Black Panther Review

Starring: Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan, Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Martin Freeman, Daniel Kaluuya, Letitia Wright, Winston Duke, Angela Bassett, Forest Whitaker, Andy Serkis

Black Panther is probably one of the most culturally significant movies of all time. It's the first blockbuster movie with a cast made up of predominantly African-Americans, with only two white actors. The entire plot is set around black culture and most of the movie takes place in Africa. Despite all of this, and likely because of this, it has become a smash hit. Its opening weekend almost topped The Avengers, and it broke nearly every record possible. Black Panther sold more tickets than Captain America, Iron Man, or Thor in any of their openings. This is in part to massive African-American attendance, but Marvel did an excellent job of selling this film as more than a movie: it's a movement. With an all-star cast, Black Panther centers around the fictional nation of Wakanda, a technologically advanced African country hiding their achievements from the world. Their sovereign leader is given supernatural abilities through ritual, and is crowned "The Black Panther". As soon as the first reviews came rolling in, there were whispers that Black Panther is an extremely politically relevant film without alienating any culture or side. It comes out at a period in our history in which divisions are tense, and Black Panther is able to entertain while being a poignant story resonating with all who will listen. Having seen the film twice before attempting to dissect it in review, I am astounded by the liberties director Ryan Coogler has taken with his film, and even more surprised that Disney / Marvel allowed it. Yet it is by not holding back that Black Panther is able to become possibly the best Marvel movie to this date. It is unique and distinct, both in its story and its cinematic qualities. Almost everything is executed to perfection.

Contents

Cultural Relevance

Killmonger

T'Challa

Wakanda

Okoye & The Dora Milaje

Nakiya & Shuri

"Tolkien" White Guys

Music

Visuals

Conclusion

Cultural Relevance

The major conflict of Black Panther is between T'Challa, the current Black Panther, and Killmonger, who challenges T'Challa for his throne. Killmonger has seen the hardships of black people in America, and seeks to use Wakanda's technology to help all suffering blacks overthrow the whites and become the dominant race. This hits at a lot of cultural issues, yet it does so respectfully and has not seemed to anger anyone. T'Challa is an African king, oblivious to the hardships African-Americans endure simply because he is not there to personally witness them. Killmonger represents an American black man, still furious over slavery and generations of oppression and prejudice in his country. He lashes out with violence and anger. There have been good strides and poor strides in the current Black Lives Matter movement, as there are in every movement. Killmonger represents the negative qualities of it, including bitterness and the need for violence to convey a message. He has certain aspects of Malcolm X in him, and I have seen publications compare him to Magneto of the X-Men, whose relationship with Professor Xavier was based off of Malcom X and Martin Luther King. The first post-credits scene for Black Panther contains no spoilers, but rather a political message that seems to be speaking directly to the audience. It calls for us to put aside our differences and our anger. I am surprised that this amount of cultural and political reference is in a Disney film, yet it is handled so maturely and with such confidence in the material that it works.

Killmonger

Killmonger has the rare distinction of not really appearing until the film's second half yet he still becomes arguably the most memorable character. This is mostly due to the politicized nature of his motives, and Michael B. Jordan's undeniable talent. He is the most complicated villain I have ever seen in a comic book movie. I empathized with him and felt true sorrow, but he remained a powerful antagonist to be feared. I never rooted for him. Jordan's plays a complicated villain that never morphs and crosses into an antihero. Killmonger's relatability is evidence of Black Panther's uniqueness. Audiences are so used to seeing the loyal heroes and easily malevolent supervillains like Thanos and the Joker. They exude evil and it isn't hard to pick sides. It is a strange feeling to find yourself relating to the villain. Killmonger is not an evil man, rather a man shaped by horrific consequences who acts incorrectly. He is motivated by pain and desires his dream, not stopping to consider what is being lost for his gain. T'Challa realizes this. Their conflict is purely ideological, and not because he has committed atrocities, though he intends to.

T'Challa

In the character of T'Challa, we encounter the most fleshed-out Marvel hero. He is faced with warring ideals in his brain. Does he honor his ancestors and keep Wakanda a secret, or listen to the words of  his loved ones, and attempt to use their unlimited resources to help those in need? His reign unfortunately encounters a premature answer when Killmonger arrives, preaching hatred and a too simple solution. While his ideas are radicalized, I have never witnessed a superhero actually listen to the villain and then act on his wishes, considering both sides. All this is acted out with immense grace and power by Chadwick Boseman. He completely disappears into his character in the ways I have only seen Robert Downey Jr. and Gal Gadot disappear into Iron Man and Wonder Woman respectively. While he is a complicated man always battling within, he never comes off as a poor king, and stays true to his moral center. What could have been a flat character of nobility becomes a relatable icon that is sure to become one of America's favorite superheroes in years to come. 

Wakanda

Wakanda may be fictional, but I wish it were real. The landscapes were stunning and it demonstrated the most attentive world-building since Zootopia. I wanted to spend more time in their world. The film perfectly captures a world that is more advanced than any in our current atmosphere, yet still retains its cultural roots, evidenced in tribal dress. Wakanda was an incredibly well-realized portion of the story. The setting for Marvel movies has never been a huge part of the plot, yet the team behind Black Panther knew that every aspect of Wakanda had to be executed to perfection for this story of a fictional place to be believable. Everything, from the costumes, the sets, to the makeup, is reminiscent of a place trapped in time. One striking example was a man who had an enormous green lip disc, yet was clad in a matching green suit and cane. Wakanda isn't real, so it has to be sold to the audience, and I would bet there are very few who were not completely invested in Wakanda during the film.

Okoye

While Black Panther boasted some of the best Marvel characters ever, Okoye became my favorite. The Dora Milaje are the female warriors / bodyguards that serve the Black Panther, and there is no word to describe them more accurately than "awesome". It's not made out to be a black empowerment example, nor is a feminist empowerment example. It is simply just a group of awesome cutthroat soldiers who happen to be black women, and they do some serious damage in battle. No one would question that these women are the best suited to defend Wakanda and their king. Okoye is their general, and she's played brilliantly by Danai Gurira (Michonne in The Walking Dead) and she's actually given quite a bit of depth for "the muscle" of the group. She is not solely the brute strength of the group, and actually has a great sense of humor, and a small serious arc and depth to her character. This depth doesn't threaten her physicality, which is extremely important to her character. When I saw ads for Infinity War and saw her on the front line with the Avengers, I rolled my eyes. Now that I've seen Black Panther, I want her side-by-side with Captain America and Iron Man.

Nakiya and Shuri

I've always been a huge fan of Lupita Nyong'o, and I have even compared her to Meryl Streep in previous reviews. She is a phenomenally talented actress who won an Oscar for her first ever movie (12 Years a Slave) and I'm happy to see her getting more mainstream recognition. It is rare for a character in a superhero movie to have nuance and subtlety, yet Nyong'o clearly lends her talent to make Nakiya a very powerful yet subtle figure in the narrative. If anyone from this movie will be nominated for an Academy Award, it will be she. As for Shuri, Letitia Wright perfectly capitalizes on a star-making turn in Netflix's Black Mirror, providing an extremely likable and relatable character. However, her character is a little bit of a Mary Sue (if you're unfamiliar with the term, it refers to a female character who succeeds at everything without explanation) and she has little depth, so that was disappointing. There was little explanation as to how she acquired all this technological knowledge and how she could apply it. Likewise, the vibranium she worked with was also extremely vague and seemed to solve every problem. While she was funny and well-acted, she was a weaker character, though I admired the close relationship she had with her brother, T'Challa.

The "Tolkien" White Guys

It's extremely rare to see Andy Serkis' face. The renowned actor is known for his iconic motion-capture performances as Caesar in the Planet of the Apes series, Gollum in the Lord of the Rings series, and Kong in King Kong, yet rarely shows his face. I have always assumed he's a great actor based on his great motion-capture work, but Ulysses Klaue's crazy portrayal at his hands is nothing short of brilliance. He almost steals the movie, which is why Coogler smartly removes most of his screen time in the second half. On the flip side, Everett Ross takes over in that second half, and Martin Freeman gives an expected performance. He is not breaking any new ground as the ordinary helpers to superheroes, but continues to deliver the great acting we have come to expect from him off of Fargo, The Hobbit series, and Sherlock. Interestingly enough, both of these actors are best known from their Lord of the Rings appearances (both share an iconic scene in An Unexpected Journey) making them the "Tolkien" whites of the mostly African-American cast.

Music

There's not much to say about the Black Panther other than to congratulate its brilliance. Kendrick Lamar produced and wrote the songs on the soundtrack, and the liberties he was allowed to take for music in a Disney film is shocking. Granted, the explicit parts aren't prominent in the actual film, but it still stands as a companion to a family-friendly film. The soundtrack is an amazing counterpart to the film and bridges traditional African influences and rhythms with current African-American hip hop and rap. It doesn't sound like it would work on paper, but I predict it'll be a strong contender for the Oscar for Best Original Song for Lamar and SZA's "All the Stars".

Visual Effects

My chief criticism of Black Panther lies in its visual effects. This is disappointing, as so much effort, and likely money, is devoted to creating beautifully realized sets and costumes, but apparently not enough was spent on the effects. There's a rhino that plays a semi-important role in the film, and it looks so fake it completely took me out of the movie. I've seen Life of Pi, which was made for much cheaper, and that tiger looked real. Black Panther might have some of the worst visual effects in any Marvel film, which is a disappointing negative mark on a very great movie. This occasionally discounts the action scenes, yet they overcome through other means. Whether it be great acting and dialogue, interesting camera angles, or intense choreography, there is a lot to distract the viewer from how cheap the effects look for a movie of this level.

Conclusion

Black Panther may possibly be the best Marvel film to date. While the visual effects are severely lacking, everything else comes together to make a prestigious film, and one that might just get a number of Academy Award nominations. It's practically impossible not to love, evidenced by the swarms of people of all races packing the theaters. The film is able to work on so many levels, in terms of acting, action, world-building, and music. Black Panther can also reach even further and connect with a growing social movement, and has become a film much more relevant and important than many I've seen. And it certainly does not hurt the movement if the movie's great.

Rating:

Black Panther earns a spectacular 9.5/10 Stars

Call Me By Your Name Review

Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Armie Hammer, Michael Stuhlbarg, Amira Casar, Esther Garrel

When I reviewed The Shape of Water, I described the feeling I get when I see a movie that is "special". There is a particular moment when I realize a movie is one for the ages. In The Shape of Water, I felt it in the closing scene, and in Get Out, I felt it on the drive home. In Call Me By Your Name, the feeling hit me as soon as it began. I simply cannot shake this film from my mind, even days after seeing it. I have listened to the soundtrack and watched scenes over and over again. I was completely immersed in this movie and have sought to regain this feeling. Call Me By Your Name is about Elio Perlman, a precocious 17-year-old American boy living in Northern Italy with his family. His father is a professor and each summer, a graduate student comes to live with them. This year, it's Oliver, a charming 25-year-old man. The film chronicles the summer in which Elio and Oliver fall in love and Elio discovers more about himself than he thought possible. While the subject matter might turn some off, this is not a "gay movie" by normal standards. Of course, the subject matter is important, as is all LGBT representation. Yet Call Me By Your Name is a story about growing up, of entering the terrors of the unknown and embracing them. The gender of the characters is unimportant. Their age does not matter. Whether Elio is gay or bisexual is trivial. This is a beautiful story of humans, expertly filmed to avoid any pitfalls of stereotype. Call Me By Your Name is definitely one of the best films of 2017, and it may just be THE best film of 2017.

Timothée Chalamet, in the leading role, gives what is hands-down the best acting performance of the year. He grows and changes immensely through the course of the film, and every emotion is perfectly transmitted to the audience. When he was upset, I was upset. When he was in the throes of love, I felt his joy and passion. He brings an irresistible sense of wonder to Elio, and its impossible for someone my age not to relate. He is a precocious young boy, yet his intellect far surpasses many his age. This gives him a per Chalamet is able to convey moments of Elio's confidence and his hesitation, of his nuance and intensity, often within minutes of each other. Regardless of his acting throughout the film, his acting in the final scene blew me away. The film ends on an unwavering shot of his face as he experiences every human emotion in four minutes with the credits slowly rolling off to the side. The scene carried such intense weight, and I can remember hearing a cough in the audience and feeling as if, for a split second, the gravity was lost. Many moments in this film feel immensely precious, and to interrupt would be to intrude on their privacy. The scene in which Oliver and Elio first have sex is a great example of this style. As soon as it is about to get explicit, the camera slowly tilts until it is looking out the window at the night sky. Their sex life is private, and we are not allowed to see it. A full-blown sex scene is often jarring, and I was thankful that Call Me By Your Name never became graphic, but appreciated even further that I was spared for such a thoughtful and meaningful reason. Director Luca Guadagnino obviously cared for these characters, and a lot of time went into making their courtship and relationship believable.

The setting of Call Me By Your Name feels like a dream. Summers often feel idyllic and ethereal when looking back. I look back at summers spent with my childhood friends and there's a sense of longing to have that again. Guadagnino achieves this by editing in odd places. I have never seen editing used so uniquely. He lingers too long on certain shots and quickly cuts in others to make Call Me By Your Name seem just slightly off-kilter in its story; as if it were a collection of memories. Whereas Lady Bird (also starring a great Chalamet) felt as if you were spying on real people in a documentary, Call Me By Your Name eliminates all distance between the viewer and film. It's an immersive experience. However, there is one instance in which the director breaks the fourth wall (attempting to directly interact with the audience, i.e. Deadpool talking to the camera), which is something I have never witnessed before. There is a scene where Elio is pining for Oliver and the camera flashes neon green repeatedly, as if a leaf might be blowing directly in front of the lens. It was so bizarre it took me out of the film. Shortly after, you can clearly see the film strip for a split second. I was shocked that this appeared in a professional film. It was only later that I realized this was Guadagnino taking us out of the enchanted world, and reminding us that this is, in fact, just a movie. It was a deliberate attempt to break the film's narrative and strengthen the bond between filmmaker and audience. It's something I've never seen a director do before, and I was blown away.

Call Me By Your Name is a slow burn. I often complain when a film drudges on. Yet for some reason, this length feels earned. The pace was sluggish but engaging. I felt the time, yet I did not want to leave. A week after seeing it, and I'm still unaware of how long it actually was. It could have been ninety minutes and it could have been three hours. Every second felt earned and vital, and that is why a great script matters. In the film's closing moments, it is startling to realize how long you have spent with these characters, and witness where the have ended up. Through the course of his whirlwind romance with Oliver, Elio now dresses in a style that you and I might note as an indicator of his sexuality. He's become more comfortable with what he likes. Yet I cannot pinpoint where that change happened because I was so swept up. There is a powerful scene in which his father sits him down and gives a beautiful monologue about pain and loss, and the nature of feeling. He says a lot about Elio's sexuality without saying anything at all, and Elio's calm reaction symbolizes further acceptance. It's a reaction he would not have had at the film's beginning. Just when it seems as if the two are not going to acknowledge it. There's a short silence and all Elio mutters is: "Does Mom know?"

I almost did not include the peach in this review. This film infamously contains a sex scene between Elio and a peach. Note: while the sex scenes in the film are surprisingly tame or nonexistent, the peach scene is pretty graphic. Nothing explicit, but you are well aware of what is going on. This is a scene from the book that the director almost did not include, because of its awkward nature. However, the peach scene is a pivotal one for Elio and Oliver. He's embarrassed that he used a peach to masturbate, and tries to voice that concern to Oliver, who assures him it does not matter. The intimacy with the peach is a clever metaphor for Elio's embarrassment at his sexuality, and the shock when he discovers there is someone who simply could not care less. Whether he be into men or into peaches, it doesn't bother Oliver, and this realization brings Elio to tears. The peach is a scene that should have NEVER worked on paper, yet somehow it becomes a crux for the film's entire message.

This is a beautiful film, and one that I feel I need to see over and over again so its message is not lost on me. Yet if you were to ask me what that message is, I would not know what to say. Is it about being comfortable in one's own skin? Is it about the LGBT struggle in adolescence? Is it about how sweeping romances can linger in life? Or rather that couples are one entity (the titular "Call me by your name and I'll call you by mine." line)? I am still unsure, but Timothée Chalamet's performance makes one thing clear: this is a story of a boy stumbling through his young life, eventually embracing both the beauty and mess. And can't we all relate to that?

Rating:

The Shape of Water Review

Starring: Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Doug Jones, Octavia Spencer

One of the most timeless stories is that of "Beauty and the Beast". As the proclaimed "tale as old as time" continues to be produced, new and original variations are always welcome. In The Shape of Water, a lonely, mute custodian begins a friendship, and later falls in love, with an amphibious fish-man. I distinctly remember turning my nose up at the first trailer. Who wants to see a woman have a relationship with something that is seemingly a fish? In recent weeks, buzz for The Shape of Water has been building as it continuous to collect awards and recognition. Though it may contain one of the weirdest premises of any film I have seen, The Shape of Water is a gorgeous film, full of heart and the human spirit. Somehow the bizarre story manages to feel relatable at very intimate levels. The first line in the film is spoken by Richard Jenkins' character, who says: "If spoke of it...the princess without voice, the tale of love and loss, and the monster who tried to destroy it all..." This line feels as if it is setting up a fairy tale. The whimsy is present from the first few minutes, and perfectly sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Even better, only through watching the film does one realize what this passage means. The monster that he speaks of may not be who it seems.

To say that Sally Hawkins is great in this film is an understatement. A protagonist is often the anchor of the story. Elisa Esposito is the crux of why the story works, yet Hawkins achieves this without ever speaking a single word. Her performance, and arguably the entire script, hinges on her powerful sign language and body movements to make the audience believe her character. After all, the audience must truly be behind the character attempting to have a relationship with a scaly creature, and Hawkins is able to make us believe her longing and her need to have someone lonely like her. The scene pictured above is one of my favorites in the film. Elisa is normally meek and timid. After she has successfully helped the creature escape, she is being questioned by Michael Shannon's character. As you can see, she wears a look of sheer confidence, knowing she has what he wants. Her impudence and reluctance to honor her superior is a championing moment for Elisa. As she departs his office, she slowly, and without ever breaking eye contact, signs: "F-U-C-K Y-O-U". While he lashes out at her change in behavior, he is still none the wiser as she leaves.

But it's not just Hawkins that helps the film soar. Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spencer, as her gay neighbor and black co-worker respectively, also give great Oscar-nominated performances that hammer home the film's message: this is about outcasts looking out for each other. Elisa has no purpose in life without her voice. She dreams, yet it is futile. Jenkins' Giles is an elderly gay man who was "born too early or too late for his life". In the 60's, homosexuality is still taboo so he is unable to live his life and make any connections outside of Elisa. He is reluctant to help her, but changes his mind with a beautiful speech about his loneliness, and recognizes if this creature helps Elisa escape hers, then he must help. Spencer's Zelda is African-American in the 60's, so she's similarly lonely. The race card does not distract from the film's core message, rather it is used in key moments that remind us of the unjust racism in this era. This helps us to relate the prejudice towards the three leads and sympathize with the creature. While many would look at him as a monster, these three see him as a comrade, and the relationship with Elisa as a shared antidote for the two.

It is because of the powerful and relatable themes (Who hasn't felt alone at one time or another?) that director Guillermo del Toro is able to "butter you up" for the questionable content (aka monster/woman sex) It is done very tastefully and is not too bizarre. The audience becomes completely invested in Elisa's character that the sexuality feels earned. Hawkins' powerful acting, not to mention that of the similarly voiceless fish-man, completely sells the audience on their eventual pairing. On the other side of the spectrum is a scene I felt was completely unearned. I won't spoil it, but there is a dance scene that is random and jarring. In a film completely immersive in its setting, score, and story, to have a scene completely take me out of the film was disheartening to say the least. You know it has to be weird if in a movie about a woman falling in love with a fish-man, this sequence is the one that stands out.

If you are willing to take a risk, The Shape of Water is a profoundly affecting drama. It's a love letter to loneliness and the dreamer within all of us. It also serves as a beautiful love letter to old Hollywood, evoking styles and motifs of classic monster movies (The Creature from the Black Lagoon comes to mind) and sweeping romances. At times, The Shape of Water is a pulse-pounding thriller, and in its softer moments it can be a very touching tale. It is rare for a filmmaker to move so swiftly through tones as Guillermo del Toro does in this film. Every single aspect of the human experience is laid bare in the script, and it's impossible to not feel for the characters he has created.

When I see a movie that is special, a certain feeling washes over me. When I saw Get Out, it was on the drive home that the feeling hit me. When The Shape of Water came to a close, and the last piece of the musical score (which is incredible) played as the ending titles came on the screen, I felt the hairs on the back of my neck rise. Indeed, the film I had just watched was very special.

Rating:

Lady Bird Review

Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Tracy Letts, Lucas Hedges, Timothée Chalamet

It's rare for a film to have 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Whether you trust the popular opinion or not, for every critic on the planet to agree on a movie's perfection is an unusual feat. I've noted that a "perfect" movie can mean one of two things. In the first scenario, there just aren't any noticeable problems with the movie, but it doesn't have the added weight or grit that makes it feel special. I can't find anything wrong, yet it doesn't excite me. Lady Bird is the second scenario. There are no problems and everything feels earned. The way in which first-time director Greta Gerwig conveys the beautifully human story of Lady Bird McPherson displays cinematic hunger that is almost unapparent. Lady Bird feels like you're watching real people with realistic problems, as if a snapshot was taken. I believe it is impossible for anyone, of any age, to watch Lady Bird and not relate to at least one character or plot point. It is likely you will relate to many. The film depicts Christine McPherson and her senior year at a Catholic high school. "Lady Bird" is her given name, in the sense that "It was given to me, by me." Forcing everyone to call her a name is just the beginning of her rebellious behavior in this coming-of-age comedy. There is a point in everyone's life where they yearn to break free of their parents' hold, yet still cling to the home that raised them. Lady Bird perfectly captures the complex feelings of someone on the cusp of adulthood, feeling trapped within the confines of her upbringing.

The heart of Lady Bird is the relationship between Lady Bird and her mother, Marion. The two often find themselves at odds. Her mother holds her to an extremely high standard, belittling her for her appearance. Lady Bird exclaims to her mother: "I'm not perfect, you know!" to which she replies "Nobody's asking you to be perfect, but it wouldn't hurt to try." The relationship between the two is toxic, like a powder keg about to blow. As a viewer, you can tell that they're nearing a breaking point. Despite the insults and anger they hurl at each other, there are moments of tenderness between the two. Lady Bird loses her virginity and feels intense shame and regret and she cries in her mother's arms. The most shocking moment comes when she asks of her mother: "Do you like me?" Marion responds that "of course" she loves her. Lady Bird presses her "But do you like me?" and her mother stands in stoic silence. This all might sound awful, but it's reminiscent of many mother / child relationships in the world. I saw parts of my mother in Marion, and their relationship reminded of instances shared between the two of us. I have a friend who saw an eerily accurate portrait of her relationship with her mom. You learn to recognize this as one of the many reflections of real-life individuals.

At the center of Lady Bird is a whirlwind of a performance by Saoirse Ronan, who looks likely to grab a third Oscar nomination (after Atonement and Brooklyn) at the age of 23, a stunning achievement. She delivers each line with fire and intensity. Ronan is able to tap into Lady Bird's unbridled passion, and is able to find her purest intents and her wickedness. There are times in which Lady Bird says awful things to the people around her, yet she never feels like an antagonizing force. Her spite comes from yearning, and a need to break free of the shackles she believes are holding her. I never once questioned Lady Bird's morality, and had faith that she would figure herself out by the film's close. I was wrong, but such is life. We never really figure it out.

Lady Bird's greatest success can be attributed to the film's writer/director Greta Gerwig. She has been acting to little fanfare in truly indie (too far even for me) films for a few years and has just transitioned to directing. Every single piece of Lady Bird comes together to form a beautiful picture, and it's Gerwig who assembled it. She partially based the story off of her upbringing in Sacramento, her studies in a Catholic high school, and her tumultuous relationship with her mother. The script that she wrote is one of the wittiest comedies I can remember. Some of the funniest lines are tinted with sorrow, and some of the saddest lines can be funny. This is the human experience. There are ups, there are downs, and somewhere in America everything gets blended together in a hot mess. That hot mess is Lady Bird.

The scene that stuck with me the most was a conversation between Lady Bird and a nun discussing her college essay. Lady Bird had described all the awful things about Sacramento in snarking specifics. The nun praised her "beautiful" essay about how much she loves her city and the world around her. Lady Bird is shocked, reaffirms her hatred, and says "I just pays attention, I guess." The nun's reply perfectly conveys the film's message, and a great takeaway from life.

"Don't you think that they are the same things? Love and attention."

Rating:

Star Wars: The Last Jedi Review

Starring: Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis, Lupita Nyong'o, Domhnall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Gwendoline Christie, Kelly Marie Tran, Laura Dern, Frank Oz, Benicio del Toro

The Last Jedi was always going to be the biggest movie of the year. $220 million in three days is good for the second-biggest opening ever, behind only previous installment The Force Awakens. Everyone went to see it, but that does not necessarily reflect its quality. In fact, if you were to look online, you would see a clear divide between critics and fans. 91% on Rotten Tomatoes ties it with The Force Awakens. Yet the audience score is a "rotten" 50%, the lowest of any Star Wars film and even lower than the prequels. There are some very vocal detractors of The Last Jedi, and I tried to push that from my mind as I saw the film myself. However, now that I have seen The Last Jedi I can understand where the divide is coming from, even if I don't always agree with the naysayers myself. Rian Johnson, director of Looper, makes bold artistic and creative decisions that fly in the face of almost everything J.J. Abrams built in The Force Awakens. Popular theories are destroyed, characters killed, and the tone takes a very sharp turn. I appreciated some of the decisions that Johnson made, but I understand how jarring it is for diehard fans of The Force Awakens who did not expect such a shift. Before I go into detail, this review is full of SPOILERS. Since so much was hidden, it's impossible to talk about The Last Jedi without spoiling key details. So if you haven't seen the film, turn away. And if you don't want to read every plot point or character that I am analyzing, you can scroll through. I am going to try to analyze this film at every level.

Contents:
The Island
Admiral Haldo
The Resistance Conflict
Finn & Rose
General Leia
Yin and Yang
Kylo Ren
Snoke
Rey's Parents
Luke
Convenience
Looking Back & Going Forward

The Island

I expected Rey's training to be the most interesting part of the film. I was disappointed to find that Rey's time on the island with Luke was mostly useless filler. Luke (more on him later) was not the grizzled veteran I expected, nor did he have any internal light and dark conflict. He was the same boring Luke from the original trilogy, just slightly more tired. He didn't really train Rey at all. She guided herself while on the island, and then left when the two found themselves at odds. If she had never landed on the island, the movie would be no different. Luke's stunt at the end (while awesome) had nothing to do with where the plot ended up. The fish nuns were weird and never funny. I loved the porgs, but I was manipulated to love them. It's a blatant attempt to sell toys. I've already bought one, so I guess the joke is on me. The sea monster milk scene was reminiscent of some of the worst moments in Star Wars, and the "dark side cave" was a blatant copy of the same cave from The Empire Strikes Back. My feelings about most of The Last Jedi can be summed up in the scene where Rey sees multiple "copies" of herself in the dark cave. It's visually stunning, but is it necessary?

Admiral Haldo

Hands-down, the best scene was when Haldo drove the ship through Snoke's at light speed. The startling beauty of the seconds-long clip, in silence and shown from every angle, drew gasps from the crowd. For a diehard Star Wars fan, it marked something never seen before. A maneuver I would never imagined possible. Haldo was a complex character and proves that this new trilogy is moving forward in its complexity. As an audience, we instinctively hated her because she was taking the reigns from an unconscious Leia, and bossing around Poe. What a surprise, to realize she was right and our hero was wrong. We had been led astray, and our intense fandom taken advantage of. And lastly, as far as acting goes, Laura Dern kills it. Very rarely does she turn in a mediocre performance, and this is another fine addition to her resume.

The Resistance Conflict

As much as I loved Haldo and Laura Dern's performance, I felt the conflict was very thin. Most of the issues revolved around miscommunications. Had Haldo communicated the plan to Poe (and there was no real reason to not simply tell him) he would not have acted irresponsibly and endangered everyone. Nobody was communicating and it seemed artificial, and created only to spark conflict. A script should be able to mold this to seem realistic, yet this was so painfully obvious. And the most idiotic of conflicts was the fuel problem. In a Star Wars film, the chief conflict is the Resistance's ship slowly outrunning the First Order as it runs out of gas. Think about that. Ships are running out of fuel and just barely out of reach of the enemy's fire. How exciting is that? I admire that the film is trying to be realistic here when it cannot be anywhere else, I find it hard to believe no one could come up with any better ideas. It is inorganic, boring, and forced. A failure if there ever was one.

Finn & Rose

Finn has zero redeeming qualities. He is the worst character in this new trilogy. He is a coward, and cares for no one but himself. The stormtrooper angle could be fascinating, but it seems as if this director just brushed that aside in favor of a convoluted plotline with Rose Tico. Kelly Marie Tran does a great job in the flat role, but she is unnecessary. At every moment of their adventure, I would have rather been watching what was happening with the Resistance. At the end of the day, their mission was useless. It felt like a complete waste of time in an overlong film. Their inclusion may only be for diversity, and I've said this before: Diversity simply for the sake of diversity misses the point.

General Leia

To see Carrie Fisher a year after her death is remarkable. To be able to forget that she died (sans the first scene) is a true testament to her ability. After all these years, she still is Princess, or rather General Leia. If I were to only critique Fisher's performance, I would have nothing but positive remarks. However, the scene of her flying Mary Poppins-style is ridiculous. The entire theater laughed at it, and it was supposedly serious in tone. It looked cheap and the idea is just dumb. I have waited years to see Leia finally use the Force, and to see it like this was heartbreaking, bizarre, and stupid. It's not Fisher's fault, but rather director-writer Rian Johnson, for writing such a ridiculous scene.

Yin and Yang

So far, it may seem like I hate The Last Jedi. Here is something that I love. Rey and Kylo Ren have been painted as a Yin and Yang of the Force, and I think the idea is absolutely fascinating. When Ben came into this world, there was this inherent darkness about him. Luke sensed it, as did Snoke. I love the idea that Rey was the Force's "answer" to Ben. I enjoy that both contain such raw ability, possibly more than any Jedi or Sith before. Rey is light, and represents inherent good. Yet as demonstrated in her training, she willingly enters the dark cave, and is guilty of giving in to temptation. She is Yang, further proven by the piece of darkness inside her. In contrast, Ben is evil. I watched as the movie tried to convince me of a struggle within him, but reveled in his descent into pure hatred by the film's end. He is the villain, even if there is a little bit of light inside him. I think Johnson's portrayal of Rey and Ben as characters not always at odds is interesting. Sometimes they are working together, (that scene in Snoke's throne room was cinematic perfection) but at other times they are fighting. Much like Yin and Yang, they are involved in a constant struggle. It will be interesting to see where they land by the trilogy's close. Even I haven't the slightest idea.

Kylo Ren

One of my biggest complaints regarding The Force Awakens was Kylo Ren. I felt that he was a whiny villain, did not move the plot forward, and was an extremely uninteresting character. The fact that he killed Han Solo so quickly also left a bad taste in my mouth. It just felt rushed. I was told by many that they were "setting him up". I am shocked to admit that this is the truth. I don't retract my opinions on The Force Awakens (he should have been set up better) but Kylo Ren may now be my favorite character. Adam Driver perfectly demonstrated the conflict within Ben. It was evident in his eyes, his face, and his body language. The easy way out would be to snuff out the conflict within him and choose the light, and the film would have followed the tropes of many before it. I was pleasantly surprised that Ben chose darkness, and completely submitted to his tendencies rather than his benevolent urges. The light still remains, but he became a true force to be reckoned with in the movie's final act. Maybe it was the mask that held me back, but I'm fully in support of Kylo Ren going forward.

Snoke

I have extremely mixed feelings about how Snoke was handled in this film. And by mixed, I mean that I love and hate different aspects of his appearance. I will never criticize Andy Serkis' acting ability, for he will likely never turn in a bad motion-capture performance. Snoke was a mysterious character in The Force Awakens. J.J. Abrams is perfect at teasing the audience, and Snoke was a big question mark that I sought the answer to. It's clear that his demise was a huge twist and a beautifully filmed action sequence. I was excited at the spectacle and the adrenaline was pumping. But Snoke was set up as a huge mystery by Abrams in the previous film. If the questions posed by Abrams were not to be answered, let them at least be set aside for the third film. For the series to just throw him away after maybe a half hour of screentime is careless to say the least. He was the main antagonizing force. I suppose it paves the way for Kylo Ren's ascension, but it all feels sloppily executed. His identity was never revealed, his powers never really demonstrated. In all honesty, he was a useless character with no payoff. Abrams built him up, and I do not fault him. I believe that he expected Snoke to be a big character. It's the director of The Last Jedi who sloppily tore down what he built.

Rey's Parents

Aside from Snoke, the other open-ended buildup that director Rian Johnson destroyed was Rey's parents. I actually enjoy this reveal, for it proves that a powerful Jedi need not be a Skywalker or Solo. The fact that the entire source of drama in the galaxy is from one family is a little unrealistic, and simple Rey is a welcome addition. That being said, it is again sloppy continuity to have a plot point that was as important as Rey's parents (re-watch The Force Awakens and they definitely hint that her origins are important) and just squash it in a blunt reveal. "You always knew it", Kylo Ren says. When? When has this ever been evidenced, other than a way to soften the twist's blow. While I personally enjoy the idea, I understand how fans feel betrayed by how seemingly abrupt this new development is, and how it slights them.

Luke Skywalker

Mark Hamill told Rian Johnson that he fundamentally disagreed with everything Luke is in The Last Jedi. I agree, this is not the direction Luke was going in. If Luke was dark and brooding he would be a fascinating character. Instead we have the same boring Luke as in the original films. Even with his boring features, Mark Hamill turns in a great performance, specifically towards the end. He isn't a deeply developed character, nor does he have the spark that Hamill brings to his voice acting. But I did enjoy the journey we took with Luke, and his trick at the end was pure brilliance. That scene, and the epic shoulder-brush, was the only glimpse of the Luke that I know. I saw the reveal coming a mile away, but was astounded nonetheless. Then he kind of evaporated into the atmosphere, which I don't quite understand. That plot point is a little vague as well, and probably could have used more attention.

Convenience

Some of the biggest praises I can give The Last Jedi lie in its willingness to break conventionality. You may note that I criticized Snoke's twist, but that is because it is poorly written. Rey's twist breaks convention in that not everyone needs to be related. Many other things surprised me. When Finn and Rose are on their mission, the convenient code breaker ends up turning against them. Not everything goes the way they planned, for possibly the first time in any Star Wars film in history. As previously mentioned, the new authority figure (Haldo) does not end up being a flat antagonist. Finn was about to destroy the weapon, and he failed. I appreciated the willingness to break from expectation. There were multiple moments in which I was genuinely shocked and surprised.

Looking Back & Going Forward

Overall, I had a great time at The Last Jedi. It's a very polarizing film, and justly so. I think the only person who could walk away from this loving every single second is someone who went in knowing that they would like it. Star Wars is very near and dear to my heart. Certain liberties were taken that I appreciated, yet others were unnecessary and hurt the franchise. I'm certain that changes need to be made in the next installment. Star Wars in this twenty-first century thrives on its ability to harken back to the past while paving forward new paths. This film sacrificed nostalgia and character development in favor of edgy decisions. While characters like Kylo Ren went in some interesting directions, many of the others fell victim to missed opportunities. Snoke and Captain Phasma both died without every becoming necessary. The Last Jedi is a good movie. At times, it's even a great movie. But the large public outcry is warranted. The good outweighs the bad, but it's still a deeply flawed film.

Ranking:

Blade Runner 2049 Review

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Jared Leto

Blade Runner is the thinking man's Star Wars. I'm not claiming that Star Wars isn't thought-provoking, nor that it lacks depth. Blade Runner draws heavy from theology, specifically Christianity, and its references are not subtle in the slightest. The world of these films centers around replicants: artificial robots crafted in our image to be used as slaves to assist in interplanetary colonization. The replicants have been banned from Earth, and the 1982 Blade Runner focuses on a rogue group of "fallen angels" trying to seize power, and the police officer (dubbed a "blade runner") hunting them down. The Christian parallels are obvious. It is one of very few instances in which a film about science relies so heavily on religion in its narrative. This sequel is long overdue, and when it was announced, justification was necessary. What warrants the re-visiting of the replicant world? Much like Mad Max: Fury Road, which was another late sequel to an 80s action film, Blade Runner 2049 has surprised critics. Fury Road became the most acclaimed film of the year, and Blade Runner 2049 has similarly received immense praise. When the credits began to roll, I could feel the silence in the theater. We were all similarly dumbfounded at what we had witnessed. At nearly 3 hours long, Blade Runner 2049 is a long lesson in what it means to be human, what to do with life, and how we too often waste the time given us. Not since Arrival (which non-coincidentally has the same director) have I been so struck by the philosophical contents of a film.

I often address the acting of a film first. In most films, it is the actors who are the audience's window into the characters and storyline. In Blade Runner 2049, this is not the case. The cast gives great performances, but it is the visuals that give the viewer insight into the fictional world. The cinematography is breathtaking. From the stills I present you, you should gather that every shot of Blade Runner 2049 is a stunning achievement in photography. From the colors to the framing, the camerawork is absolutely beautiful. I met Roger Deakins, the cinematographer, at a film festival earlier this year. Deakins is the man behind the camera in some of the best movies of all time, including The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, Skyfall, and A Beautiful Mind. He has also been nominated for an Oscar thirteen times without a win, and I think this will easily get him a long-awaited trophy. This might possibly be the most visually incredible film I've seen in my life, and I've seen a lot of movies. The fact that a sci-fi film achieves this is no easy feat; it's easy for science fiction to just reduplicate and rehash the same stories and shots. Everything in Blade Runner 2049 feels fresh, unlike anything I've seen in Star Wars, Star Trek, or any similar film.

Ryan Gosling is our hero in this adventure. Gosling has been working to establish himself as a leading man for years to little success. Cultural awareness of him is present, but he has never driven audiences into theaters. La La Land, an immense success both critically and financially could have marked a turning point, and this is a fantastic follow-up. His role in La La Land was jazzy (pun intended) and expressive, but this role requires him to be calculated and reserved. Gosling demonstrates he has incredible range and likability. He's literally playing an Everyman and it is not difficult to relate to his journey. Gosling really is the only actor in this film with a juicy role. Sadly, Harrison Ford is nothing more than a glorified cameo (albeit a fantastic one) who does not appear until the last third of the film. Jared Leto is literally just a cameo and has maybe five minutes of screen time. Most of what Leto did in the film confused me and lacked sensible reasoning other than to set up a sequel. I have stated numerous times that setting up a sequel is one of my biggest pet peeves in cinema. To waste an actor as talented as Leto is absolutely baffling, and left me with a sour taste towards his character. Robin Wright channels a (slightly) more-upbeat version of Claire Underwood for House of Cards, and her role is similarly very small. The waste of great talent is mind-boggling. The next largest role next to Gosling goes to unknown Ana de Armas, who plays Joi, Gosling's holographic girlfriend. Joi (seen in gargantuan pink form above) is a great segue into the next topic, centering around the film's depiction of mass media and over-sexualization.

As you probably figured out, this film takes place in 2049. That's 32 years into the future, and a lot will likely change in those years. However, the most startling thing about Blade Runner 2049 is how the dystopian future has parallels to our present. In 2049, Joi is an artificial girlfriend you can purchase for any needs. She can appear as a voice or as a hologram capable of actually performing tasks for him. Gosling comes home to a clean house. She cooks him food and she gives him his inspiration to go on his journey. Yet near the end of the film, the viewer sees the billboard above: "Joi: Everything You Want to Hear". He feels very close to her, yet this is reminder that she is nothing more than a program designed to fulfill his wants and needs. Disappointment doesn't exist in her world. Billboards were important in 1982's Blade Runner and they play a big role here as well. The colors are bright and the pictures are moving. Women are topless or fully naked. Coca Cola appears in oversized letters over barely clothed models. The women are all versions of Joi, and they interact with the men who pass them. Every man has the same girlfriend who just tells him what he wants to hear. The sad thing is that this isn't far off for our society. We have billboards with enormous advertisements on them. Unrealistically beautiful women try to sell us products during commercial. Porn on the internet is an industry rooted in selling unrealistic sex. If Siri had a body, this could easily be Joi. We can also analyze the treatment of women in our current climate. If you've seen any news about the sexual harassment and assault revelations, you can gather that women aren't being treated very well in this industry. Blade Runner 2049 is a fantasy future and a cautionary warning.

Fans of the original Blade Runner will enjoy this spirited sequel, and I believe that you should see the first before attempting this behemoth. If you're not fully immersed in the world of this universe, you will not enjoy it as much. While Ridley Scott's original is a deep-seeded mystery that few can fully decipher, Denis Villeneuve creates a puzzle. The twists and turns in the story are endless, and it's as if watching pieces snap together. My chief complaint is that too much of the film is setting course towards a sequel. Jared Leto's storyline, along with the last twenty minutes serve only to leave the audience wanting to see the next installment. I think most would be happy to have the series end here, lest we have to sit through another three hour film that might not be as good. It perfectly paid homage to the original while telling an original story, and that is much more than most sequels can achieve.

The themes of class separation are present in this film, though not as crucial to the story as in the original. Replicants are seen as scum even though they exactly resemble human beings. It's impossible to tell them apart, yet they're preyed on and exterminated. People murder those who look exactly as themselves without batting an eye. At one point in the film, Robin Wright's character, a commander of the blade runners, makes a chilling observation. She states: "The world is built in a wall that separates kind. Tell either side there's no wall, you've bought a war." I can imagine no one that would want that to be the world we live in. But if you start to think, you see that we've been in that world for quite some time.

Rating:

mother! Review

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer

Without a doubt, you've likely heard of mother!, the newest film from Hollywood's "it-girl" Jennifer Lawrence. Once at the pinnacle of the film industry and able to sell blockbuster fare (The Hunger Games) and arthouse films (Silver Linings Playbook) while keeping a very relatable image, she seems to be falling from her high. A number of PR issues have pushed people to the edge, and mother! could be the breaking point. This movie has received an F CinemaScore, one of only 19 films in history to receive such a rating.... Here's a little hint: Most people pay to see movies because they know they'll enjoy them, and getting a B- usually means a movie is terrible. An F is unheard of. So the question is: Is mother! really that bad? I was anxious to figure out why everyone seemed to have such a visceral reaction to it. The film's ad campaign was shrouded in secrecy and early reviews called it "The WTF Movie of Our Generation". mother! is directed by Darren Aronofksy, the man behind brilliance like Black Swan and less-brilliant achievements like Noah (It has its fans, but I'm not one of them) and if you've seen Noah you may recall that he took many liberties with the Biblical tale. It surprised me to learn that mother! is actually a Biblical film and not the horror movie it was sold as. The parallels to horror classic Rosemary's Baby end abruptly, and the movie descends into a fever dream allegory of God and Genesis that can be very difficult to decipher. I can understand why it got an F, as audiences had no idea what they were being served. I sure didn't. Yet I was entranced by mother! It baffled me, it disgusted me, but it also challenged me to follow its crazy narrative. I respect this movie, and I'm going to go in depth into what this movie really is about and why people hate it so much.

WARNING: This is a spoiler review. If you want to see mother! on your own with no information on the plot, characters, or Biblical twists, stop reading.

What's the Story?

First, I'll introduce what mother! is at face-value. We follow a young woman (Lawrence) living a tranquil life with her husband (Javier Bardem). He is much older than she is and a talented poet. He spends his days seeking inspiration while she remodels their house. One day, a man (Ed Harris) shows up at the door. The woman is very anxious at having a stranger in her house, but her husband loves the company he provides. She is annoyed that he spends more time with their guest than he does working on his poetry. The next day, his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) shows up. Now there's two strangers. Gradually as the film goes on, more and more people show up, filling her house and she gets more frustrated at how her husband pays more attention to them than his wife or art.

The Bible Twist

mother! is actually a re-telling of Genesis. Jennifer Lawrence is the titular "Mother" who is Mother Earth. Her husband is God. He creates her on the first day, and she lives alone with him in the paradise she creates (remodeling the house). Then "Adam" shows up at the door, followed by "Eve" the next day. Mother doesn't like having t to share her husband. God seems to care more about the humans than her. It's easy to miss these references as no character is named, but when the couple's two sons come in her house arguing and one kills the other, it's suddenly apparent. That was Cain and Abel and this is the Bible. When Adam and Eve get kicked out, they return with a bunch of people who make a mess of the house. Two people break her sink, causing the water to spray out. Mother screams at them to leave (The Great Flood). Long story short, she gets pregnant and she gives birth to who I assume is Jesus. Her pregnancy with the Savior causes her husband to write a poem that everyone goes crazy over (The Bible) and they flood her house to get autographs. While Mother just wants peace and quiet, He lets them into her house and doesn't listen to her. This ultimately ends in them killing and eating her baby (YES, THIS HAPPENS), which I guess is the Sacrament, and they try to destroy the entire house in their shame. She opens the furnace, lights gasoline, and burns them all. As she dies, God removes her heart and builds a new wife, and metaphorically, a new Earth.

Analysis

That sounds pretty ridiculous, right? I'm not kidding, this is what mother! is. It is NOTHING like the movie the commercials make it out to be. A Biblical allegory is easy, so the question we need to ask is why? Why would the director make this in 2017 and depict Genesis in a modern setting? What accessibility does this movie have for our era? I believe that mother! is commenting on man's treatment of the Earth and how this is not a new concept. People in the Biblical times hurt Mother Earth as well, and the film calls out God as the first to betray her. It is this idea that fascinates me. It does not portray God as a wicked man, but still asserts that in His creation of Man, he forsake the first thing he created: the Earth. In seeing Jennifer Lawrence brutalized physically and emotionally by these people she does not want in her house, we are able to see an Earth that does not trust humans to take care of her. She is ultimately correct, and even God can't see how wrong He was. This film is a sort of environmental message about how the mistreatment of the Earth started with God.

God's Selfishness

Part of the controversy likely comes from Javier Bardem's God. In this film, God is seemingly drunk on the affection of his followers. From the moment Adam walks in, Mother can tell that His attention is divided. Instead of appreciating everything she has given Him, He instead focuses on his new creations. When Adam and Eve return with multiple new faces, God basically ignores Mother and does not try to stop them from destroying their house. When the actual craziness begins in the film's third act, God actually encourages their activity, as He is fascinated with their worship. When Mother gives birth to their child (we assume it's Jesus), He steals the baby and gives it to the followers. They kill it, and He comes to a realization, but also allows them to continue. This film asserts that God is a selfish individual that loves the admiration and worship that we give Him. Instead of helping make us better out of His spirit, He does it because he wants us to worship. Mother says to him as she dies: "You never really loved them. You loved how much they loved you." I find this idea fascinating. I do not necessarily agree with the stance, but I think it's an interesting ideal.

The Ridiculous Ending (Baby Cannibalism)

mother! descends into madness in its third act, and I believe it is completely misguided. The actions are set into motion when God gives His son to the people, and they break his neck (it's very graphic) and then eat him while Mother watches in shock. Then they proceed to rip her clothes off and beat her while He watches. It's just too graphic. I understand the reference of the Sacrament but I believe it's horribly misguided. No one wants to see a baby being eaten. That is too much. I understand what they were trying to do but that is just too graphic and grotesque, almost as if he's trying to rile up Christians. The film also descends into a very loud and explosive montage of different events in history. We see Native Americans, Iraqi soldiers, non-peaceful protests and guerrilla warfare. But it's all rushed to make a montage. If the message is that God watched while all these happened, it's muted because no time is devoted. It almost seems tacked on. Comedian Kristen Wiig also makes a bizarre cameo as an "Angel" and it's absolutely unneeded. She also descends in the chaos and murders some folks execution style. I don't think this is resulting in my lack of understanding, I truly believe that this movie just doesn't make sense in parts.

My Verdict

I love interesting films. I really enjoy all the questions mother! poses and all the reactions it creates. If you just reject this film, you miss the point. Though I would not judge anyone who rejects mother! because I get it, eating babies isn't for everyone. I don't share the beliefs of the director or the people involved, though I think it is a very fascinating interpretation of Genesis and a great take on environmental issues in an original way. However, I think while the message is great and original, the methods are flawed. I was not a fan of the filming style, the sometimes boring pace and choppy dialogue. I also detailed my issues with some of the symbolism. I think that Lawrence does a fantastic job in the lead role, and the rest of the cast is great as well. But mother! is sometimes caught up in its own fevered message and forgets to relax. If Lawrence is Mother Earth, why is she giving birth to Jesus? Where is Mary? Isn't the Great Flood arbitrary if Noah isn't somewhere in the mix? I believe the director focuses on symbolism and loses his narrative in the process. I read that this is based on a dream he had and that he wrote it in only five days. I believe it, and I wouldn't say it as a compliment.

Rating: