Mad Max: Fury Road Review

After thirty years biding his time in the crazed desert of writer and director George Miller's mind, Mad Max has finally returned. Ladies and gentlemen, this movie is it. It's fantastic. Not even going to try and be fancy with my words or anything. I dare say that Mad Max: Fury Road is the best action movie I have seen in a long time. It is kinetic, frenetic, glorious, and absolutely bonkers. George Miller is truly an auteur, one whose style is so wonderfully unique and distinct. The story of the film is simple. Mad Max must team up with Furiosa to escape the vicious Immortan Joe, racing across the desert and interacting with all sorts of crazed characters. This is a movie that, quite literally, never stops moving. Much of the film is dedicated to the main chase, with various action set pieces coming together to form the chase itself. What I think is so impressive is that the film starts out slow (relatively speaking) in revealing some of the craziness, but then rips back the layers during each subsequent stage of the chase, continually one upping itself in terms of sheer insanity and fun.  The performances in the movie are very well done, with Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron really selling their characters and both proving to be great action stars in their own right. Since it is the main part of the film, it is absolutely worth noting that all of the effects in this movie, aside from digitally removing safety harnesses, putting characters in front of crowds, and the sandstorm, are 100% real. The actors are actually crawling underneath trucks zooming at that speed, cars are actually flipping while exploding, and stuntmen are really flinging themselves through the air like rag dolls. There is something to be said about this type of stunt work, especially in an age of CGI stunts and action set pieces. The scenes feel so much more genuine and believable, lending credence to the idea that CGI is best used sparingly and mixed with practical effects. This also helps to create a more believable world. The sets and costumes are beautifully designed in their own grimy way, which helps to give the audience a form of reference in terms of the back story of the film without taking time away from the chase. I found myself trying to come up with my own stories about how the various tribes in the film had come to be and how they lived in the wasteland. Miller masterfully included these elements, really being able to show a lot without having to say a lot, which is a key aspect to any movie. Most importantly though, this movie is fun to watch. We are so bogged down with the soulless CGI spectacles these days, but this movie felt like Miller really put his heart and soul into it. During the first stage of the chase alone, there was a giant truck with four drummers on it and a guitar player shooting flames out of his guitar neck. This eventually escalates beyond all realms of normal human expectations, as we have men on poles swinging between the cars, men jumping on other cars with exploding spears, a blind man driving forward in a car/tank spraying machine gun fire, and soldiers spray painting each other's mouths chrome to prepare them for their upcoming trip to Valhalla. Yepp, that's where this movie goes. It is gleeful, fun, and wonderful. It is the best movie I have seen so far this year. Mad Max: Fury Road gets a 9/10.

Avengers: Age Of Ultron Review

Avengers: Age Of Ultron is the follow-up film to 2012's smash hit The Avengers, both directed by the wonderful Joss Whedon. The movie is the eleventh film in Marvel's constantly growing Cinematic Universe, reuniting all the characters from the first film and throwing a few new ones into the mix to freshen up the proceedings. In the movie, Tony Stark uses the technology of the Tesseract to create Ultron, a peace program AI. However, Ultron's birth goes wrong and he sets out to annihilate the Avengers and the whole world. As a result, the Avengers must band together once again to stop him. About a month or two ago, I wrote a post detailing how I was displeased with the initial news about this movie. I was concerned about how the movie's plot was actively being dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience and to keep the cash cow going. Unfortunately, I was right. However, I was wrong in my thought that it was the director dumbing down the film, as opposed to the studio. Little did I know that the director and the studio clashed frequently over this movie and its production in the months beforehand, as recently revealed by Joss Whedon himself. This conflict of interests and restriction of creative control results in a movie that feels undercooked and underdeveloped, despite all of the events taking place onscreen. This is really a movie that never stops moving, introducing new characters left and right and setting up new plot lines for the future Marvel films in the process. Unfortunately, this really makes the film longer than it should be, taking away from all the fun that is there to be had. A notable example of this is a subplot involving Thor that feels insanely out of place and hurts the overall flow of the movie. In addition to this out of place subplot, the characters of Ultron, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver feel underdeveloped, especially Ultron. His birth scene is so rushed that I was left wondering just exactly why he wanted to kill the human race and his motivations aren't made quite clear throughout the movie beyond the idea that "humans are bad and I must cleanse them from this planet by destroying it." While Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen (Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch) both do a fine job, their characters aren't given enough time to really command the screen, which is unfortunate, because I feel like they could add some new depths of human drama to the team. Surprisingly, we are given a lot of backstory on Hawkeye and Black Widow this time around, which was a nice breath of fresh air and gave Scarlett Johannsenn and Jeremy Renner some room to really flex their acting chops. James Spader gives a typically great performance as Ultron, which is a shame that the performance is wasted on such an undercooked villain who wasn't all that threatening. My final issue with the movie is that, just as I predicated, there is little human drama in this film besides the origin story of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch and the blossoming romance between the two misfits in Hulk and Black Widow. Tony Stark is never shown to have any guilt about the creation of Ultron, despite the robot's desire to kill the entire human race. Stark arrogantly goes about his life, insisting that it was for the good of the world and that he just has to fix it now. I just really wish that Tony was allowed to be human in these films at these points, as a scene featuring him breaking down about how his ultimate peacekeeping initiative went the opposite way would have been fascinating. It would not have only allowed Robert Downey Jr. to play somebody other than the arrogant jerk but it also would have allowed Whedon to show us a new side of the character in a way that only he knows how to. Now, that's all the bad news. To be completely honest, this movie was flat out fun in a lot of places. I was having the time of my life watching the Hulk fight Iron Man in his Hulkbuster armor, which was easily the highlight of the movie's frenetic action. As with the first film, Joss Whedon shows that he understands a team dynamic better than anybody else in screen media, as the interactions between the team members were both hilarious and human. These scenes where the team is just hanging out were just as entertaining as the action sequences, and it is a true testament to Whedon's talent that he is able to handle all these characters and their distinct personalities and get them to mesh so well together onscreen. The jokes come fast and often in this movie, most of them hitting fairly well and only a small amount missing their mark. The action is set on a large scale in this film, much like the first movie. The action scenes are well placed within the movie, expertly balanced with the slower paced talking scenes. Overall, this movie feels like an episode of something, rather than a culmination of elements that have been built up beforehand. It was almost like the producers were standing behind Whedon as he wrote the script with a checklist, making sure he put certain events in the film to further their agenda rather than allow him to make his own film that fits naturally into the Cinematic Universe. Despite all of my gripes (there were a lot, I know), I had a ton of fun with this movie, and it is definitely one of the best action movies to come out so far this year. It is honestly such a joy to see these characters reunited onscreen again, going after the bad guys while still staying true to themselves. The action is a blast to watch and is definitely a highlight of the proceedings. This movie is worth a watch to get you ready for the upcoming summer movie season. I'm still holding out hope that the Universe will tap into some more emotional elements in the coming movies, but for now, this one is just fine. Avengers: Age Of Ultron gets a 7.5 out of 10.

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.

Interstellar Review

Interstellar is a very hard movie for me to rate, due to many variables and just how ambitious it is. It has a lot of pros (without a doubt) but it also has some flaws that, while occasionally overshadowed by the weight of the pros, ultimately come back to hurt the film in the long run. The film was directed and co-written by Christopher Nolan (of Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception fame) and stars Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, and Jessica Chastain. I would like to say that I am not an avid Nolan fanboy. I will not swear by him or automatically hail anything he puts out as a masterpiece or classic simply because he was the director. I do have faith in him though as a director and a writer and he has yet to make a bad film. I do happen to love most of his movies. With that little disclaimer aside, let's move on. The film's story is pretty simple. Earth is dying and Cooper (McConaughey) is sent to traverse a wormhole to find a new planet for mankind to inhabit. The plot proceeds slowly at first, gaining some traction once they go up into space. From there, it gets interesting and is not worth spoiling. The script was written by Nolan and his brother, with special input from theoretical physicist Kip Thorne. As is typical with Nolan's more recent movies, he tackles very big ideas and is not afraid to approach them. Unfortunately, with these big ideas and their added levels of science complexity, the plot sometimes gets lost in translation. While there are tidbits there to explain the science in layman, there were a few times where I was pretty confused as to why certain characters had to do certain things and what not. To be frank, it almost feels like the story, while obviously important to Nolan and still very good, was just a means to an end. That end is the visual style of the film. This is where the movie absolutely shines. The look of Earth was inspired by the 1930s Dust Bowl era, which is nailed perfectly. The family lives in an old farm house, ripped right out of this Dust Bowl setting, but is surprisingly home to objects such as laptop computers and gadgets that can take over observation drones. The look of space is the true visual treat here, however. These are images that you can feel. Going through the wormhole was just like going into hyperspace in Star Wars, giving me the closest sensation I can ever have to experiencing that original trilogy in theaters. The obvious comparisons will be made to Gravity, the space technical showcase that took home almost every technical award at the Oscars last year. These two films, which should not compared on a story level (Gravity had no story whatsoever), have no business being compared on a visual level either. Gravity's aim was to put you in a situation that you know people have experienced (working on the ISS and floating through space) whereas Interstellar's aim is to take you on a journey through theories about where space can lead us, allowing Nolan's visual ideas to take full form. Again, to spoil more of the visuals would be to spoil an essential part of the movie. As is common with Nolan films, the acting here is typically great. McConaughey continues his hot streak of performances with another good one. It won't get him any Oscar nominations or anything like that, but it serves the movie well and gives us a very relatable character to empathize with on our journey through the film. Michael Caine does his thing, and it was a pleasant surprise to see John Lithgow as the grandfather. I personally am not a big Anne Hathaway fan and so I really didn't pay attention to her when she was onscreen. I feel terrible saying this but you could have put any other large name actress (Natalie Portman, Sandra Bullock, or Rachel McAdams, to name a few) in the same role and gotten the exact same performance. Nothing special brought to the role, but it was serviceable. The real stars of the Interstellar show though are Jessica Chastain and Mackenzie Foy, who play Murph and Young Murph, respectively. Foy absolutely kills it as Cooper's daughter. I believe that it is her performance that sells us on the father-daughter relationship that we see literally traverse the boundaries of time. With that traversing comes Chastain. This lady is ridiculously good and it is one of the great sins of modern cinema that she is not more recognized. Any other actress would have played the part, but not nearly as subtly, destroying the real emotion the character feels. This would have made the movie feel overly sentimental and not nearly as investing. While I am hoping she gets a Best Supporting Actress nomination, it is probably just a hopeful dream. There are a few flaws to this film, ones that it can't escape, unfortunately. The most obvious one would be is that is a very long film. At nearly three hours, I kept checking my watch, especially near the end of the movie. While a film can be however long it wants and doesn't need to be a Patton-esque masterwork to justify a long run time, the ideas and characters at work in the movie have to be compelling enough to propel the plot forward enough to justify that running time. What happens in Interstellar is that the ideas that are developed and ran with only take the film so far. The ones that are underdeveloped and left behind could have been expanded on in order to keep the audience more invested during the run time. With that comes my second, and perhaps biggest, issue with the movie. About halfway through, there is this idea dropped by Hathaway's character that seems completely out of place and literally made me turn to my friend and say "Did this movie just take a 180?" At the risk of spoilers, I have to mention it. The astronauts are debating which planet to go to next, as they only have enough resources to check out one of a possible two. One of the planets apparently has Hathaway's lover, an astronaut sent before Cooper and his team to colonize the surface, trapped on it. There was no mention of this earlier in the movie, which makes Hathaway's character's heavy handed speech about love even more awkwardly placed. This idea is then under baked for the rest of the movie, being brought up a few times, just so the audience doesn't forget about it rather than becoming the central idea that is run with. Love across time is an interesting concept, but the movie's focus remains squarely on saving mankind, with the love angle forcibly shoehorned into dialogue, which was very distracting and hurt the overall flow of the film. One last gripe is that while imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (believe me, I do it all the time), some of these sequences feel like they were literally ripped out of 2001: A Space Odyssey, especially a scene at the climax of the film where McConaughey traverses time. Regardless of these issues, Interstellar is still a great film, and one that absolutely demands to be seen in the theater. It is available in IMAX 3D, IMAX, or regular viewing. I saw it on regular viewing, and was surprised to learn I was watching a 35mm print. Anywho, this film is a faithful call back to the blockbusters of the 1970s. Unfortunately, the script eventually buckles under its own weighty ideas, complete with a healthy dose of plot holes. It is still a visual marvel and I recommend it to anybody with a hankering for escapism. My rating, according to the IMDb scale, is 8/10.

Gone Girl Review

In a year mostly deprived of compelling dramas, good action pictures, and funny comedies, Gone Girl, directed by David Fincher, was a breath of absolutely fresh air. The main thought I had after walking out of the theater is that still, even in this day and age, a great story, great characters, and great directing can take a movie so far. And boy, does this film go to some far off places. It is the first film for David Fincher since 2011’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, still one of my favorite movies of all time. As Fincher has made more and more films, his direction has become more and more icy and detached. As bad as that sounds, it truly is not. It has worked perfectly in his last few films, as he is able to examine complex relationships where the characters interact with their own personalities, not personalities arbitrarily changed or created by the director. This works to his full advantage in a film such as this, one that is built on examining various complex relationships born out of complex characters. Fincher gives the cast their arena for the personalities to battle in, and he, along with the audience, sits backs and is thrilled by the fireworks. Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne, who comes home one day to find his wife, Amy, missing. The question of whether he killed her or not is brought to the forefront of the story. Affleck, who I suppose you could say is on a bit of a hot streak, does a good job here. This is more of a personal preference thing but I don’t really think he is a versatile actor. Good, of course, but there aren’t many of his performances that are discernible from others. This is probably his best role as he examines a lot of different emotions at once and is able to balance them in a surprisingly nuanced way throughout the movie, whose plot is slowly, yet constantly twisting. However, the absolute star of the show is Rosamund Pike as Amy Dunne. Mark my words; this is a star making performance. If she doesn’t at least get nominated for Best Actress at this year’s Oscars, I will riot or start disregarding the Oscars more than I already do. It’s hard to say much about her performance without venturing into spoiler territory but she absolutely knocks it out of the park. She was an electrifying presence onscreen and the emotions of the characters around her were frighteningly palpable. You paid attention when “Amazing Amy” was talking. Pike joins an ever-growing list of amazing performances by Fincher’s actresses, alongside Rooney Mara for her impeccable performance as Lisbeth Salander in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. It is fantastic to see strong women personalities in the movies today. I put Pike’s performance up alongside ones such as the aforementioned Mara, Leila Hatami from A Separation, and Jessica Chastain from Zero Dark Thirty. Each of these women are perfectly portrayed and show strength, conviction, and absolute intelligence in the face of danger in a way that has not been seen in film for a long time. I’m so very excited to see more of these performances in the future. The film’s look and feel is classic Fincher and you can see shades of Dragon Tattoo here as well, considering Fincher is working with the Oscar nominated cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth once more. The darkness of the film’s lighting gives it a very chilling film-noirish feel to compliment its dark story and femme fatale. There is darkness in the relationships of couples today, possibly even more so than there ever has been. That darkness is concealed initially from the outset, but at the right time or given a certain circumstance, those clean and happy faces will start to erode and expose what truly lies beneath. That theme is the one most explored in this film. Given his history, Fincher was the perfect choice for this film and he handles these themes with the utmost precision and care. My only gripe about this film is that it is a bit too long. Clocking in around two and a half hours, there are certain parts that drag, if only for a little bit. In spite of this fact, the story is paced perfectly enough that as soon as we may be getting bored of a scenario, a new plot twist or deviation comes crashing through to grab us by the nose again and string us along.  This film is one of the very best all around movies of the year, as well as the best mystery thriller so far. I cannot recommend it enough and hope to see it win big at the Oscars early next year. My rating for it, according to the IMDb scale, is a 9 out of 10.