Review- Miller's Crossing (1990)

Directed by: Joel Coen

Written by: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

Starring: Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Marden, John Tuturro, Albert Finney

Synopsis: Tom Reagan is the right hand man and close friend to mob boss Leo O'Bannon. When another mob boss wants to kill the brother of Leo's girlfriend Verna Bernhaum, things begin to get complicated. Tom Reagan eventually has to do choose sides, but who's side is he on anyway?

You've heard it a hundred times before and you'll here it again, The Coen brothers are one of the best filmmakers on the planet. They've always produced great material and they've yet to slip up (some say they may of slipped up with writing the screenplay for the film Unbroken, directed by Angelina Jolie, and although the work isn't fantastic I wouldn't call an average screenplay a slip up). So I looked at their filmography on good ol' Wikipedia to see which films of theirs I hadn't seen and I saw Miller's Crossing.

Although the Coens have an incredibly varied filmography, Miller's Crossing is quite different from most of their movies. It's almost devoid of the quirks and style that I love from the Coens and what got them famous with Fargo. It's hard to pinpoint exactly makes a Coen Brothers film a Coen Brothers film, but I usually can tell when a movie was made by them without having to see their names on the credits. There is some of it there in Miller's Crossing but it's a very small portion. It's a fantastic noir-gangster film, however.

The story and characters are interesting and engaging. You support the main character Tom Reagan (played by Gabriel Byrne) despite not really knowing his motives at times, and that's quite impressive when you think about it. It's interesting that the twists and turns of the story come from the character that the story follows. Noirs are usually about someone solving a mystery, not creating one. So it's very unique in that aspect. It's funny at times (that touch of Coen Brother's quirk, but I wouldn't call the film a black-comedy like many do. One thing about the Coens is that their movies often do not fit within one genre) an you get to enjoy the moments when they arrive.

Technical aspects are spot on. The movie has this aura that reminds me of movies made in the 60s. The costumes, the style in which the actors act (especially Albert Finney who plays Leo O'Bannon), the makeup the actors are given, the music, and most of all the lighting. It doesn't feel like a period piece of the 1940s but a film imitating early films of the 50s and 60s that took place in the 1940s. That might be a criticism if they were aiming at a period piece but considering the film doesn't take place in a specific city and no year is ever given, I'm guessing they weren't. So homages to these older films are a bonus. The most staggering thing about the film is that it was done with only the budget of 14 million (the Coens claim, however, that it was really only 10 million).

There's not a whole lot more to say about the movie. Can't think of any criticisms except that maybe it went on a couple minutes more than it should have. If you're a fan of the Coen Brother's then see it, although I think it's more enjoyable as a gangster film than a Coens film.

8/10

Review- Westworld (1973)

Directed by: Michael Crichton

Written by: Michael Crichton

Starring: Yul Brynner, Richard Benjamin, James Brolin

I'm a big fan of Michael Crichton's novels. I was a late bloomer when it came to reading and the first book over 60 pages I had ever finished was Jurassic Park when I was in sixth grade and I've been reading ever since. His science fiction novels had a big impact on me as a kid so now I try to watch or read anything that has his name on it. I'd been trying to find Westworld for quite some time and I finally caught it on Turner Classic Movies.

First off, it's very clear that Crichton took elements from this movie when he wrote Jurassic Park. Not just the fact that it's about a high-tech theme park that goes haywire and people die, they have a few minor specific details including the story's antagonist having a vision based on movement (the Tyrannosaurus Rex and The Gunslinger after acid is thrown at it's face). But Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park also has some vague similarities such as the design of the control room and a few shots relating to the camera focusing on a computer. I'm not saying that they were direct homages, but I'm willing to bet that Spielberg any many other people in the film's production crew watched Westworld for inspiration. These things aren't complaints or praises, just observations that I found intriguing.

If we're talking praises though, the best aspect of this movie is the way it's filmed. The science fiction parts are filmed like science fiction films were made and the western parts were filmed like western films are made in those times. Creating a hybrid of those two genres is a neat idea by itself, being a unique and fresh take on the western genre which was incredibly popular at the time, and to add those little bits in there is more than you can ask for.  During the parts in the Westworld town, you've got that clearly-in-a-set look and the camera shots are slightly crude. When you're in those futuristic corridors you've got the symmetrical hallway shots and the white soft colors of 70s sci-fi. I'm not entirely sure if it was 100% intentional but after reading a few things about the movie, I believe it was.

I enjoyed some of the ambiguity of the plot. We know it's a computer virus (the first time that concept was ever explored in a film, as they hadn't been invented yet), but we don't know what it actually did to the robots and why they went crazy. I think it implied that the set goals programmed into the robots became their main driving force and began killing people to complete them. The Gunslinger (who is wonderfully played by Yul Brynner) is suppose to be an antagonist to the main characters and is programmed to want to kill them, but once the virus gets rid of the worry of harming them, it does everything it can do complete the goal. It's better illustrated with the guest in Medieval world, who has to fight a knight to win the heart of the Queen. Once the knight kills the guest, and the next time we see the knight, it's sitting next to the queen dead, implying it became king and completed it's programming. They complete their goal and then die. At least that's what i got from it, it's good that it's not completely explained.

There are a lot of tiny flaws in it, though. I don't get why The Gunslinger had a real gun. I could buy that the guests could be given real guns that only shoot at the robots but why would they give a real gun to a robot? Other than the two main characters, there was a third whom the film went back to for humorous moments and we never seem him during the scenes in which the robots go crazy, and I know that there were quite a few deleted scenes, so I believe that it's possible that there was a scene in which The Gunslinger killed him and took his gun. If that's the case, it was a mistake to delete the scene.

There was also a part near the end in which an employee tells the main character that he doesn't stand a chance against the robots unless he can find acid. Upon hearing this, the main character acts as if he has a plan and says that he can handle The Gunslinger. The line of dialogue made no sense to me. The character wasn't particularly brave nor implied to be smart nor had scene any acid earlier in the film, so why did he seem to know what he was doing? Following that part, all he does is run away from the robot. He coincidentally finds acid and harms the robot, but he had no idea it was going to be where he was running to. He had no reason, character or story-wise, to be so confident there.

There was also odd editing near the very end in which the burned Gunslinger tries attacking the main character one more time and there is a few silly quick shots going back and forth between the main character and the robot in what I think is an attempt to add surprise and suspense but it goes on for a second too long and ends up looking silly. The last scene of the movie shows the main character sitting down and the line that was said earlier in the film "have we got a vacation for you!". I don't mind it but I don't see why they had to play it over and over and repeat the words 'you'. The word 'you' didn't have any significance there, it's the word 'vacation' because of it's irony. But that's a very small issue.

I'm very excited for the television series on HBO, which has a cast including Ed Harris and Anthony Hopkins. There are a lot of ideas that could be explored with the concepts in this movie, and I hope they take advantage of those ideas.

6.5/10

Review- John Wick (2014)

Directed By: Chad Stahelski, David Leitch

Written By:  Derek Kolstad

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Willem Dafoe, Adrianne Palincki

There is something very displeasing about those lower budget action films such as those that star Steven Seagal, Jean Claude Van Damme, or Chuck Norris. Liam Neeson, who is a terrific actor if given the right material, is also an actor guilty of starring in these movies (although most not nearly as bad). They're usually about a one-man army fighting a gang or evil criminal. They're usually overtly cheesy, full of one liners, ridiculous action, and usually lack tension. The fanbases of these films appreciate them but I never could. So had it not been for the critical success of John Wick, I would have never been interested in watching it.

It's very well presented. If given the same plot to a different group of filmmakers, this movie would probably not have been good. It's about an ex-assassin who goes berserk on a Russian gang because the gang leader's son killed his dog and stole his car. It's a fun concept and I appreciate it for that alone, but it would have been terrible if it wasn't handled so well. They made this movie about a man struggling with the death of his wife, someone who had taken him out of the dangerous and criminal life and about godly justice for terrible crimes. It's all effective.

Certain moments were quite emotional, and I was surprised that Keanu Reeves managed to pull of the performance he did. I love the guy, he seems like a great person and I love to see him in movies, but I don't think he's the best actor. He usually doesn't express emotion very well and his work in Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula goes down as one of the worst performances I've ever seen. This role, however, fit him perfectly. You could tell he was really dedicated to it and liked the character he was playing. The rest of the cast was also quite enjoyable.

Another thing that separates itself from other one-man army films is how it deals with the concept of a nearly unstoppable killer like John Wick. Viggo Tarasov, played by Michael Nyqvist, immediately realizes that his son and his organization are in deep doodoo when he finds out that Wick is after him. He is aware of the danger and basically accepts that the outcome won't be good for him. He's a bad ass who's treated appropriately as a bad ass. He needs help too and he's doesn't feel immortal, so there is still tension. The fact that the fight scenes are simple yet well put together adds to it and makes what is normally schlock background noise into an engaging action flick.

Any complaints I have are minor. I thought the fonts and placement of the subtitles was unnecessary and distracting. I thought that there were a scene in which John Wick explains why the dog means so much to him, and it felt a bit forced because you don't need the character to explain his feelings directly but to show them through his actions and performance (which they did, so the entire line should have been thrown out). I thought there should have been more emphasis as to why Viggo decided to go after Wick despite the way he acted initially. Other than those things, the movie is entertaining.

Nothing about the movie is genius, but it doesn't need to be. It's refreshing for an action film and even more refreshing for the one-man army trope. If you like the action genre I recommend it. It's one of the better ones in the last few years.

7.5/10

Review- Watchmen (2009)

Directed by: Zack Snyder

Written By: David Hayter, Alex Tse

Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jeffery Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley

Adaptations are always tricky business. 'It's never better than the book' people say, yet sometimes there is a freak accident like Jaws and (I might be in the minority here) The Hunger Games series. But are we suppose to compare it to it's source material? Many people argue that they're two different beasts and should be treated differently. But how can they be two different beasts when a good portion of the story and themes came from the other beast? Are you suppose to judge a movie by how well it adapts the source material or watch it without the bias of having read/watched/played the source material? It makes it hard to judge a movie correctly.

Watchmen is particularly hard because of it's source material. I have never read the graphic novel it's based on but I have read a ton about it and it's extremely well received and quite a few comic fans consider it the best comic book ever made. I've seen images from the pages and they look stunning. My assumption is that the movie doesn't hit the graphic novel by a long shot, but is the movie bad? I'm not so sure but I do believe this; I think most good elements of this movie is only because of the graphic novel and not because of anyone in the movie's production.

It reminds me of David Fincher, known for adapting books onto the big screen. For example, I thought Gone Girl was a highly entertaining mystery crime thriller. But most of what made that good was the fact that it was based on a highly entertaining mystery crime book. He even hired the author to write the screenplay. He merely got a talented cast and crew and gave the film a dark sleek look. But I can never really consider any of his book-to-screen movies masterpieces because they are all literal adaptations and thus the unique elements of the movie are not unique. But let's also look at something like The Dark Knight, directed by Christopher Nolan. It's not a masterpiece but I think it's pretty close. It took the comic book character and morphed it into something different and unique. It had more than just a stylish look and a talented cast and crew.

What did Zack Snyder do? Well, he takes a lot of specific images from the graphic novel (and imagery from other things) and adapts them for film, and I think those work perfectly. I also thought the use of color was good. He worked hard to emulate the visual style of the comic books he adapts. I noticed this in Man of Steel as well as the trailer for Batman Vs. Superman and it's abundantly clear in 300. I like that he sneaks little bits of imagery and it's something to appreciate. However, a lot of parts feel like in-between moments and are noticeably less impressive, perhaps because those scenes didn't have any pictures from the comic to base the shot off of.

The story is quite different. Many people say that Watchmen can't be adapted correctly and that may be so. The movie spends a lot of time on flashbacks and it's not until the last third of the movie that the plot picks up. I appreciated that it went out of the standard narrative and I liked the slower pacing (Which was surprising, because every other Snyder film seems to have pacing issues). I liked the ideas in it, I think that noir-esque mystery and the Cold War elements could have worked great if the flashbacks were more brief and the main story was the focus of the film. There are some parts of the story that needed set ups earlier in the film so that there were better pay offs and a focus would have fixed that. It feels like Snyder was so worried about recreating certain scenes that he forgot to see if they all fit together.

I thought the cast did a great job except for Malin Akerman, who played Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II. Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach), Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhatten), Jeffery Dean Morgan (The Comedian), and Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl II) were great. It's the technical aspects that I think went wrong. Cinematography, when not emulating specific comic book images, was sort of funky. The soundtrack was good except for the original themes, which lingered over the dialogue and scenes in such a way that it slowly became irritating and I kept hoping to hear the music go quiet for a few seconds. I'm not against slow-motion but most scenes in the movie could have gone without it. The worst part of the movie, though, was the horrendous makeup given to Robert Wisden, who played Richard Nixon, and Carla Gugino, who played the original Silk Spectre.

I'm not really sure who to blame and who to thank for the good and bad elements of the film but I think there are just enough good elements to outweigh the bad, even if it's not by much. Snyder has the tendency to do this, and I'm not sure if he's taking bad creative decisions by other people in production and making them watchable or if there are always enough good decisions by people in production to make Snyder's mistakes watchable or if Snyder took a great graphic novel and turned it into something only watchable. But at the end of the day that's what Watchmen is; watchable.

6/10

DC May Be Better Than Marvel

Before I go further, let me just say that I am not a comic book person. I do know a lot of stuff relating to the DC universe only because I spent a lot of time on wikipedia and I grew up with Burton’s batman movies and fell in love with Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight series. Perhaps it is because I grew up with Batman and know more about DC than Marvel that I have a biased opinion. I’d like to think that I’m a better person than that, though, so bear with me until the end of this article and hopefully I’ll make some sense and I won’t come off as a pretentious edgemister.

Some movies are made for the sole purpose to make money. Both the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the new DC Cinematic Universe were conceptualized to make a ton of money. Disney bought Marvel, saw the potential in creating a massive movie brand and did it. Warner Bros, who had owned DC for quite some time, realized that they could do the same thing and decided to go for it. Any argument about which came first is immature. DC created the superhero and Marvel saw it and redefined it, then Marvel made a ton of money in movies so DC wanted to get in on the action. Warner Bros. and Disney are just two companies taking advantage of something that’s shown to be profitable. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just what big business does. It’s capitalism. People who obsess over Marvel of DC to the extent of mindlessly criticising others who disagree with them are as bad as those scene kids in high school that ‘have’ to wear Nikes and Obey shirts to be cool.They’re both doing fine, they’re both successful companies owned by even more successful companies, stop fighting over which is better.

I’m also not going to say that films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are bad. I quite like Iron Man and The Avengers. I really like Guardians of the Galaxy and it is perhaps my favorite so far. It’s hard to watch the Marvel movies and not find some enjoyment in them. And there’s a reason for that; they’re designed that way.

I get a feeling sometimes when I watch a big budget movie. It’s hard to describe, but the best way to put it is that the entire movie feels devoid of any atmosphere and that every inch of the movie is artificial. Not because it’s poorly done, but because it hits all the right notes to be considered ‘good.’ It’s as if a group of studio executives came together and made a checklist and a guideline on how to make a movie that will get the widest audience possible, which in turn means the most profit. I get this the most with James Cameron movies, Titanic and Avatar especially. I like both movies, and sure Titanic came out of Cameron’s passion for the real life event and the sea in general, but they both feel like they were created a by a committee of non-artists.

Every Marvel movie makes me feel this way. This is in contrast to The Dark Knight trilogy. I can’t say the trilogy is perfect, but the movie came out of a vision Christopher Nolan and others had. There’s style and substance. In the Marvel films, there’s no substance and very little style (I think style and substance are the same thing though, and I never liked the saying the phrase ‘style over substance’, but that’s a whole other story). It feels like art. Now, The Dark Knight series isn’t part of the DC Cinematic Universe, but it did help inspire Man of Steel.

So that leads into what I have to say about Man of Steel. So far, we only have one movie to judge the entire DC Cinematic Universe off of, and I’m not sure if it’s a good example yet. It seems that Snyder made a few mistakes that he’s trying to correct with Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. There’s a lot I could say about the movie, but this isn’t a Man of Steel review so I’ll keep it short; I don’t think it’s a good movie but I do appreciate it and I think it’s underrated.

I think Snyder has a very distinct visual style. I personally disliked the way 300 looked but quited enjoyed the visuals in Watchmen and Man of Steel. And at least he has a sense of visuals even if you don’t like it. With his style alone sets it apart from other superhero movies. The entire look of the film is memorable. Not tremendously memorable, but much more memorable than anything Marvel has produced. There are levels of artistic talent in it, even if it’s not by much (the scene where Clark Kent is in the church or the dream sequence, for example). There are things in the movie that you just don’t normally see in big budget movies.

The same goes for the tone. I don’t think the tone of the film is ‘dark and gritty’ like what many people say. It’s serious and slightly more realistic than the Marvel films, but it’s in no way outrageous. It doesn’t transform Superman beyond recognition. I think people watched Richard Donner’s Superman and believed what Superman has to be. I’m not even a comic book fan and even I know that’s untrue. A quick look at comic book history shows that Man of Steel could have been ripped straight out of the pages. People enjoy the X-Men films, they enjoy Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit series. Those are pretty much the same tone and yet they only complain about Man of Steel. I personally was completely fine with it and I just don’t understand the complaints. Man of Steel had a lot of flaws but tone wasn’t one of them. But it’s interesting that they chose such a tone despite early criticism. Even more interesting that they chose to keep it after the film’s bad critical consensus.

These two things are small though, but to me that makes all the difference. Suicide Squad looks fantastic and has an original take on The Joker. Making a movie about super villains before the main Justice League heroes get their movies? It’s interesting. Batman Vs. Superman leaves me skeptical but Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor and Ben Affleck as Batman? It’s interesting. Why are they interesting? Because they’re taking risks.

Would you rather watch a movie that took a risk and fail than a movie you knew would be good but was also generic and uninteresting? That’s what it all comes down to. Personally, watching something interesting and different beats watching a good movie. That’s why right now I’m more interested in seeing Batman Vs. Superman and Suicide Squad than whatever is coming out of Marvel’s assembly line.My opinion may change overtime as the DC movies shape up, but as of now DC is what I’m interested in. I think other people are on the same boat but they can’t pinpoint why.

There are some counterarguments to my point of view, of course. Many people believed Guardians of the Galaxy was a risk because of it’s genre and it was based on a more obscure comic book series. But honestly, Most people who see Marvel movies don’t recognise most of the superheroes anyway, all they need to know is that it’s a new Marvel film and people will go see it. Being a space fantasy didn’t raise the stakes very much. Adding to the fact that the plot went the safest route possible, I really think Marvel and Disney knew exactly how well it was going to do. The only real risk they took was with their first film Iron Man and The Avengers, because they still weren’t sure the whole cinematic angle would be profitable. But that was in the early stages. They marketed all their movies enough to guarantee success.

The other counterargument is that the new DCCU is not risk taking at all. In a way, taking the cinematic universe route isn’t that risky, but look at how it failed for Sony. They were attempting to build a cinematic universe of Spider-Man, and that just wasn’t going to work. They feel they’re rushing it because Justice League is coming before individual movies for the main heroes haven’t been made it. Ignoring the fact that just because Marvel made individual films doesn’t mean that that’s the only way it can be done, I’d argue that doing it sort of out of order is risky. Other people have complained that they’re too Batman-centric, and that’s actually a  valid argument. But continuing this Snyder-vision even after Man of Steel was panned is risky enough.

Feel free to disagree, DC Vs. Marvel talk is always a hot topic...for some reason.

Review- Lost River (2014)

Directed By: Ryan Gosling

Written By: Ryan Gosling

Starring: Iain De Chaetecker, Christina Hendricks, Saoirse Ronan, Ben Mendelson

Ryan Gosling has potential to be a great director, I’m sure of it. He just needs to find his own voice, his own personal style. I say that because Lost River seems to take a lot of inspiration from his close friend and fantastic filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn (you can see this with his choice of colors and music) and the 2012 film A Place Beyond The Pines, which he starred in (you can see this with the gritty white-trash appearance of everything), with a touch a Terrence Malick. Many compared it to a David Lynch film, and although I see it, it’s in much smaller amounts. It is because Gosling has the right taste in film that I think he can make some great movies in the future if he wants, but was his directorial Lost River debut good?

I think so. It can never be considered amazing because it is so obviously inspired by other artists, and the movie does have some flaws. But I have to say that I'm a little bit confused why so many disliked this movie. I was expecting random stuff happening on the screen by a movie fan trying to make 'art' by copying other artists. Surrealism for the sake of looking sophisticated. But that wasn't the case at all. Although the film has many surreal, highly metaphorical moments, the film's story is competent and engaging. The story was, as far as I know, pretty original as well as most of the cinematography. I didn't see many homages, which is a step in the right direction for Gosling as a filmmaker.

The setting is interesting conceptually and visually. It takes place somewhere in Detroit, where the whole area seems to have flooded and damaged the area’s economy severely. It’s got that post-apocalypse feeling that at first glance could have been inspired by Eraserhead, but apparently the film’s concept came after Ryan Gosling saw a bunch of abandoned buildings while staying in Detroit. In a way, the film could be taken as offensive by those that live there, but it also shows that there are good people there and that the desperate situation that they’re in isn’t their fault. The film makes great use of color from thanks to Refn. The way Benoit Debie, the cinematographer, makes the old torn up buildings look among the lush greenery or red fire is beautiful. I could tell instantly it that it was Debie behind the camera because it continuously reminded me of Gasper Noe’s Enter The Void, in which she did the cinematography for. However, for the first two minutes of the film, I was put off. The film begins with our main character Bones (played by Iain De Caestecker) talking to whom seems to be a trucker or someone who is moving using a truck. The whole scene reminded me of interviews people have in humorous documentaries, not only because of the cinematography, but because of the lighting and editing. However, as soon as that part ended, I was able to absorb myself into the visuals.

When it comes down to it, I believe the movie is about moving on from places that mean something to us. Bones’s mother, Billy (played by Christina Hendricks) has a strong connection to her house and doesn’t want to leave, and is willing to humiliate herself to stay. Bones doesn’t seem to know what he wants, he thinks of reasons to stay but would be ready to leave at a moment’s notice. By the end of the movie, Bones’s love interest Rat (played by Saoirse Ronan) has no family or home and his own home is about to catch on fire and they all just leave together, along with a random taxi driver who is a character for some reason (he had some important dialogue in the movie, one where he talks about coming to America expecting to make a ton of money and then realizing once he got there that no matter where you are, you’re still looking for the dream that America promises. Even so, I’m not entirely sure what the purpose of his character was). Billy takes up a job at a twisted performance club, pretending to do violent things to herself as an act. She eventually leaves after doing something that she didn’t want to do. I don’t think that the whole part was suppose to be an allegory for prostitution. Her role in the movie, I believe, was to show how desperate people are to simply just live and how the people of big business, the people who own the money, screw the people over no matter what. Perhaps they avoided direct prostitution for the sake of keeping us interested, which it succeeded (actor Ben Mendelson gives a groovy dance and sings a catchy song, you can’t miss it). There is also the giant plastic dinosaur head in the movie, which I think is an important symbol. The reason why the area flooded was because they were planned to make a reservoir over a prehistoric themed theme park. Just keep in mind what a dinosaur is; they’re ancient and of the past. Whatever the movie was trying to tell me, I think it was done in a lightly beautiful way. There are a lot of scenes that just really had me even if I wasn’t sure why.

As for problems, the movie has a lot of little things. As I mentioned earlier, the movie mostly has good cinematography, but there are a few spots where things just don’t sit right with me. The camera occasionally suffers from being too shaky while other times is very still, and it makes the movie feel like it doesn’t know what style it want to take on, much like how I imagine Gosling felt when he made the movie. There are some odd moments in dialogue, I couldn’t tell if it was trying to emulate Lynch’s quirky and cryptic dream logic-style dialogue or not, but because they were few and far between, I believe it was just writing issues. I also believe that despite the setting looking great and being interested storywise, I had no idea it was suppose to be Detroit until after watching the movie. It looked like somewhere in Louisiana. It was filmed in Texas, which leads me to believe that they didn’t work that hard to make the filming locations look like Detroit. The story didn’t have to take place in Detroit, it only had to represent it, so I’m not sure why they stuck with that as a setting.

Also, generally, many people won’t like the slow pacing and semi-surreal elements. It’s not everybody’s thing, simple as that. Lost River reminds me of Beyond the Black Rainbow, a all around good movie that was panned merely because it wasn’t for everyone. Some movies just aren’t made for the average movie-goer. I don’t mean that in a ‘I’m a superior movie-watcher than you’ either, it’s just a genre that only a few can appreciate. Of course, It’s not as good as Beyond The Black Rainbow. A better example is Gareth Edward’s directorial debut Monsters, which had similar pacing and ‘feel’. Like Monsters, it’s a nice small little film.

I’d say if you’re mildly interested by the movie, go ahead and watch it. This isn’t a movie anybody has to see, but it’s a fine watch. It’s a movie to think about for the rest of the day after watching to see if you understood it, and then forget about it a couple weeks later. Mild brain activity is still good activity.

7/10

Welcome!

I just created this blog, so welcome! I'll be posting reviews every chance I get as well as other movie-related articles so please stay tuned as I finish the basics of this site and begin posting content.