Change Your Image
Hereticked
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
American Psycho (2000)
Misunderstood Masterpiece
I don't think it's controversial to say that American Psycho is one of the most brilliant pieces of film-making of all time. That being said, I'm not going to rehash the amazing performances, perfect script and the inspired creative choices that make it great. I will say that it's my favorite film directed by a woman and it's possible that a movie this edifying about the horrifying void at the core of dysfunctional male narcissists could only have been made by a woman. Mary Harron's masterpiece sits in my top 10 films of all time, in open defiance of what is otherwise an exclusive boy's club. But even more important than praising this film is probing its thematic depth, which still manages to fly over most viewer's heads 24 years after its release.
A lot of people fall into the trap of being overly literal in their analysis of American Psycho and fixating on the "did he really do the murders or not?" question, and that completely misses the point of the film. A movie like this demands engagement with themes and the metaphorical. Whether Bateman really killed all those people, imagined the murders, or it was some combination of reality and fantasy by an unreliable narrator is secondary to the point of being meaningless.
The point that the film is driving at is everyone around him in this hedonistic, capitalist, Wall Street shithole is more or less just like him. With rare exceptions, they're all fail sons and fail daughters awash in greed, excess, fake jobs and basically doing nothing but going to useless meetings and eating at overpriced restaurants. None of these people DO anything of note or meaning, yet they exist in the lap of luxury.
Patrick Bateman and Paul Allen keep getting mistaken for other people because they're all empty vessels who mean nothing to each other. Even those who aren't psychopathic killers like Patrick are oblivious or indifferent to his murders because they're focused on the mundane, shallow, spiritually dead pursuits that make up modern consumer culture. This is the core of being an "American Psycho" and it can be argued that label applies to most of the characters we meet.
There is no punishment or catharsis for Bateman (he will never be caught) because the society in which he lives is built upon letting wealthy psychopaths get away with their crimes. He is trapped in a cycle of insecurity, misanthropy, violence and self-loathing.
The Big Lebowski (1998)
Unique Comedic Genius
An often overlooked aspect of The Big Lebowksi is that, while the characters are fun and genuine, they're also standing in as avatars for various ideologies. You have the Dude as buddhism, the Big Lebowksi as capitalism, Maude as feminism, Walter as patriotism / jingoism, the nihilists (obvious), Jackie Treehorn as hedonism, etc. So what we're seeing isn't just characters interacting, it's entire worldviews colliding.
Layered on top of that is the revelation that every character in the movie, without exception, is massively CRINGE. They're all presented to us with an initial cool exterior, only so we can watch them stumble and see what dorks they truly are. Whether it's the Dude's laziness and lack of ambition, Walter being the walking embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the Big Lebowski's mirage of self-made success or Maude's try-hard artist aesthetic and her ridiculous Trans-Atlantic accent (a fake accent literally invented to teach rich boarding school kids how to speak "proper"), every character is horribly cringe in their own way.
It's as if the Coen brothers are reminding us that we're all a bit cringe and no matter how hard we try and how far we progress in life, we can't shed it completely. So you might as well accept it and embrace your ignominious quirks. Someone out there just might find them endearing.
Throw into the mix a narrator (how many comedies have a narrator?) and constant call-back humor and you get something beautifully bizarre and truly unique. It's a bold and brilliant approach to writing characters and telling a story that I don't think has ever been done before The Big Lebowksi and will likely never be replicated.
The Game (1997)
Genius is rarely understood in its own time.
David Fincher's "The Game" remains an underappreciated and highly misunderstood masterpiece. A lot of people who watch this movie get hung up on how improbable its events are, but those harping on suspension of disbelief are not only hypocrites (they've almost definitely made larger, dumber leaps for much worse movies), but while they're pointlessly counting "cinema sins", they're completely missing the brilliance of the film. The entire point of "the game" is to strip Nicholas of the wealth and position that were socially isolating him. He needed to be left, a broken husk of a man in a foreign country, to force him to give up his father's watch and the emotional burden it represents. The game isn't just a plot device. It's about having humanity and excitement re-injected into a miserable prick's life. It's an intervention. A total rebirth. It's like a modern version of A Christmas Carol, but with the holiday setting discarded. Nicholas Van Orton stands in as our 1990's Ebeneezer Scrooge and Michael Douglas absolutely nails the role. This movie has an amazing script, an excellent score, brilliant cinematography and incredible performances top to bottom. As far as I'm concerned, it's as good as mystery thrillers get.
Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)
Too much, in too many places; not what I wanted.
Too much, in too many places; not what I wanted. That would be my one sentence review of this movie. I had high expectations for this film, which didn't help, but ultimately it wouldn't have mattered, because this movie is comprised of three things I fundamentally can't stand. Melodrama, wacky, Jackie Chan style action antics, and navel gazing self-seriousness masquerading as narrative depth. I swear, it's as if someone designed a movie in a lab to annoy me as much as humanly possible. When the film's not being outright silly, it grounds itself in brutal narcissism. Whenever one of our two female leads is on screen, it's a contest to see which of them can prove "it's all about me" the most. In terms of the narrative, the film can't decide if it wants to be a tender, touching story about familial love, letting go and moving on or if it's an upbeat go-getter of a story about being your best self and taking the world by storm. It tries to be both and fails miserably. You can't stack those themes on top of "nothing matters" and expect it to make a lick of sense.
I can't deny that it made me laugh a couple times (the combination hot dog fingers and 2001: A Space Odyssey homage, for example) but then, it always goes too far. It can't let the thing that was funny have its moment and move on. I have to watch a dozen more scenes with the damn hotdog fingers at which point I've long ago begun rolling my eyes. Making this poorly plotted mish mash even worse is its relentless pace for two and a half brutally long hours. At no point are you given a break. There is no gap or down time between the nonstop hijinks allowing you to catch your breath, examine what's been presented or even just to provide some structure or contrast. It was literally starting to give me a headache at one point. It's a kaleidoscope of bad comedy and "woe is me" pity about how life could've been better if you'd made better choices (no kidding?) punctuated by riffs of "let's fix everything through interdimensional nonsense!" At no point was I able to take it the least bit seriously. I pretty much checked out of the movie a half hour in when Ke Hey Quan said to Michelle Yeoh: "This version of you is terrible at everything. And that's why you can do anything!" I was done. The next two hours was me hoping against hope that it wouldn't be *WHATEVER THE HELL THIS IS* for its entire run time and waiting for it to be over.
I am completely flabbergasted that this movie won Best Picture, even during a year with weak competition. If you loved it, hey, good for you, but I'd really like to know what you thought after viewing it a second time, because I have a feeling a lot of people got fooled by the novelty and nonstop razzle-dazzle of it. I have a hard time believing anyone wants to watch this mess multiple times. The points I give it are strictly for technical merit and acting. This movie is proof that you can't put drugs, goofiness and pure creativity in a blender and create a great film. Despite what the Academy of over-the-hill dunces decided, the results are not good.
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023)
Don't expect much and you'll enjoy it.
It was okay. WAY too long at 2 hours and 43 minutes. Too much hearkening back to previous movies and unnecessary melodramatic dialogue. Easily could've shaved a half hour off the run time with better editing and a tighter script. Still, the action scenes were fun and I did enjoy myself for the most part. The villain being an AI was both novel and topical. The new female characters stole the show, especially Hayley Atwell, the thief with a heart of gold, and Pom Klementieff who plays a psychotic assassin. It was a decent piece of summer "turn your brain off for a couple hours" spectacle that you'll watch once and never think about again.
I gotta say, though... Christopher McQuarrie has become such a disappointment. When he made his directorial debut in 2000 with "The Way of the Gun", I was blown away. To this day, I love that little film. If you had told me, back then, that he would go on to write and direct a bunch of unimpressive action fluff like Mission Impossible, Jack Reacher, the Top Gun sequel and the Mummy reboot? I would've been like "pffft, that sucks." And it does. It really does, because he could've been a great auteur director instead of just another paint-by-numbers studio hack.
A Christmas Carol (2019)
A new high water mark for an old classic
I've always been a fan of A Christmas Carol. It's a timeless tale that delves into the human condition, lays bare its inherent suffering and absurdity but ends on a note of redemption and hope.
Until now, there's never been a version of the story that made me say: "YES! That's the one! That's the version I'll be recommending forever!" The BBC and FX's 2019 production of A Christmas Carol is now THE definitive version of the tale in my mind.
At three episodes, one hour each, the story has room to breathe and the characters have just enough time to develop and truly ingrain themselves upon you. This is unlike most versions of the tale where it's only Scrooge who gets a lot of screen time. This rendition has a couple interesting deviations that help flesh out the characters better, but for the most part it remains loyal to the original tale.
When I first saw the trailer, I said "cool, an edgelord Christmas Carol", but in truth, that was overstating it. It's a bit darker than most renditions of the story, but it's always been a dark story, so to me that feels only too appropriate. Some reviewers have claimed that it's too bleak to be a Christmas special, but I disagree.
I think this is a bold, engrossing, creative new vision that's perfect for the modern age. This is A Christmas Carol done properly and by the end, I felt the transformation of Scrooge had been more fully earned than in any past production, live or animated.
Mandy (2018)
Equal parts beautiful and brutal
I was afraid Mandy wouldn't live up to the hype, but this film stood and delivered. It contains some of the finest atmosphere building and mood setting I've witnessed in a modern film. The cinematography and use of color are mind blowing. The story is minimalist but well done. There aren't many films that can make me genuinely unsettled but also get me to laugh at how ballsy and over the top they are.
This movie felt like it was tailor made for Nicholas Cage and it was great to see him in a fitting role again. I'd never heard of Panos Cosmatos before this film, but I certainly hope he directs more movies. As stylish revenge films with philosophical undertones go, this is top notch stuff.
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
King of the Snores
If you have low expectations and/or just want to see your favorite monsters from the Godzilla series fight each other in modern CG, there's a chance you'll enjoy this film on the level of cheap summer popcorn thrills. If you like horrendously stupid plots, lots of shaky cam, bad attempts at humor and pointlessly mandatory family drama to round out an otherwise uninteresting story, then you're gonna LOVE Godzilla: King of the Monsters.
Hereditary (2018)
Hot Garbage
The worst doo-doo trash I've seen in a theater in quite a while. I looked at my watch several times and almost walked out 30 minutes before it was over. I can't believe this has good reviews!
Hereditary has a silly, disjointed plot and the scares are a jumble of every ghost story and haunted house cliche you've ever seen in a generic horror movie. The cast are a mismatched group who only know how to overact or underact. There was, maybe, one genuinely creepy scene in the entire film. The rest of the time I was rolling my eyes or snickering.
Dune (1984)
So Close Yet So Far
I had only seen David Lynch's 1984 production of Dune once before when I was much younger, so when I got the chance to see a midnight screening of it at my local theater, I jumped on it. Going into this screening I recalled the movie being somewhat goofy, probably because I had just read all six of the original Dune novels the first time I saw it and OF COURSE it didn't come close to holding up to that lengthy, legendary storyline.
Frank Herbert's universe had seemingly endless plots, subplots, characters and themes. Dune has all the sex, violence and political machinations of Game of Thrones while also concentrating on much more weighty issues like technology, ecology, drug use, spirituality, the destiny of mankind, etc. The depth of Dune is too much for any movie to come close to capturing and that's the brick wall that David Lynch runs into. He can't possibly do the source material justice; not on a thematic level anyway. He can only capture the forms and some of the spectacle from the first book.
That said, I did enjoy it slightly more this second time, probably because I was focusing on its artistic merit and what David Lynch does well rather than mercilessly comparing it to the scope of the books. The first half of the film is steady, well presented and follows the book fairly well but somewhere around the middle of the movie the pace dramatically speeds up and they start cramming way too much story into too little screen time as events hurtle toward a hasty, contrived conclusion.
I wish that Lynch hadn't shoved so many of the characters thoughts into recorded voice overs. Apparently this was done because the studio demanded he cut his original 3 hour version of the film by 40 minutes. I get that anyone who hasn't read Dune would have a hard time comprehending what was going on without all that exposition, but I think the film would've benefited greatly by saying less. Let the mysterious remain mysterious and focus on those inspired visuals! If people want to unravel it all, they can go back and read the novel. What a torture, to have to read one of the most important works of science fiction ever!
For all its flaws, the film nails quite a few elements of "Dune." It's very well cast and most of the costumes / sets are spot on. Even the pronunciations of Herbert's fictional terminology are mostly correct and Paul's dream sequences are splendid to behold, evoking the symbolism and artistry you expect to flow from the prose of the book.
The film ends on a bit of an eye roll. Muad Dib and the Fremen win a crazy one-sided battle, he kills Feyd in the duel (Sting was surprisingly good in this role for someone who's not, primarily, an actor), Paul proclaims a new dawn of humanity and it suddenly rains for the first time on Dune. Really David? That rain wasn't in the book and you couldn't think of a better way to end it? How about after the proclamation we have a nice long zoom in on Paul transitioning into visions of the future from the subsequent five books? Muad Dib's fall, the trials of his children, the God Emperor and the rise of the Honored Matres! Paul is soaked in spice at this point so he's already getting glimpses of the future. Even just a brief montage eluding to those events with the dramatic score in the background would've made a great ending to your acid trip of a movie! But no, we get a sadly typical put-a-bow-on-it Hollywood ending and fade to credits.
Despite its shortcomings, I'm not overly disappointed. Adapting Dune is too great a task for anyone and it was fun to see Lynch try. Although much of the substance is missing, he succeeded in capturing the dramatic weight of Dune and painting a dazzling silver screen portrait of my favorite novel. It will be interesting to see if Denis Villeneuve can do better.
Dai-bosatsu tôge (1966)
The Failure of Bushido
An old man kneels to pray on the mountaintop trail of his pilgrimage. He pleads to Buddha for death so that he will no longer be a burden to his granddaughter. Appearing from a pure white cloud, seeming to step out of the sky itself, Ryunosuke arrives, dressed in pure black, ready to carry out the old man's wish. Is he just a wandering samurai? Is he the angel of death? Or is he, as the original title "Dai-bosatsu tôge" (The Great Bodhisattva Pass) might suggest, a "Danava": a dark Asura from Buddhist mythology. This question is never answered directly and The Sword of Doom is a much better film for it. The mystery of Ryunosuke is far more compelling than any answer to his origin and purpose could possibly be.
From the opening scenes it's established that, mortal or not, Ryunosuke is an empty vessel with no compassion. His father, in their only encounter in the film, tells him to his face that he's cruel and disturbed. Ryunosuke agrees to an act of mercy on behalf of a fellow student only if the student's wife will sleep with him. Ryunosuke seems to approach the world with relentless selfishness and single minded ferocity, finding fulfillment only in conquest and death. He is, to put it mildly, a sociopath, which puts him at odds with the whole of Japanese society, a people culturally fixated on morals, shared responsibility, sacrifice and putting others first.
But who's to say that a sociopath can't be a great samurai? Like European chivalry, the code of Bushido had much to say about social ritual and character development, but in the end they were doctrines engaged in the futile attempt to make war, to some extent, "civil." What if a man with no scruples and nothing at his core but a thirst for violence was to cast aside the moral platitudes of that system but still play, in a technical sense, by its rules? Would the world be a better place? Or would it be much worse?
The key to understanding Ryunosuke and the themes of The Sword of Doom lies, I believe, in a scene that takes place in the middle of the film. Having rented his skills out to the Shinsengumi (a secret force employed by the Shogunate), Ryunosuke and his party ambush a government official on a snowy winter night. They descend on their target only to discover that it's the wrong man. Rather than the political figure they were after, out steps Toranosuke Shimada, one of the greatest swordsmen in all of Japan. All but Ryunosuke attack him and Shimada cuts down their entire party in short order, leaving dozens of bodies strewn in the bloody snow. Ryunosuke watches in awe, but does not act. Shimada, sensing that he's no threat, sheathes his sword and speaks cryptically to Ryunosuke about good and evil.
Why?!? Until this point Ryunosuke has never shown a hint of hesitation. Most seem to attribute his actions to fear, but that's unlikely. We know he's a sociopath, we've already seen his supernatural skill, we're keenly aware that he finds an almost orgasmic bliss in violent confrontation and as a committed samurai, he's not afraid to die. This is not typical fear, this encounter has disturbed him on a much deeper level. So why doesn't he attack? The answer is simple: he can't. "Honor" forbids it.
Not only is he the wrong target, but Shimada never attacks him and so Ryunosuke can't respond. It should also be noted that Ryunosuke's cruel style of combat relies on baiting his opponents into striking first which he can read/sense with uncanny efficiency and counter-attack for a kill. But now he's met a virtuous samurai who won't be baited. Shimada is an "Aditya" (benevolent Asura) to his "Danava" and Ryunosuke is shaken for the first time.
If you study the film and review each violent incident that Ryunosuke is party to, you will notice one critical similarity. At no point does Ryunosuke ever violate Bushido:
1. Old man on the mountain prays to Buddha for death (mercy kill)
2. Official match vs Bunnojo (Bunnojo threatens his life with an illegal move, Ryunosuke kills him in defense)
3. Mountain ambush (self defense)
4. Assassination of clan official (Ryunosuke waits for the official to attack first, then kills him)
5. Assassination #2: (Shimada never threatens him so Ryunosuke doesn't act)
6. Killing his mistress (Hama attempts to murder him in his sleep, self defense)
7. Clan massacre/final scene (self defense)
Since Ryunosuke is an utter sociopath he has no way to internalize the morality that Bushido attempts to impart to its adherents, but nevertheless uses it as a system to govern his actions. He's someone who follows the rules of honorable conduct in combat while completely ignoring the spirit of Bushido. You could say he's the ultimate "lawful evil" character.
And yet, if we strip away Ryunosuke's sinister personality and simply compare his actions to the vast majority of samurai throughout history, are they really so different? It's in this frame that The Sword of Doom can be viewed as a criticism of Bushido and a dissection of the moral failings of Japan's (often glorified) samurai caste. Indeed, perhaps all samurai hold "the sword of doom" in their hands, no matter what philosophy they may incorporate to justify their actions. Ryunosuke is simply the most pure distillation of that reality laying bare the ugly truth.
Since this is a review in addition to an analysis, I want to focus on the aesthetics of the film for a bit. The Sword of Doom is one of the most beautiful films I've ever laid eyes on. The sets are immaculately conceived, the camera angles are diverse and the shots amazingly composed. It's use of black and white is so stunning that I wouldn't even want to see it in color.
The script is tight and, with the exception of a few historical footnotes, narrowly focused on moving the plot forward. The characters are well defined and even the minor ones impart meaningful dialogue. Tatsuya Nakadai portrays a brooding nihilist more skillfully than anyone I can think of and the movie is full of good performances from its supporting cast as well.
There are many period pieces where the action contains cartoonishly extended clashes between two characters, but The Sword of Doom's action set pieces are conducted smoothly with a dead seriousness that's only too appropriate for the movie's tone. Every face-off between two characters is over in moments, much like it would be in real life.
Most notably, the sound in The Sword of Doom is incredible. It uses music only when appropriate and its use of sound effects stands out in the best possible way. There are several moments where the sound from one scene bleeds into the next, creating haunting transitions that give the film an ethereal quality.
From the nonstop pounding of a water mill's hammer alluding to the illicit sex happening just off screen to the dizzying use of light and shadow in the lead-up to the grand finale, The Sword of Doom is also full of skillful visual tricks and metaphors. I've seen the film a dozen times and still feel like I've yet to discover all that's hidden in the depths of its images.
In the final scene Ryunosuke's past has caught up to him. His previous victims assail him psychically. He is trapped in a hall of shadows and assaulted on all sides by an endless stream of samurai as fire begins to rage around him. It's hard not to see this as symbolic of hell and yet his maniacal laughter informs us that he welcomes the chaos. Ryunosuke is trapped in an endless cycle of violence. "Honor" will not lead him out of it. Bushido cannot give him the basic humanity required to cultivate the virtues it prescribes. It can only justify his killing.
It's a shame we'll never get to see the next two films (The Sword of Doom was meant to be part one of a trilogy), but in a way I'm glad it ended where it did. There's no guarantee that subsequent entries would have been as good or that Ryunosuke's evolution would have been as interesting as the character study we're given. The Sword of Doom stands as a dark masterpiece and, in my opinion, the ultimate samurai film.
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
A Poorly Plotted Mish Mash
Pros:
1) Rian Johnson is clearly a better director than JJ Abrams and as a result the movie's flow and pace were much closer to what a Star Wars film should be.
2) A few genuinely good dramatic moments in the third act.
3) Of the OT stars, Mark Hamill aged the best and puts in a solid performance.
4) Not all of the humor is cringey. The movie did get a few chuckles out of me.
5) The light saber battle in the throne room was the first competent light saber action in Disney's Star Wars.
6) The Porgs were fun and cute. Surprisingly, I didn't hate them.
Cons:
1) Although Star Wars continues to improve on a technical level, the genesis of its plot and themes continues to be an abysmal mess.
2) Rey goes to get trained by Luke and, unsurprisingly, there's barely any training. What's the point? We already know she can do anything and anything she can't do now, she'll figure out in the moment she needs it.
3) Ham-fisted political themes are ham-fisted. (Funny how Revenge of the Sith took flack for this but The Last Jedi isn't.)
4) Most of the jokes in the movie are eye rollers. They were the kind of jokes I'd expect in comic book movies or a CW show, but certainly not in Star Wars. The audience seemed to eat it up, but it won't age well. Even if you liked the jokes, they don't match the tone of the movie at all. The Resistance is on death's door and Luke has been reinvented as a cynical, defeated hermit who no longer believes in the Jedi, but the movie can't go five minutes without someone cracking a joke!
5) What happened to Leia in a certain dramatic scene in space was more cringey than every misstep in the prequels combined.
6) The Snoke storyline was a joke. We know nothing about him, he becomes a Bond villain for 5 minutes, then he dies like a punk.
7) In the absolute worst use of Yoda ever, he shows up in ghost form, burns the old Jedi temple and tells Luke "Don't worry about Rey, she's got this." This is not at all a hypocritical departure from his insistence to Luke in The Empire Strikes Back of the dire importance of completing one's training before facing a Sith master.
8) Rose goes from "you're a traitor Finn" to "I love you" in 90 minutes, without even being on screen together that much. Talk about rushed, cliche romances.
9) Finn is now the dumbest character in Star Wars history. Jar Jar Binks has more character integrity than Finn. In TFA he went from "Not going back to Jakku!" to being trusted to complete Poe's mission because... ???, to wanting to leave the Resistance (again) that he never really joined, to sticking it out and fighting because he likes Rey and Poe, two people that he's only just met. That Rey, Poe, Han or anyone else trusts him when he keeps showing he can't be trusted is completely ludicrous. Similarly, in The Last Jedi he attempts to bug out on the Resistance at the first opportunity, then moments later concocts a plan to help save the Resistance (which fails) and that's the limit of his relevance. It basically amounts to the fact that you could cut Finn and Rose out of the entire movie and it would not make a single bit of difference to the plot.
10) Hoth 2.0 only with salt instead of ice (more copy catting.)
11) The force is evidently no longer a spiritual discipline that people train long and hard in order to master certain useful skills. It's now just magic that works because (reasons) and allows lazy writers to do whatever they want even if it doesn't make a lick of sense. This is true of not only the aforementioned Leia incident, but how Snoke links Rey and Kylo and what Luke does in the finale.
12) The parade of dumb titles continues. "The Force Awakens" made no sense because by definition the force is an energy field that can't go to sleep and to the extent it did "awaken" in one character, it was done in such a vague way that the title isn't pointing to anything tangible. "The Last Jedi" also makes no sense because it's specifically pointed out in the finale of the movie that Luke Skywalker will NOT be the last Jedi and given Rey's stance on the need for Jedi, there's no reason for us to assume that she will be the last either. Maybe start giving your titles some thought? Make SOME attempt to give them meaning? Oh, who am I kidding... it's 2017 and Disney is making Star Wars movies by committee.
13) Luke never gave up on his father even though Darth Vader was more manifestly evil and way more intimidating than a dozen Kylo Rens, but we're supposed to believe he gave up on his nephew that easily? What they did to Luke's character in this movie is a travesty.
14) So by the end of the movie we have a bunch of dead major characters: Luke (who apparently died from using the force too hard? lol), Admiral Ackbar, Commander Purple Hair, Snoke and Captain Phasma. The one major character who probably should've been killed off (Leia) wasn't. But in terms of the plot, what has changed? The Resistance is a lot smaller, their fleet was decimated and they no longer have a base. The Empire is still the Empire, but as a faction they literally only have two major characters left: Kylo and Hux. When the call went out, the Resistance got no support, so what are they going to rebuild with? What is all of this nonsense supposed to set up for the next movie?!? I don't envy the writer of episode nine.
The thing is, I liked The Last Jedi marginally more than The Force Awakens, but I can't give it a higher score because it has so many problems. I felt I was being somewhat generous in giving The Force Awakens a 5/10, but it feels like the perfect score for this film. The Last Jedi gets many of the forms right, but the substance of Star Wars is nowhere to be found.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Greatness Within Reach Goes Unrealized
Greatness was in reach with Blade Runner 2049, but Denis Villeneuve wasn't quite able to seize it. It's a technical marvel and the film has some truly jaw dropping, standout moments, but in the end it does not coalesce into a coherent, meaningful narrative.
The film dazzles when it introduces us to the technology of its dystopia, fixating the audience with innovations that capture the imagination and immediately make sense in the context of its devastated environment. Even more-so than the science, the landscape tells that tale of Earth in 2049. No dialogue is required as we move from a protein farm to the dingy, neon-lit, overcrowded city to an endless wasteland of junk metal and garbage. The sights and sounds convey all the background information that is necessary, eschewing exposition and trusting in the intelligence of the audience.
Unfortunately, by the end of its 2 1/2 hour run time, the story arc of our new main characters is sacrificed on the altar of old ones. The ending of the original Blade Runner is a piece of cinematic perfection due to its emotionally powerful climax followed by a conclusion that's equal parts tragedy, hope and intrigue. 2049 has an uninteresting climax and contains no such intrigue in its final moments; just some unresolved plot threads and a heaping dose of sentimentality.
Like the story, the soundtrack is hit and miss. It often rises to the occasion and provides a powerful and fitting audio accompaniment to the visual feast on screen, but at other times feels overbearing and lacks the subtlety and ethereal quality of Vangelis' original Blade Runner score.
I don't mean to sound overly harsh because I did enjoy this film, especially during its first two acts, but the bar for a sequel to classic cinema is high. Perhaps I'll have a different take upon subsequent viewings, but as I watched the credits roll for the first time, I couldn't escape the thought that the story needed more work to discover its own message and formulate a resolution that reverberated with its many magnificent pieces.
----
Pros
1. Amazing visuals
2. Creative technologies that immerse and delight
3. Excellent setup that prompts many thoughts / questions
4. Setting and backstory feel like an authentic continuation of Blade Runner
5. Thoughtful film making that's more show than tell (most of the time)
6. Harrison Ford has one really good line
Cons
1. Weak third act
2. Underdeveloped antagonist
3. Harrison Ford becomes baggage very quickly
4. The wrong elements become the focus
5. Soundtrack spiked to gratingly high levels at times
6. Plot becomes more muddled near the end rather than more clear
7. Science fiction should never rely on a "miracle" as a plot device
----
Despite its final act shortcomings, Villeneuve did what few directors could have: make a Blade Runner sequel that did not disgrace the original.
Mother! (2017)
A Misanthropic Masterpiece
Darren Aronofsky drops an atomic bomb on the cinematic landscape, bringing passion and artistic vision to the box office where those qualities are in short supply. Mother! might be the most well crafted, intense and creative dissection of religious mythology ever made. It starts out as a slow burn mystery, feeling almost like a dream, but soon plunges forth into nightmare territory. It takes all the assumptions and contradictions of Christian dogma, contrasts them with the reality of our relationship to the Earth, and splatters them across the canvas in all their hideous cruelty.
This is not a film for people who like to have their hands held by simplistic plots, lots of exposition and a paint-by-numbers procession of events. That doesn't mean you need to be a genius to understand its ideas, but it does mean you're going to have to think and some knowledge of the Bible is handy in deciphering its threads. Most of the negative reviews I've read for Mother! were from people who made no attempt to understand it, claimed it's "pretentious" with no supporting argument, or they understood the film on some level but simply didn't like its message. By even engendering this strong of an emotional reaction, Darren Aronofsky has emerged victorious and demonstrated that his work is culturally relevant.
On top of its achievements in the realm of story and ideas, Mother! is also a visual and audio marvel, creating an atmosphere of utter claustrophobia that's as crushing to the audience as it is to the female lead. The tight camera angles and spiking soundtrack ramp up the tension as the movie proceeds from general unease to outright panic. This was a film that was designed to make its audience feel uncomfortable on multiple levels and it does so splendidly.
If you enjoyed Aronofsky's other head scratchers and psychological thrillers (Pi, Requiem For A Dream, The Fountain and Black Swan) you're going to love Mother! If you didn't like those films, chances are you won't like this one either. In the opinion of this reviewer, Darren Aronofsky has taken another step forward in an already impressive career, solidifying his place as one of the best directors of our time.
Det sjunde inseglet (1957)
The Search For Meaning
I like The Seventh Seal more every time I see it. This is a movie that had the balls to flip religion the bird in 1957. It's a perfect tale of revelation and redemption, thrusting a mirror in front of the human condition.
A knight has returned from the Crusades, but his faith is shaken and the Bubonic plague spreads across the land. If that weren't crisis enough, death itself stalks him on the shores of his homeland and he finds himself playing chess with the reaper to buy himself a little time. But time for what? Time to do something, ANYTHING, to atone for the chaos and misery he wrought in the middle east; a campaign he now knows to have been arrogant, foolish and utterly without merit.
As the knight, his squire and the rest of our characters tour medieval Sweden, we see them confront every horror that the Dark Ages brought to bear. We see opportunistic theft, attempted rape, mockery and scapegoating out of total ignorance, and a mentally ill woman burned as a witch. Everyone is terrified of the black plague, and their inability to cope with it brings out the worst in humanity. As a troupe of bards attempt to alleviate a small town with songs and dance, a Christian passion play comes crashing through the streets, whipping themselves bloody, wailing and begging the sky for relief and forgiveness that will not come. No doubt they will spread the plague further before they drop their heavy wooden crosses and die in agony. Our main characters look on, wondering where the human race went wrong.
The knight endures all this while delaying his inevitable loss on the chess board and seeking answers to the questions that tear at his faith. In the end, none are satisfactory, and yet he remains stalwart in his quest for redemption. When death comes for him and his companions, the knight's good deeds have been accomplished and the cynical squire stares his mortality down, demonstrating that humanity can still perform at its best in the absolute worst circumstances.
There is virtually no fat in this film. It is clean in its beautiful black and white frames, crisp editing and purposeful dialogue. Although mostly bleak in their humor, there are a few laughs to be had among the 96 minutes of existential dread. We're even given a clarifying moment of hope and joy before the credits appear. This timeless piece is Ingmar Bergman's master work and it's as good as films get.
Passengers (2016)
In Space, No One Can Hear You Vomit
Passengers. It's a movie. About dating. In space.
It reminded me of Red Planet, which isn't surprising, since it's the saddest excuse for science fiction that I've sat through since Red Planet.
This movie wanted so badly to be "Moon", but ended up being a poorly scripted soap opera between two conventionally popular actors with no chemistry. It took itself seriously when it really shouldn't have. I like Red Planet slightly better for being self-aware enough to let Val Kilmer say "Fuck this planet!" and end with a Carrie Moss soliloquy about how she's going to spend some time with the space janitor. Either make a real piece of science fiction or be honest about the fact that you're making schlock.
Pros
1. Ship design was cool.
2. Bartender was most likely a homage to a much better film (The Shining.)
3. I have a new director to hate (Morten Tyldum.)
Cons
1. Chris Pratt.
2. Jennifer Lawrence.
3. The plot.
4. Endless melodrama.
5. Shameful use of Laurence Fishburne in a sad, 10 minute supporting role.
6. Hideous credits music.
7. Unlike Red Planet, it made money.
If Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence and Morten Tyldum each get hit by a flaming bus tomorrow, and die, I still will not believe in god.
Ghost in the Shell (2017)
All Shell, No Ghost
On the one hand, Ghost in the Shell isn't a disaster. Given the history of video game and anime movie adaptations, that's a considerable accomplishment. At the very least, it drew a faithful real-life portrait of the cyberpunk world of Ghost in the Shell and hit most of the iconic action beats of the original animated film. On the other hand, it tossed most of the important themes and potent atmosphere (the things that make GitS great) out the window in pursuit of a simplified, easily digestible plot. The dialogue lacked any nuance and the best modern CG and special effects don't look as good or feel as compelling as the hand drawn animation of 22 years ago.
The movie is at its best in the action scenes where thermoptic camouflage comes to life and when the creepy geisha bots and other maliciously hacked technology instill the cold blooded potential of transhumanism in our psyche. Also good are the quieter moments when Batou feeds the neighborhood dogs (including a basset hound, of course) and the Major quietly explores the world, searching for her place in it. The movie loses its way when the driving force of the plot becomes the scandal behind how the Major was created (instead of the much more important philosophical question about what her existence means) and the villain emerges as the most typical of bad guy clichés.
There's also some glaring hypocrisy in the ending (spoiler) since our heroic characters have been going on about justice and not killing people, and in the climax, they summarily execute the villain instead of bringing him to justice. The Major, in fact, explicitly calls for this, even though she was the most vocal opponent of unjust killing and human rights abuse throughout the film. Character motivation? Consistency? Feh. You can certainly argue that the villain deserved to die, but ordering an execution of someone who's surrendered makes every word the Major spoke earlier feel completely hollow.
Despite its flaws, I felt engaged. It was well paced, the casting was solid and the acting was serviceable. It was competently filmed, if not dazzling in its angles. I never once looked at my watch (always a good sign) and there were moments, such as Batou losing his human eyes to cybernetic eyes, that offered something different from the animated films and were genuinely cool to see in live action.
It's definitely worth a watch, but I wouldn't rush to the theater to see it. This movie feels like it was tailor made for streaming services to cure your boredom on a rainy afternoon or quiet evening. If you're a GitS fan, you'll almost definitely enjoy it more if you approach this adaptation with low expectations. As a film, it's only slightly better than mediocre, and yet, I was prepared for so much worse. So, while it's a back-handed compliment, I feel like this is the best GitS adaptation that could have been made by the creatively bankrupt Hollywood of 2017. The brilliance of Mamoru Oshii was never within their reach.
Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV (2016)
Square Enix becomes a true Film Maker
I wasn't expecting much from this film based on Squeenix's track record in film making. Final Fantasy - The Spirits Within was a fine experiment and a revolutionary piece of animation for its time, but it was far from a great film and highlighted how difficult it is to tell a complex and fulfilling story in a 2 hour time frame rather than the dozens of hours a role playing game is allotted. Final Fantasy 7 - Advent Children was another uptick in the advancement of CG and a great action piece, but it was ultimately nostalgia porn for those of us who loved the original game. Kingsglaive - Final Fantasy 15 is a leap in terms of the animation quality, all but eliminating the ability to discern between animation and reality, but it's also a product of experience. Finally, the writers, animators, producers and directors at Square Enix have acquired the experience to harness the advantages of the medium and have delivered a film that I wish I could have seen on the big screen.
Not only does this movie setup Final Fantasy 15 brilliantly, it's a damn good film in its own right. It has just the right mix of suspense, action and drama and was surprisingly well written and voice acted (including an all-star English voice cast.) Watch it on the biggest screen you can and be amazed at how far Square Enix has come!
Deadpool (2016)
The Only Marvel Film That Didn't Bore Me
It seems there truly is a first time for everything. It's borderline painful for me to admit this, but I enjoyed a Marvel movie. I wouldn't have gone to see Deadpool on my own, but I was hanging with a friend for the weekend and he insisted on buying me a ticket. What happened next was extraordinary: I went an hour and a half without looking at my watch or wondering what was piling up in my inbox.
Perhaps that was part of the movie's success: that it didn't push the 2 hour mark and that it wasn't straining, like some perpetually frustrated fanboy, to announce the credibility of comic book story lines to the world. "COMIC BOOKS ARE COOL NOW TOO! SEE?!? THEY'RE MAKING MOVIES WITH BUDGETS OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHICH MAKES THEM OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED IN THE CULTURAL ZEITGEIST!" No, rather Deadpool was made for less than 60 million, the script was clever and tight, and it focused on one of the strengths of the comic book format: their absurdity and over-the-top nature.
Ultimately, it's another revenge story, but you can get away with following one of the tried and true plot templates as long as you put an original spin on it. Deadpool does this in spades with its buckets of irreverence, a few moments of sincerity to provide contrast, comedy that actually hits and some well filmed action. Also, by shedding the PG-13 shackles, Deadpool remained true to its roots and is another recent example of how film making for adults can still be commercially successful in the 21st century.
My biggest gripe with the movie is its "look", especially the background shots whenever you're outside. Like most modern Hollywood blockbusters the environments have this weird, washed-out gray coloring to them that's about as far from authentic as one can possibly get. That's no doubt a cost cutting measure, relying on CG to fill in for well designed sets and difficult outdoor shots, but the ugliness and laziness of these cheap backgrounds is pervasive in the frame, spoiling what could otherwise be a spectacular looking picture.
It's not an amazing film, but I liked Deadpool. It was well paced, skillfully written, it made me laugh and by being the antithesis of the last 15 years of lackluster super hero movies, it became the first good comic based film since Sin City.
Sicario (2015)
The Worse Demons Of Our Nature
Sicario is more than just an action-thriller about the brutal, pointless drug war in North America. Its graphic depictions and nihilistic tone flip a sizzling pan of heroin into your face over and over again, forcing you to confront the grim realities of wealth, power and addiction.
The cinematography is a treat and the bleak landscapes of the American desert and the gang riddled ghettos of Mexico are themselves a metaphor for the emptiness of the struggle our characters endure. Benicio Del Toro, Josh Brolin and Emily Blunt all put in excellent performances and the script is clean and efficient, eschewing needless exposition in favor of short, smart dialogue that focuses on pushing the plot forward and not wasting time or insulting the intelligence of its audience. The ominous soundtrack and excellent pacing keep you on the edge of your seat as you move from one barbaric encounter to the next.
The ending is truly climactic and impactful, but it offers the audience a chance to meditate on the events and meaning of the piece before the credits role. It is a complete, coherent, well planned body of work that trusts the intelligence of its viewers, which makes it the rarest kind of film these days.
The Hateful Eight (2015)
Self-Indulgent But Fun
Hateful Eight is an enjoyable film on several levels, but like Death Proof and Inglorious Basterds it's also very self-indulgent on Tarentino's part. It's not QUITE as self-indulgent as those movies, but it definitely tried my patience a couple times. When Tarentino made Django Unchained either he (or the people around him) were able to reign in his more ridiculous impulses which enabled him to craft a movie that told a story brilliantly and was still a lot of fun. That was a return to form and I was hoping Hateful Eight would be more like Django Unchained and less like Inglorious Basterds. In the end, it split the difference.
Kurt Russel and Samuel L Jackson deliver amazing performances and are equal parts menacing and hilarious. Much like his first film, Reservoir Dogs, the story of Hateful Eight is a crime caper with one primary set; only this one takes place in the late 1800s. It's ironic that Tarentino tries to fill his movies with interesting / quirky characters and often focuses on them and their dialogue to a fault, when the best characters in this movie were the set (the "Habberdashery") and the blizzard raging outside. His non-human characters help set the mood perfectly and lend the film a feeling of authenticity while the human characters, however funny and impressive in their own right, often make the film feel ridiculous.
The movie simmers for an hour and change before any real action takes place. I consider myself a pretty patient guy but the older I get and the more great works of film I'm exposed to, the more tired I grow of films that are needlessly wordy. The Hateful Eight contains too much exposition and you could easily cut a half hour from its running time and lose none of its impact. This is the "self indulgence" of Tarentino I mentioned earlier and it was so prominent in Inglorious Basterds that it literally put me to sleep the first time I saw it.
The film is scored by the legendary Ennio Morricone and Tarentino tries to emulate the audio cues of old spaghetti westerns with various degrees of success. He also inserts a narrator a few times which was a bad decision that feels jarring and completely unnecessary.
Despite its flaws, the film is a visual feast and I'm glad I saw it on the big screen. It's a movie with a straight forward plot and obvious themes that doesn't necessitate repeated viewings, so I doubt I'll watch it again unless I want to get another look at those beautiful landscapes and that amazing set. Good, but far from his best.
6/10
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
The Force is Mediocre with this one
The Force Awakens... I didn't hate it, but I certainly didn't love it either. It nails a few key elements that make action movies enjoyable, but it has a long list of failings to go with it (see my list of pros and cons below.) I found myself thoroughly enjoying the first 45 minutes only to feel my enthusiasm steadily drop for the next hour and a half as it became clear how paint-by-numbers this movie was turning out.
Its biggest problem is that it's instantly the most derivative Star Wars film ever made. The events are almost entirely a retread of things that happened in the original trilogy (OT) and it adds little of interest to the Star Wars mythos. It's the cinematic equivalent of a highly caffeinated soda: tastes good going down and gives you a nice energetic zing, but ultimately it's empty calories and will be harmful to the body in the long run.
Pros
1. Most of the new characters are likable, especially BB8 who is a genuinely endearing droid with lots of personality.
2. The action scenes looked and played out well on a technical level. (Hooray for competence!)
3. It successfully recreates the inherently dangerous but intriguingly exotic feel of the Star Wars universe from the OT.
4. Mostly well paced. (Hooray for competence part 2!)
5. Humor was hit and miss, but when it did hit (mostly BB8) it was good.
Cons
1. Poe / Rey / Finn bond WAY too quickly, almost to the point of incredulity.
2. It re-enacts too many scenes / scenarios from A New Hope (Storm Trooper slaughter on a desert planet, Cantina 2.0, Death Star 3.0 blows up planets, X-wing full scale attack followed by trench run attack, etc.)
3. With a couple beautiful exceptions (Jakku, night time light saber battle in the forest) the film's sets and locales really did not look that good.
4. No details about why "The First Order" or "The Resistance" emerged from the old Empire and Republic / Rebellion or how these new incarnations are even different from the original ones.
5. OT characters feel like cheap nostalgia distractions, because they are.
6. Kylo Ren becomes too vulnerable way too quickly, removing all sense of mystery and menace about the character before the first movie is even over.
7. The title of the movie is bull crap: The force does not "awaken" in any general sense. The force may have awakened in ONE character, but it was already awake in other characters, so this is clearly not what the title implied.
8. Rey's "awakening" is completely vague to the point of stuff just happening because the plot wants it to happen.
9. An untrained force initiate defeating a trained Sith is ludicrous to the point of breaking my suspension of disbelief. That was a cheap, unearned victory. Luke Skywalker, by contrast, spent three films learning, training and being battered down by the forces of darkness before emerging victorious in Return of the Jedi.
10. Highly derivative: What substance did this movie add to the Star Wars universe? For all the criticism the prequels get, at least a lot of new things were tried and an entirely different dynamic (the slow rise of evil instead of the hero's journey to fight evil) was presented to us. This movie showed almost no creative courage.
The Force Awakens will not age well, even in the short term. As the release hype dies and people who engage in thoughtful movie analysis realize how much of the movie was carbon copied, reviews will moderate and scores will drop. Given how much longer my list of cons is than my list of pros, I'm giving The Force Awakens a generous 4/10. It seems "the force" of nostalgia holds some sway over me as well. JJ Abrams and Disney benefit more from that nostalgia than they do from anything they've contributed to the franchise.