Only God Forgives Review

Only God Forgives, directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, was a film that absolutely split the movie community (critics and mainstream audiences alike) straight down the middle. The naysayers repeatedly used the word "dogshit" to describe the film, pointing out how it had little character, excessive violence, and no story. The champions of the movie named it one of the best films of the year and superior to Drive, the director's previous film that was universally acclaimed. I find the story behind the film's reception fascinating, as it just goes to show the power of cinema and how different people have different opinions and feelings even though they witness the exact same images. For me personally, I fall in the camp that really liked this movie. I am hovering on the cusp of absolutely loved, but that will require repeat viewings. Right from the get go, one notices the absolute beauty of this film. I'm floored that this did not get nominated for Best Cinematography or Best Production Design. Every shot in this film was gorgeous to look at. It really enhanced the world of the film and kept me interested, even when the characters were starting to get on my nerves. What is important to note about this film is that it is filmed and crafted to be an experience. There is so much to unpack in this movie and it will most certainly reward repeat viewings. The story in the film is very simple. Julian, played by Ryan Gosling, runs a boxing club as a front for his family's drug operation. His brother goes off the rails one night and winds up dead. Julian reluctantly seeks revenge, spurred on by his mother. This sets Julian and his mother at odds with an otherworldly police chief who holds quite the reputation in the underground world of Bangkok. To say anymore would just ruin the movie. Right away, one can see how this is a film packed to the brim with metaphors. There are many scenes of surreal imagery and characters most definitely represent ideas rather than themselves. What is important to note is that one should not go into this film expecting Drive or an action movie. That is a certain way to be disappointed. There is violence in this movie, but not necessarily in the form of thrilling car chases or elaborate gun fights. The film definitely uses the slow burn, almost like a Western, with scenes punctuated with violent occurrences. I appreciated the slow burn, as it gave me time as a viewer to ponder the look of the movie and the surreal aspects, trying to note how they all meshed together. Alonso Duralde of The Wrap noted in his review for What The Flick?!? that people who hadn't seen art house films or Lost Highway by David Lynch would watch this movie and think it is "the shit." Duralde, who didn't like the film, is being a little unfair there, I think. His comparison comes from the surreal nature of this film, which is the style that David Lynch specializes in. Having seen parts of Lost Highway (frankly, I don't know why Duralde used this film as a comparison, considering how Lost Highway isn't as fully realized or as well put together as Lynch's masterful Mulholland Dr.), I can still say that I think Only God Forgives is a fantastic experience of a film. I think many people who have seen art films have also really liked this movie and can stand behind it as an example of art cinema. Is it a perfect film? Most likely not. Only time will tell. However, I really get the feeling that this film, much like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, will stand the test of time and be re-evaluated. Some may then call it a masterpiece, but I can't say that in confidence after only one viewing. I have chosen not to comment much on the characters or other elements of the movie, as I feel it is best to go into this one with little to no knowledge of its proceedings or any preconceived notions. This is definitely one of the most interesting films to come out in the past couple years or so, and if you want a break from the typical blockbuster fare or just want to watch a movie that you can interpret for yourself, this is definitely worth at least one watch. With a run time of 90 minutes, it really isn't all that much of a commitment either. It's a beautiful movie with great surreal elements. If you end up enjoying those aspects, I highly recommend watching Mulholland Dr. My overall rating of Only God Forgives is 8.5/10.

Why I'm Not Excited for Avengers: Age Of Ultron and Ant-Man

As should be becoming clear to many movie goers these days, superhero films are all the rage. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is absolutely booming and DC is fast-tracking their own cinematic universe as I write this piece. The pieces are in place and the films are supposed to be hitting cinemas for the next six or seven years, at the very least. Unfortunately and very surprisingly, I am not excited for this in the slightest. While this piece will focus solely on what I think is wrong with the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole, I believe that some of the same problems can be seen in how DC is handling their film universe for their characters. That is definitely a post for another day, as DC has already started to dig themselves in a whole other hole.

I suppose it would benefit to discuss my impressions of the other films before I get to the meat of what I would really like to talk about. At the beginning, I really enjoyed the Marvel films. Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Captain America: The First Avenger, were all very solid action films. The lone stinker of the bunch was Thor, which I didn't enjoy very much for rushed story reasons. Regardless, all of these films, tied together through characters and end credits sequences, culminated in the highly anticipated blockbuster, The Avengers. I absolutely loved this film when I saw it on opening day in a packed theater. I walked out satisfied and knowing I had spent my money well. However, on a second viewing, I noticed that the movie only had two really notable aspects: the interactions between the characters and the action sequences. This is one of those films that really made me realize just how important story, deep characters, and plot are to a film's staying power. The film's story was one we have all seen before: power hungry character wants to take over the world and kill/enslave all of the people in it. That was disappointing enough, considering how it was just an excuse to get all of the superheroes onscreen together. On even more viewings, I began to see the seeds of what has now taken over the Cinematic Universe. That is the Marvel Formula. This consists of a narcissistic hero with a sense of humor embracing their outcast status and saving the world. Now, in theory, this is a really cool idea! My issue is that this formula is at the heart of every Marvel movie and is being used to dumb down the films and keeping the screenwriters and directors from making them more unique and deeper. With the exception of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I have not really loved any Marvel movie in recent memory because each one has essentially the same feeling to it. For example, Guardians Of The Galaxy was one of the most beloved movies of 2014, even being named by some publications as the best film of the year (which is completely wrong and is insulting to all the filmmakers who made better films during the year, like Birdman, Boyhood, and The Grand Budapest Hotel). To me, however, it just felt like a blatant Star Wars rip-off, inserting the Marvel formula character (narcissistic outcast with a sense of humor) into a space opera. That is my dissection of the Marvel formula. What worries me more is where the franchise is headed and how the studio has actively gone out of its way to dumb down their films for the masses.

We now sit in 2015, where the two films Ant-Man and Avengers: Age Of Ultron are poised to come out and rule the box office, just like the other films in the franchise. As I listed out my top ten most anticipated films for the year, these two did not make the list. Why? It is fairly simple. Marvel has gone out of its way to avoid injecting these films with new ideas and directions. This is mostly seen in how the production of Ant-Man played out. A passion project of director Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Shaun Of The Dead, and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) that pre-dated the production of Iron Man, pre-production was all set to begin with Wright at the helm. Wright, known for his intelligent comedic writing and interesting direction, was all set to inject new life into the Universe. However, in May, Wright and Marvel parted ways, due to differences in visions for the film. Upon digging further, I found out that the darker aspects of the Hank Pym character, such as his split personalities, one of which abused his wife, didn't sit too well with the filmmakers and the studio heads. As a result of this split, the studio brought in Adam McKay, director of Anchorman and The Other Guys, to rewrite the script. Not a bad choice, considering how those films were fairly funny. Unfortunately, the director brought in to replace Edgar Wright, was Peyton Reed. Reed's most famous film is the cheerleader film Bring It On. Yepp, not an improvement. My question is very simple. Why? Why actively avoid injecting some new and heavier elements in order to keep the Universe interesting and avoid consumer burnout? Luckily, the powers that be are so obvious in their stupidity that the answer became clear right away: money. They just want to put butts in seats. To me, that is just about the worst possible way the production could have been played out. The fun doesn't just stop there. This method of dumbing down the films carries over right to Avengers: Age Of Ultron. However, the active process of dumbing down Avengers begins even before its conception.

I am not a comic book purist. I can definitely accept changes. But I can't easily accept active attempts to make the films dumber for a modern audience. This is the case with the new Avengers movie. In the comics, Hank Pym is the creator of Ultron. However, in the Cinematic Universe, this was impossible to portray on film because, despite Pym being a founding member of the Avengers in the comics, he was left out and his film moved to the second phase of the Universe. Ultron, the big baddie of the new film, became a peacekeeping program that is initiated by Tony Stark. Ultron's ultimate goal in the film, conveniently revealed to us through the trailers, is to take over the world and kill/enslave everybody in it. Sound familiar? My issue with these proceedings is simple. Without Hank Pym, we have no interesting aspect of human drama to balance out the intense action sequences and character interactions. Imagine seeing Hank Pym on the big screen, watching his ultimate creation rampage throughout the world and systematically eliminating the human race. What kind of emotions could an actor tap into for that? That deep guilt, that level of human drama and emotion, has yet to be seen in the Universe. It has been attempted, but poorly so, as Iron Man 3 entertained the idea of Tony Stark's PTSD but pushed it by the wayside to make room for explosions and Ben Kingsley's worst role ever. At the end of the day, it looks and sounds like we are in for a lot of the same of the first movie: great character interactions and fun action sequences, but the simple story that doesn't require a lot of thinking. It is really disappointing to see Joss Whedon, the talented writer behind The Cabin In The Woods and Buffy, dumb down his story for the film when it could have been taken to so many new levels of filmmaking. If I had to guess, I would say that they will attempt to put aspects of that human guilt and drama into Tony Stark, but with poor results.

Overall, am I not excited for these movies? Not really. Will I go see them? Oh, yes. They promise to be very entertaining at the very least. As a film lover, I just wish that the stories hadn't been butchered so as to make them more accessible. I want these films to not only entertain people, but to make them think and to really feel the emotion of the characters. We don't have superpowers or suits of armor, so the only thing left to help us connect to the characters in these films are the emotions they have to offer. Having more emotion in the characters ensures that the memories of them stay with us longer and make us want to return to the films again and again. I could never hope or attempt to be a gangster like Ray Liotta's character in GoodFellas, but it is the conveying of emotions of his character that allows viewers to put themselves in his shoes and get a taste of being a gangster. The same can be said for these heroes. Explosions and large monsters only take us so far. I sincerely hope that these films will surprise me and take the characters to these places that I have mentioned. It will definitely reinvigorate the desire within me to see all these new superhero movies coming out and will ensure that the upcoming summers are kept entertaining with the characters that we not only enjoy watching beat up the bad guys, but enjoy feeling the same emotions as they do.

What We Do In The Shadows

Even though it is only March, I am comfortable saying that What We Do In The Shadows will most likely make it into my top ten movies of the year when it comes time to make that list. I was really looking forward to this one, and I am ecstatic to report that it is even funnier than the trailer initially made it look like. The film is a mockumentary (think Borat) and it follows a group of vampires that live together in a flat in New Zealand. Created by Jemaine Clement and Taika Watiti of Flight Of The Conchords, this is a very loving send up of the horror genre as a whole. As a comedy movie, this one succeeded in spades, as I was consistently laughing and had a big grin on my face the whole movie. There really isn’t much of a plot to follow, but in the case of this film, that works out just fine, as life itself doesn’t really have a plot some of the time. I don’t mean to sound existential at all. Above all, the movie is just flat out fun. The writers took a very practical approach to the screenplay, really looking at what a vampire would have issues with if they were living in our society as normal people. Each of the three main vampires, Vladislav (Clement), Deacon (Jonathan Brugh), and Viago (Taika Watiti), all have incredibly distinct personalities that are perfectly suited to bounce off of each other. I think my favorite overall was Viago, as he has a very motherly attitude and is consistently delivering commentary on the somewhat absurd proceedings of the flat. What I thought was very surprising is how the movie poked fun at reality TV shows that the world cannot seem to get enough of. For example, the trio creates a new vampire on accident one night, and Nick, the new member, has to tell his friend Stu that he is a vampire. This is shot just like a revelation in a show like The Bachelor or Jersey Shore, complete with sappy music. I thought that this was an unexpected source of comedy that was handled very intelligently it. This review may sound very scatterbrained, but I am finding it very difficult, as anybody should, to explain what is so funny about this movie. Comedy shouldn’t be dissected, as it loses much of its impact. If you pull anything out of this very jumbled review, it is that you should see this movie if you have the opportunity. It is one of the funniest movies I have seen in such a long time and it has all the makings of a cult classic. What We Do In The Shadows receives an 8/10.