mayaschneiderbsc Reviews

Fallout (2024– )

Psssst... It's OK to like the show even if it isn't perfect!

[9/10 · 12 April 2024]

Like many other reviewers here, I am a diehard fan of the Fallout games. My introduction to the game series began 25 years ago when I picked up a copy of Fallout 2 and I've been hooked ever since. Never, in all that time, had I ever wished for a spinoff TV series to be made about it. Who asked for it? Not me! But nevertheless, here it is. It exists whether we like it or not and no matter how many negative reviews people submit based on pride, protest, or principle it will not change that fact. Look, no one is forcing anyone who strongly objects to this series to watch it (not yet anyway). But if its mere existence truly offends you, just don't watch it! What is there to gain by coming here to thumbs down positive reviews because you are so aggrieved? Anyone and everyone is free to ignore the show, just like I'm choosing to ignore the sense of entitlement these petty review-bombers have by giving this new series the glowing review it rightfully deserves based on the merits.

With that business out of the way, my review here is for anyone with a sincere interest in this series in deciding whether they should give it a chance. And to that I say yes, absolutely you should whether you are a fan of the games or not. As I previously mentioned, I never asked for this show and was prepared to hate it. But I kept an open mind as I watched and did my best to be fair in my overall judgement. And the truth is, the show is actually pretty fantastic. I was not prepared for it to be as good as it is. This show definitely caters to fans of the franchise with its high attention to detail and faithfulness to source material. I sympathize with those who would have preferred that Hollywood not make the series in the first place, but at the same time, now having watched it, the hate towards it is pretty unjustified if the only crime is that it exists.

To the angry Fallout fans I ask you this: Imagine a TV series is being made about this game that you and I both love. Imagine that it's completely out of your control, and production is actually happening. If a Fallout series HAS to exist, what exactly would you want it to look like? Would it not be similar to exactly what Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy have created? I mean, visually it's pretty spot on. They've built an immersive world that feels very authentic. It feels like Fallout, it looks like Fallout, and it sounds like Fallout. Okay, maybe you would have preferred the show was modeled after the Interplay games and not Bethesda's Fallout 4, or maybe you would have preferred the show runners double and triple check the accuracy of the lore because you find any cannon inconsistency unforgiveable.

So let's address the elephant in the room: Yes, there are some glaring lore issues. But it doesn't bother me. Why? Because a TV series is a different medium for storytelling than a video game. For the sake of argument, let's assume this new series runs for 8 seasons with 8 one-hour episodes each. That's a total of 64 hours screen time. That's just a fraction of what most people put into playing a single game. I've put hundreds of hours into Fallout 4 alone. When playing a game, you have the luxury of time to explore it and study it as much as you like. That's the beauty of Fallout games. But television doesn't work that way. It's not interactive. The entertainment comes from literally just sitting in front of a screen and watching/listening to a story. Viewers are going to tune out fast if it becomes overly pedantic and boring. Sometimes it is necessary to truncate and/or modify original source material so that it translates better on screen and can hold the viewers' attention.

For me personally, as a longtime fan, what mattered most was that the series captured the spirit, message, and immersive atmosphere of the games. No matter what, it needed to look and feel like Fallout, and Nolan and Joy nailed it. I don't know what more they could have done to make the series better than it is, and I'm honestly relieved that the creative liberties taken were not so egregious as to disrespect the entire franchise and its fanbase. On the contrary, they've done an excellent job here. They could have reimagined Fallout into some truly terrible fan fiction, but they didn't. It feels like a true extension of the Fallout universe and that's all I had hoped for. Jonathan Nolan made this series because he is also a fan and avid player of Fallout games. If anyone could pull it off, it was him.

Evil Lives Here: Scratch My Murderous Itch (2023) Season 13, Episode 3

A Garden Variety Criminal Lives Here

[1/10 · 18 July 2023]

Evil Lives Here is a phenomenal true crime series. Part of what makes it so great is that it provides a platform for family members (often victims themselves) to share their personal story about living with a loved one that has a violent demeanor and the psychological (and sometimes physical) trauma they endured. Most of the perpetrators the show focuses on are murderers, some of whom have committed truly heinous and unspeakable crimes. The first two episodes of this season, in fact, we hear from two women who were subjected to extreme abuse at the hands of a parent wherein their lives were quite literally in constant danger.

But then we have this episode, the third installment of Season 13, and for the very first time I find myself sympathizing more with the perpetrator than I do with the family member being interviewed. I do not understand why Tyler Borg's crime is being featured on a show called "Evil Lives Here", and why his father Eugene, a religious zealot with questionable parenting skills, was granted such a platform to tell his story. He has to be one of the least sympathetic individuals to have ever appeared on the show. And one of the least credible too.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I just don't subscribe to the notion that all murderers are "evil" and sadistic sociopaths. While many of the perpetrators featured on this show do fit that profile, Tyler Borg does not. But according to his father, Eugene Borg, he meets the definition of "evil" because he quite literally believes his son was possessed by Satan and demons. It is the only explanation he is willing to entertain as to why his son was so rebellious. It couldn't POSSIBLY be due to poor parenting and/or his flawed perception of reality which undoubtedly harmed his son. Even if unintentional, harm is still harm.

Not only did Eugene Borg almost certainly inflict psychological trauma on Tyler, but to make matters worse he is not even self-aware. The dude lives on another planet. Imagine growing up with parents who refused to validate your feelings because they didn't believe those feelings were actually yours, but just words spoken by Satan. Imagine not being excited to go to church because it's BORING, but that your father finds that to be incredulous because, and I quote, "without God, you're screwed!"

Imagine being a kid that hates school, so you pretend to be sick so that you don't have to go. I did this many times myself as a kid. But you know what my parents didn't do? They didn't threaten to dump ice water all over me if I didn't get up and go like Tyler Borg's father did. Why? Because punishment for the sake of punishment is not a solution. You don't fix problems by punishing people for having them. If Tyler didn't want to go to school, there was a reason why. But did Eugene stop to think "hey, maybe I should talk to my son and ask what is troubling him"? No. His brilliant idea was to just threaten to dump ice water on him if he didn't get up immediately and go to school.

It's no surprise that this parenting tactic failed horribly, and Eugene resorts to calling the police time and time again to do the parenting for him. Because with Eugene, it's all about punishment. Punish, punish, punish. Call the police, take his stuff away, forbid him from seeing his girlfriend. Punishing behavior without reinforcing good behavior doesn't result in changing behavior. It only results in cessation of behavior in the presence of the punisher. Eugene just doesn't strike me as the sort of loving father that a son could turn to if he was going through a tough time. Tyler likely learned that doing so would result in either punishment or being told "that's not you talking, that's the Devil".

So one of the "red flags" Eugene points out is the time Tyler and his friends beat up his sister's boyfriend one night. But Eugene provides the context for this by stating that this boyfriend had hit his daughter the year before. He says this as though it was no big deal, and obviously it wasn't for him because this attack occurred under his own roof because he allowed his daughter's boyfriend to spend the night. But Eugene is just outraged by his son's behavior. He cannot comprehend why Tyler and his friends would beat up the guy who the previous year had beat up his daughter.

As an adult, Tyler ends up getting married. A few years into the marriage, he learns that his wife is having an affair with an ex-boyfriend. This is the event that ultimately breaks him. He has learned that the people he loves, and who purport to love him, cannot be trusted because he's never seen evidence to the contrary. In a fit of jealous rage, he shoots at his romantic rival who is in a car, and is unfortunately killed. To be sure, this is a tragic outcome and Tyler's actions are inexcusable. But crimes of passion are not exactly unheard of, and "evil" isn't a term usually associated with them. As far as homicides go, killing a cheating spouse or a romantic rival is about as cliché as it gets.

In conclusion, what Tyler did was certainly wrong and I don't mean to minimize the seriousness of his crime. But Tyler's profile and nature of his crime just doesn't seem to fit the theme of this particular series. It seems out of place. And so does Tyler's father and his secretly buried porn stash. This is just a weird episode that I wish didn't exist, but it doesn't affect my overall opinion of the series which has otherwise been consistently good.

Snowpiercer (2013)

The Snowpocalypse Express: Now With 50% More Protein!

[9/10 · 2 January 2023]

Snowpiercer is a post-apocalyptic sci-fi action arthouse film inspired by the 1982 French graphic novel "Le Transperceneige". The concept of this "Noah's Ark" of a train carrying the last surviving humans living in cars separated by social stratification and fighting with one another was one that Bong Joon-ho was fascinated by. So much so, in fact, that when he came across the series at a comic book store he read the entire thing right then and there in front of the bookshelf he found it on.

The movie he went on to make is not a true adaptation, but that is by design. Bong wanted to recreate his own version of the story and its characters. Some people may be disappointed in Bong for taking such creative liberties, but personally I would have been disappointed if he hadn't. Snowpiercer wouldn't really feel like a Bong Joon-ho film if he was telling someone else's story instead his own. If you're not a fan of Bong's Snowpiercer, there's always the graphic novel or TV series to check out.

Snowpiercer was a film I was immediately drawn to for several reasons: 1) I'm unashamedly obsessed with post-apocalyptic stories 2) I am a fan of both action and sci-fi films and 3) I enjoy films that are thought-provoking and philosophical. A story need not necessarily be logical or "realistic" for me to appreciate because I don't perceive film as just a form of entertainment. Just like painting, drawing, poetry, and songwriting, filmmaking is an art and art can sometimes be surreal or abstract. But it becomes less of an art when all originality is lost and instead becomes mainstream formulaic repetition.

I have grown somewhat weary of the endless conveyer belt of films that churn out of the Hollywood film factory in recent years. Hollywood has literally become a meme at this point with all the remakes, sequels, and "new and improved CGI". Don't get me wrong, Hollywood still puts out some fantastic movies, but they're becoming more rare with each passing year. Over time I found myself drawn almost exclusively to films produced and distributed by independent companies such as A24, or Criterion remasters of older independent films, because the content is refreshingly different and new by comparison. To be clear, I'm not saying "different" is "better"... Oh who am I kidding, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying! If not getting excited for Fast and the Furious 25 makes me pretentious, so be it!

Getting back to the movie, as I previously mentioned it's unfortunately not going to appeal to a broad audience. This is mostly due to its unconventional narrative and its philosophical and metaphorical themes. Yes, this is an action sci-fi movie, but it's also an independently produced arthouse film focused on social realism, stratification, and inequality. The point is, if what you are looking for is a Hollywood blockbuster sci-fi film, Snowpiercer may not meet your expectations.

One of the most common complaints I've seen about this film is how "unrealistic" it is. Of course, the more realistic elements a movie has, the more likely we are to enjoy it. But many people also enjoy watching movies precisely to ESCAPE reality and be immersed in a story that has nothing to do with it. Whenever I feel down or depressed, I just put on a post-apocalyptic film like this and suddenly my life doesn't seem so bad!

In any event, unless a film is marketed as a documentary it'll likely contain at least some unrealistic plots, characters, themes, etc. Even in biographical adaptations, they may include exaggerated accounts or complete fabrications. Most of the time these alterations to reality aren't intended to deceive the audience; it's to entertain.

Most feature films would be incredibly dull and boring if it met the specifications of reality. If teenagers all acted responsibly, respected their parents, did their homework, and remained celibate until marriage, ghosts, monsters, and chainsaw-wielding maniacs would be out of a job! Imagine a Western where the entire movie builds up to a showdown, but at the end the two rivals realize violence is not the answer and decide to shoot compliments at one another instead of bullets. Or what about a more realistic version of Pinocchio where he and Jiminy Cricket are immediately digested in each of the whale's four stomachs upon being swallowed?

So yes, I agree Snowpiercer isn't realistic. But neither is Noah's Ark. Sustaining what's left of humanity on a perpetually running train that circumnavigates the globe, completing one loop every 365 days, is about as realistic as building a wooden boat measured at 300 cubits to house 16 million species of animal (8 million x2), along with enough food to last 40 days which in the case of carnivores would require eating some of the other passengers, all to save them from an apocalyptic global flood caused by God himself because people suck and he needed to start over.

If you pay close attention to the dialogue and story, the movie actually does answer a lot of questions people frequently ask. While it doesn't always get into the nitty-gritty technical details, it does at least explain the most important parts necessary to at least accept the back story. For example, people seem to hold this idea that the Snowpiercer train was built for this very purpose when in fact it pre-existed the apocalypse. It was a luxury train originally designed to transport rich people around the globe in style and showcase its perpetual motion engine. Since the train's route passes through a large portion of the Arctic Circle, it was built to traverse a frozen landscape. When the apocalypse arrived, this marvel of engineering became the only means for human survival. The cars are separated by class because that's how trains (and planes) typically are even in the real world. First class, business class, and coach. If you've got the money, you can sit up front with a comfy seat and a glass of complimentary champagne. If you don't, you'll be stuck in the back with no leg room and the crying babies.

No doubt this film is going to raise questions. Love it or hate it, the mere fact that it is so polarizing (pun intended) and worthy of discussion makes this film, at the very least, unforgettable. And although this has become one of my most favorite films, I'm actually glad that some people didn't like it because I appreciate critical thinkers and those who reject "magic" trains in favor of science and evidence. Those are my kind of people. But even if you just can't get on board (more punnage) with the sci-fi story, it's still possible to love this film for its metaphorical and philosophical story. Ultimately, that IS the real story here and the one Bong Joon-ho is trying to tell.

The Boys (2019– )

Diabolical Superhero Satire and Political Drama Action Comedy Mystery Thriller

[10/10 · 26 December 2022]

Imagine a universe in which Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Black Panther, and The Flash were not independent contractors, but corporate employees managed by corrupt executives who are motivated by power and greed. Imagine if what you knew about your favorite superhero was all a facade, and that behind the scenes they were actually a terrible person concerned more about their public image and popularity ratings. Imagine that instead of saving lives they were taking lives. Instead of preventing crimes they were committing crimes. As powerful as they are, could anyone really stop them? "The Boys" may be the world's only hope to expose the truth and put an end to this dangerous enterprise once and for all.

This show is without a doubt one of the most interesting, addictive, and brilliant streaming service series to have graced our television screens in years. Mostly because there's nothing else like it; there's no other series it can fairly be compared to. The best way I could describe it would be like if House of Cards starred a corrupt Superman instead of Frank Underwood and he was being investigated by Walter White and Jesse Pinkman from Breaking Bad.

This show has everything: it's exciting, it's dramatic, it's funny, it's full of over-the-top comic-style gore, morally ambiguous complex characters, love, sex, violence, and plot twists for days. It's easy to develop a love-hate relationship with several of these characters. You'll go back and forth between despising them and having empathy for them. The series is thought-provoking to say the least. It invites viewers to not just merely judge a character's actions, but to consider their personal history which motivates them. This isn't intended to excuse the behavior, but rather, it is to simply understand it.

These are not one-dimensional characters that are ALL "good" or ALL "evil" (with VERY few exceptions); super powers or not they're just people capable of doing good or bad things (on a spectrum, of course). You'll find yourself questioning whether certain characters are innately good or evil, or whether circumstances outside of their control ultimately shaped and influenced the person they became. The multi-faceted "human" qualities these characters possess is what makes each episode and season unpredictable as to their outcome.

There is definitely an underlying theme throughout the story which is loneliness. Nearly every character is experiencing it to some degree, and struggle to form and maintain meaningful relationships. Each character has felt betrayed by someone they once trusted and have each suffered a personal loss. This isn't a mindless and meaningless superhero TV show. What it is, is a window into human nature itself and our desire to feel loved, wanted, and accepted by others. That, if we could just take a step back for a minute and look at who we perceive as the enemy, we may find there is more that unites us than divides us.

This is a series filled with complex characters that are actually interesting to watch and see how they develop over time. Their interactions with one another and relationships are also ever-changing. These are just some of the reasons for why The Boys is so compelling as a story and so addictive as a TV series. It's just so well-crafted, acted, and directed that the only bad thing about it is the waiting time between seasons. If I could rate this series higher than 10 stars, I would.

The Lighthouse (I) (2019)

One of my favorite films of all time

[10/10 · 21 December 2022]

There are very few films I would rate 10/10. No matter how much I may like (or even love) a film, I rarely go so far as to call them "perfect". But after watching The Lighthouse I was just blown away by how brilliant it was. Not many films leave me feeling this impressed, in awe, and confused all at the same time. Like Eggers' previous film The Witch, The Lighthouse is completely unique and unashamedly deviant from mainstream Hollywood.

Although it won't be to everyone's tastes, especially if your enjoyment of a film depends on a linear storyline, there's no doubt that true film fans will (at the very least) appreciate its artistic value and what Eggers' contributes to the entertainment industry with his creative vision. The Lighthouse is only his sophomore release as a director, and yet even with his debut The Witch, he makes films like he's been doing it professionally his entire life.

Robert Eggers is all about maintaining authenticity in his portrayal of historical periods, from wardrobes to set designs and even dialects. It often helps to watch his movies with subtitles turned on so that you never miss a word of dialogue. For The Lighthouse, the decision to film it in black and white using 35mm film and vintage lenses was a brilliant one. Combined with the square 1.19:1 aspect ratio, the movie looks like it came straight out of a 1930s archive. It also "boxes" us in to the claustrophobic atmosphere of being stranded on a remote rocky island and the cramped living conditions of our two main protagonists (or antagonists depending on your point of view).

One thing I did not expect from a movie like this that is both dialogue-heavy and yet frequently silent is just how GOOD the sound design is. The opening scene has some of the best audio I've ever heard and it immediately immerses you into the film. Especially if you experience it in full surround. The deep bellowing of the fog horns were so intense, it nearly broke my subwoofers causing a part to become loose! Luckily it was an easy fix, but this had never happened before despite frequently watching ultra bass-heavy films like Transformers, Bumblebee, and Pacific Rim. Most of the sound used in The Lighthouse is ambient background noise such as the sound of foghorns, crashing waves upon the rocks and screeching seagulls, but it is a very effective use of sound that continues to maintain the story's atmosphere.

As in other works by Eggers, there are frequent (and ambiguous) references to folklore that (in my opinion) are the most responsible for causing confusion amongst viewers when they watch his films. That is because there are no explicit explanations provided for them in the narrative. It's something you'll either "get" or you won't. And if you don't (as was the case for me) once you've finished the movie you can just simply look them up online. Eggers is known to provide additional context in interviews for some of the themes he draws inspiration from. The Lighthouse is full of references to maritime and Grecian folklore with some scenes mimicking actual, historical works of art.

I don't think it's really possible to categorize this film into any specific genre. There are lots of funny moments, but not enough to make it a comedy. There is lots of drama, but not enough to make this a drama film. There are moments of madness and some supernatural elements, but not enough to make this a "scary" horror movie. If I were to try and categorize this movie at all, it would be tension and suspense. It is constant throughout from beginning to end.

The performances by both Dafoe and Pattinson are on another level. There are scenes in this movie whereby they give single-take monologues, brilliantly acted and powerfully delivered. There is a particular one minute 40 second monologue delivered by Willem Dafoe that is arguably one of the most memorable moments in the entire movie. I honestly cannot believe that neither of these actors were nominated for an Oscar. It's some of the best acting I've ever seen, perhaps the best of Pattinson's career, and even Dafoe's despite a long career of brilliant performances. The film would not have been as good as it was were it not for the amazing cast.

The entire film is a work of genius. A masterpiece even. It's not mainstream, but it's not full-on arthouse either. It is very reminiscent of David Lynch or David Cronenberg films, but more linear and less "out there". The Lighthouse is certainly not pretentious, and one thing this film proves is that even an artistic visionary like Robert Eggers is not above a fart joke or two.

Funny Games (1997)

A psychopath and a sociopath walk into a home to borrow some eggs...

[9/10 · 20 December 2022]

"Funny Games" is an Austrian psychological horror film that follows the story of a well-to-do married couple and their son who become victims of a terrifying home invasion. The violent perpetrators proceed to inflict a series of cruel mind games upon their victims intended to demean, humiliate, and psychologically torture them over a period of 24 hours. To be sure, this type of film won't be for everyone due to its disturbing nature. But I also think it's a film that is misunderstood and over-analyzed ad nauseum leading to (in my opinion) unfair criticism.

One of the most common complaints about the film is the perpetrators' rationale (or lack thereof) for their actions. That there was no point to any of it. In truth, that is not a flawed analysis. Those who make this criticism are rational, sensible human beings trying to make sense of an otherwise senseless act. It is in our nature, as human beings, to observe the world around us and ask questions about it. As conscious, feeling, intelligent animals we need explanations for everything. And if one does not exist, we just make them up out of thin air to quell the anxiety. It's just what we do. The important thing is to be self-aware and recognize that we do it.

My point is this: it is a waste of time to rationalize the irrational and make sense of the senseless because you can't. And as uncomfortable as that is, it must be accepted. But that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation for why people do and say irrational and senseless things. It's definitely easier to understand criminal behavior that is motivated by logic and reason (even if flawed). However, in certain circumstances, it just isn't there. This is often the case when dealing with extreme cases of antisocial personality disorders which the two serial killer perpetrators in this film clearly have.

First, there is Paul the psychopath. Cold, calculating, manipulative, and cunning. Most serial killers seek out a specific type of victim, and in this case it would seem Paul's preferred victims are privileged, wealthy families who he believes don't understand what is like to suffer. Then there is his accomplice, Peter the sociopath. Unlike Paul, Peter finds it difficult to behave in a charming, socially acceptable way when circumstances call for it. He tries, but he just comes across as an annoying nuisance.

It's possible that Peter suffers from "folie à deux" otherwise known as a shared delusional disorder, or delusional beliefs transmitted from one person to another. He is highly impressionable and someone Paul can easily control and manipulate. Peter is less of an individual, and more of an extension of Paul. Either way, they make a highly dangerous and deadly duo.

Paul even tries to manipulate us, the viewers, by the occasional wink, smirk, and comment directed at the camera. These fourth wall breaks didn't really work for me and it's my only real complaint about this film. I understand its purpose, but it just came across as silly and superfluous.

Overall this film is extremely chilling, disturbing, and terrifying. Oftentimes that fear is brought on not by what you see, but from what you DON'T see. Some reviewers complained about this. Because you don't see on-screen every violent act. But remember that this is a film about psychological terror; it's not intended to be a traditional "hack and slash" horror movie. In my opinion, the sounds, the screams, the defeated facial expressions, the long moments of silence, illicit a more genuine fear response.

The fact that the perpetrators have no real motivation for doing this is even more terrifying, because they cannot be reasoned with. The scariest criminals are the ones who are completely devoid of expressing and feeling empathy. So that lack of "purpose" is not a criticism I share. Funny Games is a film that sticks with you even when it's over. The lingering psychological effects it leaves behind left me feeling like I needed to be debriefed afterwards! In that regard I consider this movie to be a success.

The Last Duel (2021)

Epic period drama that loses some immersive quality by casting A-list American actors

[7/10 · 19 December 2022]

***This review will contain details about this movie that some may consider spoilers. I've tried to keep them as brief and non-specific as possible.***

Usually after I've watched a movie for the first time, I can say definitively whether I liked it or not. The Last Duel is a rare exception whereby I couldn't (and to some degree still can't) decide how I feel about it, so I remain somewhat neutral. I don't hate the movie, but I don't absolutely love it either.

Nevertheless, I would still recommend giving it a watch simply because it's an interesting story in which the subject matter remains hugely relevant in modern times. It is also visually stunning (with the exception of Matt Damon's mullet) and the cinematography is breathtaking.

With that said, I will break down what I liked about this film and what I did not. Keep in mind, these are just my own thoughts and preferences that affect my personal enjoyment and appreciation of a film. I'll start with what I didn't like first so that I can end this review on a more positive note.

The first thing I found off-putting about the movie was that Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, and Adam Driver were in it. Not because they are bad actors (they are certainly not), but because casting American A-list actors in a period film ruins the immersion for me. Remember the time Game of Thrones gave Ed Sheeran a cameo appearance? It caused an immersion outrage! That's sort of what I experienced with the Last Duel. Instead of focusing on the story, I became fixated on judging the quality of Damon's, Affleck's, and Driver's British Accents.

To be fair, I do this with EVERY actor who modifies their regular accent for a film role. If it's less than perfect (which it often is) I find it to be a distraction. Christian Bale is one of the few actors that I feel does accents perfectly. Matt Damon's British accent is (to my ears anyway) embarrassingly bad. Adam Driver's was surprisingly not bad, and Ben Affleck's was okay (though more Irish sounding). The point is, I don't want to be thinking about this while watching a movie, but I can't help it. It makes me wonder if actors also find themselves distracted by it, perhaps focusing more on getting their accent right instead of acting out the scene right.

Having one American actor may have been less of a big deal for me, but putting three in lead roles was just too much of a distraction for me. Their acting was just "okay" in this movie. Damon and Affleck are both brilliant actors, but in The Last Duel, not so much. Either way, their presence in a medieval-themed period drama was an immersion killer. I probably would have liked the movie more if they had cast lesser-known, British actors (or even French which would have been even better).

Now for what I liked: basically everything else. I disagree that the movie was too long. I think it's as long as it needed to be to tell the story in a meaningful, coherent way. There are three different perspectives being told of the same story, so it makes sense that they should all get equal screen time. And it's those perspectives which I found the most fascinating, because they made sense psychologically.

There are two types of truths: there is your truth and the actual, objective truth. And when it comes to personal experiences, the truth is largely subjective. The way you see yourself is subjective. The way you perceive your actions is subjective. You may see yourself as a loving, caring husband. You may see yourself as having committed an act that you felt was not a crime, and therefore proclaim your innocence. But then there is the ACTUAL truth. What REALLY happened, and who was affected by those actions.

In a way, all three perspectives are the "truth", because no one seems to be deliberately lying; no one believes they've done anything wrong. Rather, two of the three stories are a distorted version of reality with mitigating details. All three believe they are the true victim: one believes they have committed no crime and has been wrongfully accused, one believes they are the victim of (essentially) "property damage", and one believes they are the victim of sexual assault. Nonetheless, each version of the story seems to confirm that the act was definitely not consensual. Instead, the accused perceived the frequent use of the words "no" and "stop" to be synonymous with a "customary protest". What a time to be alive!

In conclusion, it's a fascinating story that is only enhanced by its attention to detail. The variations in each recounting of events can be easily missed if you're not looking for them, but they are all important to the story. Every scene, every detail, and every word served a purpose and was worth paying attention to. To be sure, this is not a fast paced action packed story, and will be appreciated most by those who love epic narratives and historical period films. That is, as long as you're not distracted by the A-listers and accents. :)

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)

"Anyone can wear the mask. YOU could wear the mask."

[10/10 · 16 December 2022]

There are very few films I'd ever rate a perfect 10/10. There are even fewer films I'd go so far as to call a genuine "masterpiece". Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is without a doubt one of the best feature films ever made. Not just in the "animated" category either. Or even in the "superhero" genre. This is a true example of filmmaking excellence, and it deserves all the praise it has received. So if you haven't seen it yet, just stop whatever you're doing and go watch it NOW!

One of the great things about this movie is its broad audience appeal. Whoever you are, whatever types of movies you like, whatever your age or gender, there's a HIGH chance that you'll love Into the Spider-Verse. Even if animated movies aren't necessarily your thing, and even if you don't care much for superhero stories, you're still going to love it. Why? Because this movie isn't just for kids or Spider-Man fans, it's for all human beings. It's relatable on so many levels to just about anyone.

It's also one of the funniest movies I've ever seen in my life. This is because of the frequent use of "reversals" which are in nearly every scene. A comedic juxtaposition of expectation vs. Reality. At times there's an intense, nail-biting buildup leading you to expect something awful or majestic to happen, but the reality ends up being quite benign and uneventful. It is pure comedy genius and it never gets old. Even after multiple viewings (and this film has major re-watch value).

But Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a film even hardcore cinephiles and audiophiles will appreciate. This movie is STUNNING. Right from the opening titles to the end titles, it's perfection. The animation is on a whole other level to what you've ever seen. It is literally a comic book come to life. It's vibrant colors and contrast are spectacular. This movie is why OLED TVs exist. And don't even get me started on the sound! The Atmos mix is superior. Even my husband, who doesn't pay attention to visual and audio details when we're watching movies, actually commented "this movie has the most surround sound of any movie EVER!" That's because the Atmos track is full-on in this movie. With a 5.1.4 setup or larger, you are almost entirely shrouded in 3D immersive sound for the full 2 hours. The entire cinematic experience is intense.

So what we have so far is this: stunning visuals, superb audio, comedy gold, likable characters, and a captivating storyline. But it's also an emotional roller-coaster too! You will laugh, you will cry, you will feel defeated one minute and empowered the next. I've written a lot here, but the truth is this film is extraordinarily difficult to describe in words. There are very few films I could honestly say are flawless, and this is one of them. There's not a single flaw. Not even a tiny one if I wanted to be really nitpicky.

What gets me the most is how OBVIOUS it is that the filmmakers cared about this movie. There is so much love put into every single detail. Nothing feels rushed. Instead, it feels crafted and perfected. The colors, the animation, the story, the audio, the voice acting, the comedic timing, frame by frame you can tell how much thought went into this project. It's no wonder then why so many viewers end up loving it too.

Midway (2019)

I didn't think it would be as bad as everyone said, but it really is THAT bad.

[4/10 · 15 December 2022]

Movies about World War II is, for whatever reason, somewhat of an obsession for me. At this point I think I've seen just about every movie there is on the subject, including those in the Criterion Collection (which are some of the best). Oddly enough, despite its $100 million budget, I had never heard of Midway until recently. So of course I came here to IMDB to check out the reviews and decide if it was worth watching. Most of the negative reviews seemed focused on the film's use of CGI, but I decided to watch it with an open mind because I cared more about the story than how it was going to look.

I'm here to tell you now, the bad reviews for Midway are completely justified. The reason I pointed out how many movies I've watched on the subject of WWII, both Hollywood blockbusters and independent films, is to give you a sense of how large my scale of reference is in determining that Midway is probably the WORST WWII movie I've ever seen. The only reason I gave it 4 stars instead of one is because the one great thing about this movie is the sound design. The Atmos mix on Midway is mind blowingly good. It seems like out of everyone who worked on the production of this film, nobody cared except the Sound Department. They did a great job and deserve a shout out.

So what makes this movie so bad? Well, there are a LOT of issues with it. But I hold Roland Emmerich, the film's director, the most responsible for Midway's shortcomings. For some strange reason, watching it gave me flashbacks of being in college. We were always given essays to write as homework assignments. Sometimes students would start working on them right away, maximizing their time to the fullest to get their essay just right. But some students (like me) waited until the night before deadline to write their paper, making sure all the elements were met but without a whole lot of thought or effort.

That's what I thought about watching Midway, like Roland Emmerich had to shoot this movie in a day and just had to hurry up and get it done. Of course, that's not literally true but you get my point, I hope. Everything about the movie is lazy. For starters, the acting is terrible. Ed Skrein's American accent is total cringe. This is despite some of the actors in this movie are actually capable of good acting. So to me, it's a sign of lazy direction; however the actor says their lines is good enough, as long as they say them. It feels like all their lines were delivered in one take without the director feeling like it could be better.

The excessive use of CGI is also lazy. CGI is appropriate in fantasy films to bring objects to life that don't exist in the real world. But that cannot be said for this film. Planes exist. Ships exist. Oceans exist. Pyrotechnic departments exist to create real explosions. None of those things were used. Not only was relying SOLELY on CGI lazy, but the actual CGI itself was lazy. It doesn't even remotely look realistic or high quality. The Lord of the Rings trilogy came out 20 years ago and had higher quality CGI than this.

But even you can overlook the terrible acting and excessive (and unnecessary) use of CGI, there's still a major issue with the movie: the lack of a human factor. There just isn't one anywhere. The characters are disconnected from one another. The story does not invoke a single emotional response. We are supposed to be watching a movie based on one of the most major naval battles in history and yet I didn't care. I felt nothing. I didn't connect with the people or the event, because there was no reasons given as to why I should. There's no explanation for why anything is happening and for what reason.

What I found myself asking at the end of this movie, was why did Roland Emmerich make it? What was the message he was trying to convey? Is Midway an anti-war movie or pro-war? Is it even a war movie or just over two hours of a video game cut scene? I have no idea. I don't think this movie has a point to make. CGI and an all-star cast does not a good movie make. Nothing can substitute for a memorable storyline, which Midway does not have.

This is a film about actual events from a dark period in history. Most films about WWII leave me with a profound feeling of sadness but also with a better understanding of not only WHAT happened, but WHO it happened to. That tends to happen more in movies that focus on just a few central character arcs instead of movies like Midway where the focus is on too many people that you know nothing about. I hate to say it, but in a way I feel like this movie was disrespectful to the event itself by choosing to eliminate the human elements and focusing entirely on elaborate CGI battles that don't even look realistic. WWII movie enthusiasts should stay away from this one.

Pacific Rim (2013)

"One: Don't you ever touch me again. Two: Don't you ever touch me again."

[8/10 · 10 December 2022]

Pacific Rim isn't just a movie. It's a nonstop roller-coaster thrill-ride. It is an audio-visual spectacle that commands your attention and keeps your heart rate up with nearly continuous action that leaves you little time to breathe. One thing this movie is NOT is boring. What it is, is exciting. Watching this felt like doing 2 hours of cardio just sitting in my recliner.

Is this the most brilliant movie you'll ever see? Probably not. The storyline is fairly generic and not revolutionary. It certainly has its flaws but pointing them out seems a bit nit-picky. I don't think the purpose of this film is to provide a cerebral and thought-provoking story with Academy award winning performances. Criterion isn't going to memorialize Pacific Rim in its collection. I truly believe the purpose of this film is to provide viewers with an exciting visual and audio experience.

Watching this reminded me of going to an amusement park to ride one of those hydraulic shuttle simulators. No one went on them because they heard the film showing on the screen was brilliant; they went on it because it was a fun ride that made you feel like you were on a space shuttle. That's what watching Pacific Rim is like, at least for me. I watch it for how it makes me feel, not for how it makes me think. And what I feel from watching this is a nonstop adrenaline rush. Every time they're operating a Jaeger I get the sudden urge to slowly stomp my feet.

It's also a movie worth owning on physical media, especially the 4K UHD version, if you have a home theater. Pacific Rim is reference quality media with its 1.78:1 aspect ratio and superb Atmos mix. The bass is so extreme it'll feel like an earthquake. So Pacific Rim isn't just visual eye-candy, it's an acoustic masterpiece that audiophiles will appreciate.

Fans of action sci-fi movies like Edge of Tomorrow, War of the Worlds, Starship Troopers, etc. Will likely enjoy Pacific Rim. I mean, what's not to love about giant robots fighting giant alien sea monsters?! Sure, some elements of the story are a bit predictable and silly but so what? This movie is AWESOME. The story itself is somewhat forgettable, but still enjoyable. But what's unforgettable is the experience you'll get from watching it. What else can I say? It's just a FUN movie and one that I truly enjoyed.

Come and See (1985)

One of the Most Important Movies Ever Made

[10/10 · 4 December 2022]

There is a 1987 Japanese documentary that I watched recently by Kazuo Hara called "The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On". In the film, Hara follows a WW2 veteran named Kenzo Okuzaki who, 40 years after the war, is still haunted by the unexplained deaths of two soldiers in his unit. Exposing the truth and holding accountable those who were responsible became an obsession that guided his actions for the rest of his life.

There are several reasons why Okuzaki agreed to do the film, but one of them was that he had hoped to show the world how un-heroic, horrifying, and inglorious war actually is. Hollywood has a tendency to portray war and the soldiers who fight as honorable, courageous, and patriotic. War is portrayed as a cause worth fighting and ostensibly dying for. In other words, we often hear only the stories people want us to hear and not the stories of what actually happened.

Viewers are not often exposed to the uncomfortable and disturbing realities that both soldiers and civilians face every day out there on the front lines. Humanity, decency, and empathy are oftentimes lost as warring parties carry out their futile quest for greed, power, and control. Indeed, that is the message most anti-war films attempt to convey and Elem Klimov's "Come and See" is the most powerful example of it. In my opinion, it is not just the best anti-war movie of all time, but one of the best movies ever made. It is quite literally a masterpiece.

The film takes place in 1943 Nazi-occupied Belarus with a focus on 14-year-old Flyora, a naive Belarusian teenager who is eager to join the partisan army. He is elated when he finally finds a rifle that will allow him to do so. Despite the wishes of his mother who pleads with him not to go, Flyora excitedly packs his bags grinning from ear to ear. Needless to say, it is a coming-of-age story unlike any other you've probably ever seen. His optimistic, friendly, and innocent demeanor is quickly eroded when he witnesses the sheer brutality of Nazi forces. War was not fun and games; it was horror and death. Every minute of this movie reminds us, the viewers, of that. And after watching this movie, it's a lesson you'll likely never forget.

But what makes this movie even more unforgettable is its production. The film was co-written by Ales Adamovich and the story is based on his own experiences fighting alongside Belarusian partisans as a teenager. Klimov also had to fight 8 years of censorship before he was even allowed to make this movie. Aleksei Kravchenko, the teenager playing Flyora, had never acted in a film before. The expressions of shock, fear, and terror are often real, not scripted. Live rounds of ammunition were used in this film, at times passing just 4 inches above Kravchenko's head. It really was a matter of life and death for him during certain scenes of this movie. Ethics aside, nothing captures fear better on camera than people who are actually experiencing it in real-time.

This isn't a movie you watch to "enjoy". Nothing about this film is enjoyable to watch. It's a movie you watch to experience, and it's a movie everyone should experience at least once. It is disturbing, hard to watch, it will make you uncomfortable and at times disgusted. There are no heroes here. No glory. No happy ending. This isn't your average war movie, and in fact, I'd consider it to be more of a horror movie. This is a sugar-free WW2 movie that is entirely dark, chaotic, and bleak. But that's also what makes it brutally honest in its portrayal. There is nothing romantic or cute about genocide.

Come and See compels you to do just that. It's a must-see for any WW2 buff, but also for anyone who appreciates film as art. There is not a single flaw with this film. It's basically perfect. It's also one of the most accurate portrayals of Nazi crimes on the Eastern Front. It may feel uncomfortable to watch, but don't look away. Watch every single second no matter how disturbing a scene may be. Because it is a window into a past we should never return to, and as human beings we need to understand what we're capable of. We are the torturers and the tortured. The powerful and the powerless. Capable of murder, and capable of saving lives.

Totally Under Control (2020)

The Definitive Guide on How NOT to Handle a Pandemic

[10/10 · 27 November 2022]

"We have Americans in this country who don't believe in science." These words are spoken towards the end of this brilliant documentary. But the thing is, science doesn't care if you "believe" in it or not. Demonstrable, empirical facts and evidence requires acceptance - not blind faith. So a more accurate way to characterize those Americans would be to say they didn't "accept" the science, despite indisputable and verifiable evidence.

What this documentary reveals is just how dangerous that attitude can be towards public health when those at the highest levels of government are the ones refusing to accept objective reality. At the time of this review, nearly 2.5 years after the United States confirmed its first COVID patient, more than 1.1 million people have died from the disease. There have been close to 100 million cases overall. That's a third of the entire population. For comparison, the country with the second highest confirmed deaths (Brazil) is around 680 million. And the country with the second highest confirmed cases is India with around 44 million.

The United States, by far, experienced the worst outbreak of COVID in the entire world. Although shocking, it is hardly surprising given the complete indifference by the Trump administration. Viruses are apolitical; it doesn't care which political party its host affiliates with. And yet the outbreak was politicized for seemingly arbitrary reasons. In this documentary we are reminded of the days when the Trump administration encouraged the use of certain medications that would magically "cure" COVID despite evidence to the contrary. Refusing to wear masks was a way to "own the libs". The overall unwillingness to comply with CDC and WHO recommendations led to the failure to contain the spread and save countless lives.

Although this documentary is frustrating to watch, what happened happened and it cannot be undone. At this point in time most of what you'll see is now "old" news. But memorializing the historical events of 2020 in a film like this was necessary. It will become the reference documentary for how NOT to respond to a novel and deadly disease. Not just by the government, but by the entire population. It doesn't matter whether you love Trump or hate him. The numbers don't lie. COVID killed both Democrats and Republicans alike. And what those numbers show is evidence of a disease that was allowed to run rampant by a government who had a responsibility to protect the citizens they serve.

Dying for Everest (2007 TV Movie)

Everest and the Moral Dilemma

[8/10 · 26 November 2022]

So you've decided to climb Mount Everest, the tallest mountain in the world. As you ascend into the Death Zone, you begin to see the bodies of those that couldn't survive. But one of those bodies shows signs of life, although seemingly incapacitated. What would you do? Most people insist that they'd do something to help; that they'd try to save them. They are also quick to cast blame on those who "failed" (or simply didn't care enough) to help a fellow mountaineer who was clearly in need of aid.

But here's the thing: they don't call it the "Death Zone" for no reason. Above 8,000 meters, the altitude simply does not have enough oxygen to sustain human life. Your body is literally dying every minute that goes by. This is why most of the dead bodies found on Everest are located within this extremely dangerous altitude. All climbers understand the risk they're taking when deciding to attempt a summit. It's not the people passing by responsible for people dying; it's the mountain itself.

There's an unspoken rule among those climbing Everest to put your own safety first. Most climbers pay to join an expedition party led by guides. In those instances, the guide has a responsibility to ensure the safety of their clients. David Sharp was at Everest attempting a solo climb, without a guide or Sherpa. He was alone by choice and at his own personal risk.

"Saving" people near the summit of Everest is virtually impossible. Rescue helicopters cannot fly at that altitude. Everyone in this area is located within the Death Zone and will die themselves if they don't descend quickly. Attempting to pull and drag a person that is unable to move would require others to exert themselves which will expedite their oxygen loss. The last half mile of the summit takes 11-12 hours to ascend, and most deaths occur during descent when hypoxia sets in. Climbers can barely get themselves out of the Death Zone, let alone do it while carrying a body. You'd likely die trying given the extreme conditions.

It's obviously very distressing to walk by people who desperately need help. But the reality is that there isn't much anyone can do in the Death Zone, especially if someone is incapacitated. Basically, if you're trapped in the Death Zone and you're unable to move, you will likely die within 48 hours due to the hypoxic conditions So it's a tough (and heartbreaking) reality of taking on the challenge of Everest. It's not an environment where a rescue team can just run up the mountain quickly and save people. A rescue at Everest's peak is more challenging than reaching the peak itself. The decision to leave people behind isn't an easy one, but it is often a necessary one. That's what I don't think people really understood when they criticized Mark Inglis and unfairly blamed him for Sharp's death.

This documentary shines a spotlight on this ethical dilemma. Personally, I think anyone climbing Everest (including Sharp) understands they are risking their lives doing so. They understand they're not likely to be rescued if things go wrong. That's why most of us regular people have no intention of ever going there.

Nobody (I) (2021)

Thought I would love it, turns out I hate it

[4/10 · 12 October 2022]

Let me preface this review by saying I LOVE Bob Odenkirk. He's the reason I wanted to see the movie, plus the premise just seemed to be in the realm of movies I typically enjoy. I was so confident, in fact, that I decided to just go ahead and buy it on physical media before I had even seen it. I figured that I would do this movie justice by watching it in 4k with 5.1.4 surround. To be clear, buying movies I've never seen is just incredibly rare for me. But you know what's even more rare? Me struggling to finish a movie that's only 90 minutes long. And unfortunately, that's exactly what happened.

Needless to say, I wasn't expecting that to happen. I'm a fan of Bob Odenkirk, a fan of action movies in general, and over-the-top violence that reaches near-comedic levels. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I expected this to be a dark humor action movie with an intentionally absurd (in a good way) plot line. The first five minutes into the movie I was sold on this being the case. But after that, it just became absurd in a non-entertaining way. At least for me. Believe me, I understand how much people love this movie and I'm genuinely surprised that I don't!

There were several issues that I had. First, I not once ever felt sympathetic towards Odenkirk's character. As an actor he's fantastic, but I just found myself not caring about the character.... at all. His motives, his feelings, his actions, all seemed just too contrived and unrelatable. Characters like this will usually react and respond to situations that have the audience cheering. While we wouldn't necessarily cheer on vigilante "revenge" justice in real life situations, it makes an entertaining premise for books and movies.

Not with this one, I'm afraid. I saw Odenkirk's character as being as much of a bad guy as the bad guys he was after. Maybe even more so. And not in that cathartic anti-hero type of way. I found it hard to root for a guy that basically WANTED and actually sought out violence. He didn't have an enemy, so he went out looking for one. I mean... Who DOES that? His conscience wouldn't allow him to murder the original couple he was after, but he definitely made his point and was able to let off some steam. But no... That wasn't enough. He wasn't ready to go home until he either committed mass murder or mass hospitalizations.

My issue isn't with the level of gratuitous violence, my issue is with the motivations which inspired it. He was mad about the home invasion, had too much heart for the actual invaders, but was overcome by an insatiable appetite for violence. He is just looking for an excuse, any opportunity, to unleash his wrath. Yes, the drunk guys on the bus were annoying d-bags, but the entire time Odenkirk was wailing on them I just kept thinking, "man, he has serious anger management issues". I wasn't rooting for him, but rather, found myself more sympathetic towards the drunk d-bags in that scene. If that was the emotion I was supposed to feel, then I guess it worked, but I just don't get it. Odenkirk's character was arrogant, overly belligerent, and not at all the "hero" I half expected him to be. Maybe that's the point, but again, if it is then I don't get it.

Maybe this story intentionally has no protagonists; they're all just antagonists; and the lack of a protagonist is what this movie was missing for me. Also, one minor criticism I have is the frequent use of licensed music in this movie. Not because the music is bad, but because I think original compositions are more beneficial to story-telling in films. So when an action movie's soundtrack is basically just other people's songs, it just comes across as trying too hard to be "cool" and unoriginal. Slow motion, "cool" music, and lots of guns and punches. You'll find those elements in abundance in this movie, but in a way that insults the viewer's intelligence. Like how "cool" things look and sound somehow make good storytelling unimportant.

In conclusion, great acting, great cinematography, great Atmos mix, Bob Odenkirk (the actor, not his character) are my positives for this movie. If you just want to see a bunch of violence and don't care about story or character motivations, you'll love it. But if you prefer movies that have characters you want to care about and relate to, a character who says and does things you wish you could say and do if you were in their shoes, or a story that is thought provoking, intelligent or meaningful, this isn't it.

A Quiet Place (2018)

Don't Over-Think and You'll Enjoy the Movie

[8/10 · 10 October 2022]

I almost didn't watch this movie after reading several negative reviews, but I decided to give it a chance and I'm glad I did. I understand some of the issues people had with it, but now after having watched it myself I really believe it's important not to over-think things too much. If you can do that, and you like suspenseful, post-apocalyptic, alien/monster movies, then I don't think you'll be disappointed.

One of the issues I saw people had was the lack of a back-story. How did these creatures arrive? The movie doesn't explain this, but it honestly doesn't matter. Why? Because whatever the reason, they're there. And for those trying to survive, they're not concerned with "why are they here"; they're concerned with "how do I stay alive". Then eventually, "how can we fight back". It's clear that these things are what the filmmakers want us to focus on, not the past but the present.

Secondly, there are moments of stupidity that can just bring about frustration by the viewer. Almost like you can't feel sympathy when something bad happens because of a really dumb mistake someone made. But I would argue that such mistakes are critically necessary for a film like this to work. Think about it. How interesting would this movie be if no one did a single thing wrong? People would complain that nothing happened during the entire movie and weren't even aware that creatures were lurking outside. We WANT to see those scary looking beasts, and the only way that's going to happen is if people are dumb and make noise!

And finally, I have to address the pregnancy thing. Yes, if this were real life it would be incredibly dumb to bring a crying, screaming, loud baby into this world. But I think that sub-plot exists so we could see whether it would even be possible. The movie implies that a lot of people are already dead, but some were able to adapt and survive. Natural selection favors species that can adapt to their environment, but also on genetic propagation. In other words, species need to reproduce or they'll just go extinct. The birth scene attempts to show us how this might be possible under the circumstances. Getting pregnant might have been a dumb idea, but at least they made reasonable preparations with what they had. Just like it doesn't matter how the monsters got there, it doesn't matter why she got pregnant. What ever has happened has happened, and it's how we adapt that matters.

Overall I think this movie was highly enjoyable. Not the best movie I've ever seen, but for this type of genre it's better than most. Staying silent around monsters isn't anything new, but what is new is that silence is a requirement at all times, not just when you know they're around. It becomes difficult not to panic at even the slightest of sounds, and that's what makes this movie so exciting.

The Road (I) (2009)

Hauntingly Beautiful and Faithful Book Adaptation

[10/10 · 8 September 2022]

I have been a huge fan of Cormac McCarthy ever since the movie No County for Old Men was released. I loved that movie so much I ran out to buy the book. After reading it, I was amazed at how faithful the movie was to the book. McCarthy has an unusual writing style, notorious for omitting punctuation, but his stories are always compelling and thought-provoking. I have read several of his books since, and The Road was by far my favorite. I read the entire book in two days, THAT'S how drawn in I was to the story. There's a reason it was a Pulitzer Prize winner, and it's one of my most favorite books of all time.

I was both excited and concerned when I heard that there was a film adaptation of the book. I hadn't learned about this film until years after its release. Of course, I had to watch it, but I did do with a high degree of skepticism and was prepared for utter disappointment. But to my surprise, I absolutely LOVED it. It literally felt like I was watching the book. Seriously, this movie was nearly identical to how I visualized the story in my head. It's not uncommon for book fans to be highly critical of movie adaptations and the artistic liberties filmmakers sometimes make. But I am confident that those who have read (and loved) The Road will not be disappointed with this film. It is, without a doubt, one of the BEST book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen.

I can only surmise that the majority of negative reviews about this film come from people who have never read the book. I'm not sure how many people who read the book and hated it would go on to watch the movie, but maybe there are a few who would. It's understandable why some people have a hard time with this movie, and the story in general. It's dark. It's depressing. The future is bleak. A lot of the scenes are hard to watch and it can be emotionally draining. But it's also one of the more realistic depictions of what life might look like in the aftermath of a catastrophic apocalypse. And for once, zombies are not responsible for it.

The book, nor the movie, explains the event which caused the apocalypse. I think that's because it is irrelevant to the story McCarthy is trying to tell. The focus is not on the event itself, but on survival and how we, as human beings, endure when the future seems utterly hopeless. Having said that, my personal belief is that the "event" was caused by a massive asteroid. A global nuclear or volcanic disaster would create too much radiation or atmospheric carbon monoxide for people to be walking around outside instead of hiding underground. Instead, what we see here is eerily similar to what we might have seen when dinosaurs were wiped off the Earth.

A large-scale asteroid impact would cause a mass-extinction event killing virtually all animal and plant life. Dust and debris would fill the skies for several years and block light from the sun. Since plants require sunlight for photosynthesis, they would be the first to die followed by the animals who eat them. Temperatures would drop. The particulates in the air that we would be constantly exposed to and breathe in would make us sick over time and cause respiratory issues. So, surviving such an event would be both a blessing and a curse. Because yes, you'd still have your life, but every day would be a battle and a struggle to keep it. Life would very much look like it does in The Road. It's not pleasant, but it seems fairly accurate.

So the book, nor the movie, is sugar-coating what could someday (and without warning) be a plausible reality. It's HARD to have hope when literally everything and everyone around you is either dead or dying. Some may view McCarthy's story as bleak and hopeless, but I think they're missing the point. Human beings have a STRONG survival instinct. We are so afraid of death, in fact, that most cultures have adapted a belief in life after death to cope with the inevitable, yet uncomfortable concept of mortality. Even with such devout beliefs, no one seems to be in a hurry to give up their mortal life. We WANT to survive, and you can never really know the lengths you're willing to go unless you find yourself in a true survival situation. Especially to protect your family.

What the story gives us is the horror of what humans would do to survive, but also how we are capable of retaining our humanity. How kindness, compassion, and empathy is possible even in the face of certain death. The Boy, who has only ever known life in a post-apocalyptic world, deeply cares for others despite his father's attempts to harden his heart. The Boy is innately kind and generous in a world that likely won't reward him for it. Altruism is the antithesis to self-preservation. But he gives the world hope. And there are many other "blink and you'll miss it" glimmers of hope laced throughout the movie that, while perhaps not in the near future, demonstrates how resilient living things are even when some circumstances are completely out of our control.

Our planet has already endured at least five mass extinction events that we know of. But the Earth is also resilient, capable of recovery and thus it continues to sustain life in one form or another. We would not exist had the dinosaurs survived; their death gave rise to the mammals that were their prey. With the predators gone, they were able to proliferate and evolve over the last 100+ million years. For perspective, modern humans have only been around for the last 20,000 years. If the Earth came into existence 24 hours ago, humans would be less than a second old.

Our consciousness and intelligence have allowed us to survive, but it has also turned our species against one another with a long history of war and ambitions of power. This leads us to the ultimate question of what The Road is really about. Is it about surviving a desolate and inhospitable environment? Or is it about surviving ourselves? If we're not working together, we're working against each other, and The Road tells a story of how we always have that choice. We could fight, kill, and steal from one another, or we could love, show compassion, and share with others. Because at the end of the day, the Earth will move on with or without us on it. Just like it moved on long after the dinosaurs.

Love Off the Grid (2022– )

Interesting Premise Translates Poorly in Reality

[5/10 · 7 March 2022]

I'm not a huge fan of reality television but two that I enjoy are 90 Day Fiancé and Alone. Basically I like survivalist shows, whether it's people surviving in the wilderness or surviving their terrible relationships. This show contains both these elements so naturally it piqued my interest. Unfortunately, however, it didn't quite deliver the same level of entertainment.

First of all, the premise of this show is so completely random that I don't even know how anyone came up with it. "Hey, I know, let's do a show about people who live off the grid and have significant others who agree to live with them despite being accustomed to things like running water and electricity!" It seems like finding participants to be on this show long-term won't be quite as sustainable as the homesteads they're trying to build. But what do I know?

The first season follows 4 couples, none of which are all that interesting. In fact, it's hard to care about any of these people since the show doesn't put any effort into establishing a background for them. Sure, they go into brief detail about how they met, but that's it. There's no emotional backstory. Nothing to care about. There's no supporting information that makes any of these people relatable. How is anyone supposed to care about these people when we know nothing about them?

This is why context is important: based on the information given, Jen comes across as someone who was totally willing to trade in motherhood for who she considers her "soul mate". Her kids will live with their dad so she can go live in the mountains with some dude in a shack. Joe isn't creating a "homestead"; he's creating a polyamorous community whereby he can become their cult leader. 50 something Angela gave 22 year old Josh a BJ 5 years ago and now she wants him to live with her out in the desert. And Spence and Lindsay are just so unbelievably boring that after 7 episodes I still don't remember them.

The idea for this show sounds interesting in theory, but is just not that interesting to watch. It's not the worst show I've ever seen, but production needs to work more on getting the audience to connect with these couples or at the very least give us a reason to care. Even just a little bit.

All Good Things (2010)

Jarecki Should Stick With Documentaries

[4/10 · 12 October 2021]

This is, by far, the worst movie I've seen in quite a long time. I had high hopes for this film given the excellent documentaries Jarecki has produced, and the fascinating true story it is based upon.

The first half of the movie is actually ok. Kirsten Dunst was perfect in her role. But I could tell early on that the story was going to be rushed, and I wasn't sure how they were going to tell a story that took place over 20 years in just 90 minutes. And my concerns proved to be true. So much is crammed in such a short span of time that it creates confusion as to what is going on, especially in the second half.

There really isn't any character development or explanation for anything. The events seem arbitrary and nonsensical, again, much more so in the second half. This story would have been better as a mini series, or just focused on Mark & Katie. The full story is just too nuanced to be appreciated in such a rushed manner. Even with the artistic liberties taken in this film, it didn't really help make the story more coherent.

Lastly, the one major issue I have with this film is how they portrayed the victims in the second half. I know it's just a dramatized version of events, and are not intended to be actual reenactments, but I find it uncomfortable nonetheless. For example, the "Malvin" character being the one who assassinated "Deborah" is just awful. I just found it disrespectful to portray a REAL LIFE victim who met a gruesome end as having been complicit in the death of ANOTHER real victim. For me that was just going too far.

The Comey Rule (2020)

Should Have Been a Longer Series

[7/10 · 27 February 2021]

This is an interesting and entertaining miniseries based on James Comey's book "A Higher Loyalty". The events that take place are largely from his perspective as he grapples with some impossible choices during an election year and beyond to maintain the FBI's independence from partisan politics. Jeff Daniels looks nothing at all like James Comey, but being the superb actor that he is makes this easy to overlook. But Brendan Gleeson steals the entire show with his disturbingly accurate portrayal of Donald Trump. I don't think anyone else could have pulled it off in the same way without it appearing over-comedic.

The one thing I couldn't really buy into was how hard this show tried to sell us on James Comey's independence. The viewer is reminded of it in what seemed like every five minutes. At the office, at the voting place, at the White House, and even at home with his family where he doesn't need to keep up appearances. We get it. The FBI needs to be non-partisan and it's his job to keep it that way. But the TV James Comey just comes across as very different from reality James Comey. TV Comey is always virtuous, calm, and seemingly incapable of emotion. Almost saintly. Reality Comey is much more opinionated and capable of strong emotional expression. He was far more upset by his dismissal than the show seems to suggest.

Lastly, I think this should have been made into a longer series. Maybe 10 or so 1-hour episodes. The two episodes we have are workable to a point because we all know the story. But there was still something lacking. Overall I found this to be entertaining, especially as a heavy consumer of political media. Anyone who follows politics will likely enjoy this, especially if you are open minded to the truth.

Vikings: New Beginnings (2019) Season 6, Episode 1

Oh Come On!

[1/10 · 24 November 2020]

Yes the first three seasons were the best, and actually I didn't even hate seasons 4 and 5 despite the dramatic shift in characters and storytelling. I (hesitantly) adjusted to the story shifting from Ragnar to Ragnars's sons. But after just one episode into season 6 it's already headed into "unwatchable" territory. It's just that bad.

Putting aside the fact that Prince Oleg shouldn't exist at this point in time, Danila Kozlovsky's acting is just awkward. His teary-eyed scenes are just uncomfortable to watch; I didn't feel myself sympathizing with him. It seemed forced and almost comedic when the camera focuses on the single tear running down his cheek.

And what's with the Vignar torture? Oleg destroys this poor guy because he doesn't "believe" his story about Ivar, but once Vignar is dead it's like he instantly changed his mind. Now he and Ivar are best friends flying over the city together on ropes tied to a hot air balloon (I just need to pretend that never happened). So what was even the point of killing Vignar other than for shock value?

Everyone we care about is gone or hardly heard from again. Ragnar, Rollo, Floki. Then we see Lagertha this episode wanting to retire as a forest hermit. Bjorn tries out his best Ragnar impression, and is now the King of Kattegat. Because Earls are soooo two seasons ago. Now everyone is a King.

This episode was boring and honestly ridiculous. I was so excited for this season and now that I've started I don't know if I can finish.

Vikings (2013–2020)

Suspend Your Disbelief and You Will Be Entertained

[8/10 · 23 November 2020]

I agree with many other reviews that this series was at its best during the first three seasons. I'd even go so far as to include Season 4a. After that the series goes into a dramatic shift in nearly every regard. Seasons 4b and 5 were still entertaining, just different, and not at the same quality we were used to. The only season I truly disavow is Season 6, which is so ridiculous that it's painful to watch.

Having said that, keep in mind that this is not a documentary series. It's a fictional drama series combining stories from Norse mythology with real historical events. Some of the characters are based on real people while others are not known to have existed at all outside of stories and anecdotes. In addition, some "real" events in the series raise questions about whether they actually occurred during the years this show claims they had taken place. Especially during the final season when characters that shouldn't exist for at least 50-100 years later are introduced to the show.

For these reasons I feel that it is necessary to suspend your disbelief when watching this series, no matter which season, because it's not a perfect historical account. I consider this series to be fictional historical drama BASED on real history, or at the very least, inspired by. It can be easy to get lost nitpicking every inaccuracy you find thereby ruining the experience. But if you can overlook them, then this show is highly entertaining with great storylines, characters, and visual effects.

Yes, I wish everything was perfect but keep in mind we're talking events from late 8th and early 9th centuries. Record keeping wasn't exactly what these centuries are known for, especially for Vikings since they didn't read or write. So it becomes even more important to take these stories with a grain of salt and just enjoy them for what they are. I do think this is arguably one of the, if not THE best historical drama series ever from a non-premium cable network, even if each season isn't consistently as good as the previous.