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.

A Thought On The State Of Visual Entertainment

I recently finished the first season of HBO's new series True Detective. It definitely is the best show on television right now, easily the best written show since Breaking Bad. The quality of the writing, acting, and directing has become typical of HBO over the years. It actually got me to thinking and I came to this conclusion: The real good visual entertainment is on television right now, not in the movie theaters. I am not quite sure of the reason why this is, but I can definitely speculate on why. One possible reason is because of my generation. We are usually very impatient and can barely sit through a movie that is just over two hours long, unless it is something that is very simple to understand, a la The Hunger Games or The Avengers. Enter TV, where you can get your comedy, drama, crime, action, etc. fix that you normally would at the movies in a fraction of the time. The advent of Netflix has definitely spurred this along, as somebody can get a quick episode in before work or class and not have to worry about catching at it's regular time slot or remembering to record it to their DVR. These are only a few possible reasons, because, honestly, I don't know the answer. Now, another question I had was "When did this advent of amazing television start?" Over the past fifteen years, we have seen some of the greatest dramas grace our television sets, with some of them being far better than the films that were coming out during that time. This new wave of great television started way back in 1999 with the airing of the first season of The Sopranos. Considered by many to be the greatest television series to ever air, it has since been surpassed, in my opinion anyway. But without The Sopranos, we have no Breaking Bad, True Detective, The Wire, etc. Tony Soprano is directly responsible for the advent of complex anti-heroes as the central characters of these shows, and many others, for that matter. Walter White, Jimmy McNulty, Rustin Cohle, Omar Little and the rest of the memorable characters are all a result of the genius of Tony Soprano. In my opinion, The Sopranos is definitely the most groundbreaking show of all time, even though it can no longer be considered the best. Now, the industry's focus seems to be getting the good stuff on television. This is evident in the amount of big names that are becoming more and more attached to new series. Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, two of the most acclaimed actors in recent years, rule Washington together as Frank and Claire Underwood in the Netflix original series, House Of Cards. Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey showed us darkness in True Detective. Again, McConaughey has been gaining a large following ever since he broke free of his romantic comedy typecasting and really showed his chops as an actor, with it all culminating in an Oscar win for Best Actor for his film Dallas Buyers Club. On a side note, True Detective is going to bring in two new stars each season and will feature a different story, so it will be interesting to see how this anthology approach attracts other big names in the business. Woody Harrelson has been doing the same thing since he was exposed to my generation in the film Zombieland. The point that I am trying to make with all of this blabbing is that, quite simply, audiences are not pulled to film as they were a few years ago. While I think that this is a natural up and down process in the industry, especially as the visual entertainment medium keeps evolving, it is undeniable right now that TV is the king of the entertainment world. With channels like HBO, Showtime, and Starz able to film series with quality picture, writing, and acting, it really is no surprise. HBO, to be quite honest, has churned out the best shows of all time. There is a standard that they have for themselves and their tagline, "It's not TV, it's HBO" is actually a very accurate statement. During The Wire, The Sopranos, Game Of Thrones, True Detective, Boardwalk Empire, and the rest of the HBO shows, it never once felt like I was watching a television show. It's very hard to explain, and this may sound very odd, but I can at once tell the quality of a television show based on the quality of the camera used to film the series. You can tell that shows like Arrow, Smallville, Scrubs, The Walking Dead, etc. are all television shows because of the quality of their picture. Not that these are bad shows, I actually really enjoy all of them, but they just don't meet the standard of HBO. I really don't mean to sound like a fanboy (even though I am because HBO has made almost all of my favorite television series), but it simply is the truth. Again, TV is king right now, but that could possibly change in the coming years. If Hollywood is smart, they will scale back the rate of their productions, as I feel like the film industry has over saturated theaters. Somebody pointed out to me that during the time when The Godfather was released in theaters, new movies would come out maybe once a month. Now, we are seeing slates of new films every week. Sinking money into tent-pole films that fail miserable at the box office (The Lone Ranger, for example) can only be done for so long. While Disney could definitely afford the failure of that film (they own Marvel, also known as the cash cow's cash cow), it goes to show that the more expensive the production doesn't necessarily mean the better the film. In the coming years, we are seeing the return of Star Wars, Marvel continuing its Cinematic Universe, and Superman and Batman meeting on the big screen for the first time. It remains to be seen if these movies and other great indie dramas can revive interest in the film industry. I hope all of you are well, forgive me if this post seemed very scatterbrained but it was just a random thought that I had early this morning. For my next post, I think I am going to continue with the plan of reviewing either Nevermind by Nirvana or Ten by Pearl Jam. If I don't do that, I will most likely review each episode of the first season of True Detective, as it is only eight episodes and I intend to go through it at least two more times before the year is out. Thanks for reading and check out True Detective!

My Favorites (Movies)

When it comes to media, I generally hold that the area I love the most is movies. This has been the case ever since the first Monster Madness feature on Cinemassacre.com, hosted by James Rolfe, who is famous as The Angry Video Game Nerd. Hearing him discuss the history of the films just sucked me in and has become something of an obsession for me. The night the Academy Awards are broadcasted is like a second Christmas to me, even though they usually fill me with unconsolable rage most of the time. It's hard to pinpoint why I love movies so much. Maybe it's because they allow us to escape reality for a few hours, maybe it's because we can get so invested in the characters that we find ourselves feeling for them, despite the fact that they don't exist, etc. I believe that one of the reason why movies are so profound for many people is simply how much we try to make real life like the movies. There is a great quote that mentions how art tries to imitate real life, but, far more often, real life imitates art. This is such a true statement. Just look at how simple lines of dialogue from films have entered our very way of life. Many a movie quote make up the way I talk. It's to the point where I quote films without even thinking about it. We fall in love with these worlds so much that we try to bring them into ours to spice it up even further. Ok, enough philosophical stuff for now. I would list my top 10 favorite films but the bottom half is always changing so I will just present my top 5. My all time favorite film is the masterpiece GoodFellas. Made by my favorite director, Martin Scorsese, this is an absolute triumph for filmmaking. I can't think of any time in my life where 2 and a half hours went by so fast. This movie is what I like to call pure film. It's that simple sensation where you just get sucked into the film and suddenly, it's over. You look at your watch and just say to yourself "Where did all that time go?" It's a very rare thing but it's amazing when it happens. GoodFellas is one of those times. This film is essential viewing for everybody everywhere. My second favorite film is another Scorsese picture, Taxi Driver. This dark, gritty film is a fantastic look at how a morally ambiguous character can draw you into the film. I will go more depth about this later, along with my other favorite movies. Third is the Scorsese classic, Raging Bull. Amazing central performance by Robert DeNiro (as expected), and, coincidentally enough, this movie actually saved Scorsese's life. More on that in a later post. Fourth is the Scorsese gangster classic, The Departed. As you can tell, I really love his movies. This is another movie that has that pure film element. Could watch it over and over again. My fifth favorite film is the David Fincher cult classic, Fight Club. This is an amazing and polarizing film that demands repeat viewings. I fall in love with it every time I watch it and it is a very profound film, full of life changing ideas and philosophical questions. Many people are thrown off by the title of the film, but I assure you, it is far more than that. Well, that's just a little about my one true love in life. I hope all are well and I will start off the real blog with an album review, I think. It may be either Nevermind by Nirvana or Ten by Pearl Jam. I have yet to decide. Till next time!