed to be of importance when he was introduced but fades quickly into obscurity before resurfacing briefly before his death.

CONCLUSION

The Hateful Eight is good not great as both a film in general and as a Tarantino film. It contains most of the elements that make his films great but not enough of them (particularly scenes with captivating dialogue) and is dragged down by the feeling that this film is a recycling of old ideas from Reservoir Dogs and Django. I would have liked to have seen greater use made of Roth's and Tatum's characters but all the actors were phenomenal in their roles. The ending and introduction of characters were the best parts of the story and leave me with an overall favorable impression even if some of the story was lacking.

GRADE:

WRAP: 55%

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.