Matinee: The Witch

Okay, so, and I should make this abundantly clear, I am a huge chicken when it comes to horror movies. Like, I can only watch them during the day with my boyfriend and then only if I can sleep with the lights on. I really don't do horror. Which is why I surprised myself (and my brother who was brought along for the ride) when I went to go see The Witch: A New England Folk-Tale (2015) in theaters. I'm really excited about this movie, so we're going to launch right in.

This glorious gem debuted at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival, and was widely loved and praised. So much so that it was released for the plebs (ie, us) in February of 2016. Critics loved the shit out of this movie. General audiences did not. Even in the theater I went to, the end of the film had a lot of head shaking and loud complaints. Not me, mind you; I walked out very happy. 

How can this be? Re: Does not do horror films well. The Witch was the victim of a bad marketing campaign. Every single ad I saw hailed it as "THE MOST TERRIFYING FILM OF THE YEAR!!!1!!1!" Now, to be fair, literally every horror movie markets itself this way, and we know they can't all be TEH MOST TERRIFRYING FILM OF THE YEER, but the ads really did work against this movie. The Witch is set in colonial America, around the time the puritans reigned supreme, and follows a family outcast by their village and forced to live on the edge of a terrifying woods. The film tackles religion, inflexible doctrine, man vs. nature, puberty and manages to wrap it all into one disturbing package. 

But it isn't a horror movie in the sense of the genre. For one thing, there are very few jump scares, which in a way the film almost plays with. We are lead through holding our breath, hoping for the best but expecting the worst. While there is a supernatural presence, it in no way dominates the film, and the focus is always and forever on man's struggle against evil. It is extremely psychological, with a good dose of religion thrown in just for the fun of it. After all, how man faces evil is the basis of every fictional story to date. 

The Witch was dark, It was suspenseful. It was deeply religious. It tracked six people's fall from grace and how they deal with the evil within themselves. It was amazing. I went in with no expectations, and I was blown away by how powerful and masterful this film was. The only strike against it is that the actors all have extremely thick accents which makes understanding them difficult at times. 

Part of the movie's strength comes from its roots in puritan lore and history. The witch hysteria that gripped that time period, while a decidedly black mark on our history, is a good source of cinematic inspiration. Reportedly most of the film's dialogue came from period sources documenting such events, which lends an air of authenticity to the whole thing. 

Plus I think the goat they got was actually Satan, so bonus points for accuracy.

For me, this movie echoed the short story "Young Goodman Brown" by Nathaniel Hawthorne, an american writer who spent much time focused on the people of Salem and their dark history. In both instances, it's a terrifying, deeply disturbing picture of doubt and fear. Because The Witch was scary; not in a jump scare cheap thrills kind of way, but in a way that bothers you and nags at the back of your mind. And I absolutely love it.

Next up we'll be launching into Nazi Germany for what I thought was a historical film but turns out why would I ever believe that even for a second it's directed by Quentin Tarantino. 

Cheers!

Sassa

Double Feature: The Rise of Fox

Okay, so I know I said this was only going to be about Deadpool, but as it happens I'm like, woefully behind on my movie reviews, and I need to pound out a bunch if I don't want to get so discouraged that I stop altogether.
With that in mind, we're going to be looking at two of Fox's most recent superhero movies, Deadpool, and X-men: Apocalypse.

Deadpool
Deadpool's first cinematic appearance in X-men: Origins was...disappointing, to say the least.

Extremely disappointing.

The biggest disappointment being, of course, that they SEWED HIS MOUTH SHUT. Anyone familiar with Deadpool's character from the comics will know that this was an extreme tactical error on Fox's part.

His tagline is 'the merc with the mouth'. Like, I'm not trying to tell anybody how to do their job, but MAYBE sewing Deadpool's mouth shut was like THE WORST IDEA EVER.

So, of course, when Fox announced they were going at it again, with a solo-movie, people were nervous. The leaked test footage caused quite an enthusiastic uproar, and there was hope. While opinions were split on whether or not Ryan Reynolds was the right choice, I think the movie speaks for itself.

Deadpool (2016) was hilarious and violent, and done in a way to really do justice to the character. Ryan Reynolds was pretty much born to play this role, and while his character was weaksauce in X-men: Origins, he came back in full force to remind us that he was the right choice. It followed the traditional superhero movie format; origin story, how he got his powers, etc. It was, however, refreshingly comedic. Deadpool opens up the doors for superhero movies that has been previously un-dealt with: the idea of superhero movies being more than just a genre. Picture a detective thriller starring Batman. A buddy cop film with Spiderman and Deadpool. A sci-fi adventure with The Guardians of the Galaxy. The possibilities are endless, and Deadpool, by being largely a comedy in nature, exposes that. We are bored to tears with the traditional 'superhero gets their powers, has a crisis of faith, figures their shit out' format of superhero movies. Let's move on.

The only thing I would say as a negative for Deadpool was that the most successful part of the film was the marketing campaign. It was nothing but hype from the release of the test footage to the actual release. That being said, I found that they used all their best moments from the movie for the trailers, leaving none of the good stuff for the movie. Not to say that the movie was bad, but it definitely left me waiting for something more.Good thing there's a sequel!

Which takes us to X-men: Apocalypse, the third installment in Fox's semi-reboot (which makes it like the 10th X-men movie or something ridiculous like that).

Professor X and the gang are back at it, this time tackling the mutant god Apocalypse. We are re-introduced to the X-men we know and love, like Jean Grey, Cyclops, Nightcrawler...Jubilee? People liked her, right? Right? guys?

As much as you can like someone who's powers are getting into trouble and shooting fireworks out of her fingers

When I'm writing these reviews, I tend to glance over other online reviews to see where the favor lies. X-men: Apocalypse is split right down the middle. Some reviewers hail it as an excellent movie, but one made specifically for fans. Others feel that it had potential, but fell short. Others think it sucked completely. I fall somewhere between the last two camps. 

The danger was never real. At no point in the movie did you wonder if our heroes would actually succeed. And I know, it's the ninth X-men movie, of course they're going to succeed. On a deeper level, we all know that the good guys are going to win. But make them work for it, at least. Apocalypse's take down was almost too easy, we never feel like victory is secure for him. His horsemen were also a huge amount of wasted potential. Their recruitment is rushed and forced; the movie makes a point of mentioning that Apocalypse doesn't have any mind control powers, so he literally enlisted them with his winning smile and charismatic personality. 

Such charisma

The lack of mind control powers on Apocalypse's part make his relationship with his horsemen even stranger, not enough time passes for them to have even a modicum of loyalty towards him. This relates back to his too-easy defeat, when Psylocke and Storm pretty much peace out and Magneto flip flops his way back into Charles' heart. Given how powerful they are, None of the horsemen were really given a chance to show exactly what they could do, with the exception of our favourite metal bender. Like seriously, Storm is my favourite character ever, don't 1. use her Ultimate backstory (she is an African Queen goddammit, don't you dare reduce her to a common criminal SHE IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT), and 2. don't have her chicken out of the last fight. Storm (and Psylocke, who was pretty much just there to show off her butt-cheeks) is one of the most powerful mutants on the planet. That battle would have looked a lot different if Storm had decided to call down the unholy wrath of Zeus like, even twice.

This brings us to the biggest problem of the movie for me, which is Magneto. Now, as if Erik hasn't been dealt a shitty enough hand as it is (lost his family in Auschwitz, was in a concentration camp, ended up being directly responsible for crippling his best friend), SPOILER ALERT, he settles down with a human woman in this movie, has a child, and then watches them both get murdered. His anger at humanity, and even his siding with Apocalypse, is completely understandable. What is not understandable is his flip-floppity attitude. In the First Class reboot franchise, Magneto is a character that lacks conviction. All the movies to date can be summed up by "Kill all humans...but Charles is my friend! Kill all humans...But friendship!"

Now, according to the official Marvel timeline, Magneto would technically be 60 in this movie, but, since Michael Fassbender's character is clearly not that old, let's say 50 (that would give him time to be 10 in 1940 and feasibly have been in Auschwitz before it was shut down in 1945). If Magneto is not convinced that humanity is evil and not worth saving at this point in his life, he is never going to reach Sir Ian McKellen's level of "let's turn every human into a mutant and unleash Dark Phoenix because screw you Charles". Michael Fassbender is not doing a poor job of portraying the character, but he has been given a poor character to portray. I want to see Magneto commit to a direction and stay the course, even if it means screwing over Charles. He needs to stop going back and forth, it weakens his strength as a villain. 

Overall, I feel that X-men: Apocalypse relied too heavily on flashy visuals and not heavily enough on a solid story. It wasn't a terrible movie, but it was nothing to write home about either. I'd also strongly recommend re-watching X-men: First Class before this one, because they reference back to it a lot.

Now that I've finally got the ball rolling again, I'll be doing The Witch, which was deeply loved by critics and generally not so much by general audiences.

~Sassa

Matinee Double Feature: The Lego Movie and Song of the Sea

Heyyyyy it's been a while, hasn't it? I got kind of caught up in school and work and suddenly I have three jobs and nobody told me adulting would be so hard. The trade off is that I am done-done university (for now) so all the blood, sweat, and tears I poured into my degree have finally paid off. Right? There are jobs waiting for me when I get out, right? Right? Guys?

BUT enough about me, let's talk movies (Lord knows I don't have the time to read). Today, since my kid movie reviews tend to be quite short, I thought I'd combine two movies that have absolutely no business being lumped together; The Lego Movie and Song of the Sea! But this is a good thing, and in no way shape, or form a move motivated by laziness. So let's get started.

The Lego Movie

EVERYTHING IS AWESOMEEEEEEEEE

Okay, even if you're one of the three people who hasn't seen The Lego Movie (Phil Lord & Chris Miller), you can guess what it's about. And I'm willing to bet anything you've heard that damn song. You know the one. Here's a re-cap anyway, since this movie came out in 2014 (right? Feel old).

Emmet is your run-of-the-mill boring little Lego figure who has zero personality independent of his brand and follows instructions exactly. He is swept up in a whirlwind adventure when he discovers the Piece of Resistance; a magical item with the power to stop Lord Business from taking over the world. He is aided by Master Builders; Lego characters capable of building anything they can imagine, without instructions. Together, they help Emmet discover just why he is so special. It's a kids movie, cut it some slack.

What is fun about The Lego Movie is that it's a kids movie, narrated by a child. This isn't immediately apparent, however subtle inconsistencies in the narrative do give it away; especially if you've ever listened to a child try and tell you a story. The Lego Movie is cute and mindless, with a very generic message about believing in yourself. Does that make it bad? No, but it certainly won't be a timeless children's classic watched for decades to come. Definitely the live-action style of animation makes it clever and refreshing, and it is entertaining for anyone under 50 (too far past that and the jokes go over their head. You know, the way they do for old people).

Small point of frustration: it does fall prey to the badass female character playing second fiddle to the inept male lead trope, a trope that drives me absolutely crazy. I get it, it's a kids movie, and the narrator is a little boy, but honestly, this kind of garbage "that's just the way it is" mentality kills me. ANYWAY enough of that feminist rant. It's not a bad movie, it just fails feminism in a way that so many other movies do. And I mean obviously it was created to sell Lego. But like, if you can put aside your cynicism, you won't walk away hating the film. Case closed.

I don't know if any of you have ever taught children, but this is exactly what they're like.

Which now brings us to...

Song of the Sea

I kind of happened on this movie by accident. Well, I mean, as accidental as selecting to watch it on Netflix can be. As I recall I was having a bad night, and I live in this perpetual delusion that children's films are inherently happy. Never mind spending my childhood crying over Mufasa, or Toy Story, or Finding Nemo, or Monster's Inc. Those don't count. Obviously. Moving on.

Combining gorgeous artwork with rich Irish folklore, Song of the Sea (Tom Moore, 2015) is a touching look into family, love, and grief. It actually comes from the same director who did Secret of the Kells; a movie I am desperate to see, even more so now. The story begins with the idylic life of Ben and his dog Cu; they live on a small island with a lighthouse, and his childhood is filled with wonderful tales from Irish legend and loving parents. Fast forward five years; Ben's mother is nowhere to be found; instead there is his little sister Saoirse and the broken shell of his father. Ben very deeply resents his sister, presumably for causing the death of his mother, but must rescue her from the Owl Witch Macha when he discovers that she is a selkie (more on that in a moment) with the power to save the fae folk. 

Now, for those of you un-schooled in non-Disney folklore, Selkies come from Scottish, Irish, and Faorese mythology. They're kind of like mermaids, except instead of being half human half fish, they can turn into seals by donning their special seal-skin coats, and must shed that coat to walk on land. It's pretty cool. Just like this movie. Ireland is a place rich in history, legends, and folklore, and drawing on that was a huge strength of this movie. It felt timeless; It could have happened 100 years ago or two weeks ago. Rooting it in mythology gave it a solid grounding, and inspired a fantastical awe.

The animation, like I said, is stunning, and the story is heart wrenching. It explores grief from a child's perspective, as well as a taste of adulthood. It combines themes of love and family with self-discovery and learning to love people for who they are. Honestly I can't rave about this movie enough. I won't give away the ending, but I cried. Hard. I scared my cat. It was ugly. Not the ending, my face. The ending was beautiful.

Now, I know what you're thinking; "Saoirse can't talk, she literally has no voice, and her brother has to rescue her. How is that not sending up red feminist flags for you?" Okay, maybe you weren't thinking that, but since I went into feminism with The Lego Movie, it seems only fair to delve into it here. Yes, Saoisre can't speak, but she isn't voiceless. She is as strong of a driving force in this as her brother. Yes, Ben rescues her, but the movie is Ben's journey. Saoirse is a character able to come to terms with who she is without much help, Ben is a character in flux who needs a journey, and a choice to rescue someone he hates, to develop. Her being rescued doesn't take away from her agency; Saoirse is the most powerful character in the film, her actions help heal the Owl Witch and her fate is decided by her. If you enjoy Studio Ghibli films, particularly Spirited Away or My Neighbor Totoro, you'll enjoy Song of the Sea. It's heavy stuff for a kids movie, but it's executed excellently. 

Both The Lego Movie and Song of the Sea have their strengths, and this isn't about comparing them. They represent two opposite ends of the vast spectrum of children's films; light-hearted entertainment to deep, soul searching drama. Certainly Song of the Sea will age better than The Lego movie, but both have their merit and value.

And, for something completely different, next entry will be on Deadpool

~Sassa

Matinee: The Martian

Hey, it's that space movie Ridley Scott did!

No...not that one, the other space movie.

No! The one with poop science!

There we go!
The Martian is a 2015 Science-fiction film by Ridley Scott based off a book of the same name by Andy Weir. Botanist/Astronaut Mark Watney is marooned on Mars after a freak windstorm separates him from his team. He must survive for over a year on his wits, what's been left behind, and poop science. You could say it's a really shitty situation. Yes, I will be making as many poop based puns as possible.
One of the hard things with sci-fi is straddling the line between what is realistic and what is awesome. Often, realism goes out the door because like, real science is boring. fake science gives us aliens! Horrifying, human-hybrid aliens that will FOREVER scar any four-year-old unfortunate enough to watch the debacle that was Alien: Resurrection.

 

 

 

Nightmares to last a lifetime.

What is awesome about The Martian is that they err on the side of reality. This movie is one of the most scientifically accurate films I have ever seen. And that's not just because I love the shit out of The Matrix, NASA is backing me up on this one. This movie is scientifically accurate. And it was awesome. The Martian proved that you can have an entertaining film that is also true to the wonders of modern science, or at least, is not beyond the realm of imagination. Do they have to exaggerate in places? Yes. Would a dust storm actually strand you on Mars? No. But you know what? Even Andy Weir knew that. Part of the accuracy comes from the author wanting a realistic novel. The script was updated to keep up with current technologies, but the core is there. As an example, Mark uses human feces as fertilizer to grow potatoes, which contain almost all the nutrients you need to stay alive. I won't go into the science specifics, because MatPat does a great job of that in his film theory video, but, spoiler alert, it's hella accurate. Like, I shit you not, it is completely plausible. Which is great, because nothing kills a movie faster for me than scientific inaccuracy.
I actually haven't read the novel, a strange trend of mine recently. Normally, I try and get the original story before watching the movie, but apparently time is a limited commodity when you are an adult.  What I have heard is that the character of Mark is hilariously sarcastic. This carries over into the movie, and it is a huge benefit. One the one hand, survivor films can benefit from a serious narrator to convey the gravity (ehehehehe space puns) of the situation (re: The Revenant), but Mark's sarcasm and humor really helps carry the film. Because really, we don't always want to be following the lone badass, because we relate more with the smartass. It's fun, and adds much needed humor to a seriously humorless situation.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about The Martian. It's an interesting story, it's scientifically accurate, and the main character is likeable. The most unrealistic part is the storm at the beginning, and this is a movie where they *spoiler alert* launch a man into space under a plastic tarp. Honestly Hollywood needs to take a page out of The Martian's book (haha get it? Because it's actually a novel. I am so great at this pun thing). Scientific accuracy does not have to detract from a movie, and it makes nerds happy. And since the movie industry seems to be catering SPECIFICALLY to nerds as of late (with the ten million superhero movies flooding our theaters), making more movies that appeal to detail oriented people is not a bad thing. Give me more science. Give me all the science. Give me great quotes like "I am going to science the shit out of this planet."

That's all for today, tune in next time for what will likely be an equally short entry on The Lego Movie.
~Sassa

Matinee: The Revenant

So, right before sitting down to write this blog post, I decided to get my sandwich on. While that is entirely unrelated to The Revenant, I did end up trying to slice through my finger instead of an avocado, and because in my panic I wrapped my finger in what was left of my rather full box of bandaids, typing this is sort of a monumental challenge. Kind of like the one Leo faced in winning an Oscar. Bam. Not that any of this is really relevant to you as the reader, I just wanted to let you know the struggle that went into this post. I am a martyr for my art.
But enough about me, let's talk about our king of the world and the movie that won him that title.

Honestly I think Vancouver would have rioted if Leo didn't win. We're good at that.

The Revenant (2016) by Alejandro González Iñárritu is based off a book of the same name, written by Michael Punke, which tells the story of frontiersman Hugh Glass and his struggle to survive against impossible odds. Hugh Glass is working as a guide for a fur trapping party with his half native son. While scouting ahead, he is mauled by bad CGI a mama grizzly bear. Doubtful that he will survive, the captain of the party offers an extra reward to whoever stays with him until he dies. Some stuff goes down, and Hugh is left alone, 200 miles from the nearest outpost, with hostile natives in the area. This is a supposedly true story, although it has certainly been embellished since it's inception in the early 1800's (apparently the bear mauled Glass so badly that his ribs were exposed through his back, which some friendly natives fixed for him by sewing a bear hide onto his back for him. Ew).
Now, I am not a huge fan of historical fiction to begin with, never mind that I find the "frontier" part of North American history to be EXTREMELY boring. I know, I know, for shame. My dad was actually a huge history buff for this particular era, which mean getting dragged around to every fort and outpost in British Columbia. You can only see so many NW Co. outposts before they all look the same. And believe me, they all look the same. But I was curious and could put aside my dislike of that era in the name of cinema. Although it probably didn't help with my enjoyment of the movie. What also didn't help with my enjoyment of the movie is that this is definitely an artistic film, in the sense that it is less about entertainment and more about a celebration of the art of cinema itself. That's great, and critics loved the shit out of this movie, so clearly there must be something to it. But, like I said, that doesn't make it entertaining. The cinematography? Gorgeous. The characters? realistic. The story? Morbidly fascinating. But not entertaining. It was a two and a half hour movie, and you felt every minute of it. I never do this, but I actually pulled out my phone to check the time about halfway through (calm down, I was sitting in the very back row). So in the sense of capturing the layman's attention and being able to hold it, not great. Granted, this could be because I already don't like that time period, but damnit, I was willing to try.
Another flaw in the movie, if you could call it that, is that it's very repetitive. We get very used to watching Leo lie around and dying. Again, hugely realistic, and as accurate to the source material as they could be. But it gets boring after a while, you know? Okay, yes, you're dying, but do we have to linger on your face for that long? There was definitely a lingering, dragging feel to the movie, which, given the story, was likely intentional. Shots are held long enough to make people uncomfortable with them. Today's audience is used to a certain amount of speed in a movie, and a complete absence of speed is unsettling. But that's part of the movie. It's raw, it's unflinching, it's brutal, and you live every uncomfortable second of it. They don't shy away from the violence. It struck me as odd, I'm no stranger to violence, and this movie was in no way excessive, but it was unpleasant to watch.

Like honestly, I swear I'm not a pansy

It's clear everything has been carefully considered for this film, and it's authenticity is astounding. Air as an element seemed to be a recurring theme, often being associated with Glass' dead wife and Glass himself. I listened to a cbc radio broadcast of an actor from Montreal complaining about the French Canadian representation in the film, citing that they were portrayed as being unrealistically barbaric, but I honestly didn't see it. Were they uncivilized? Yes. Welcome to the frontier in the 1800's, it was a hard land and only the hard survive. Their representation was no worse than the natives, who also played an antagonistic role but, again, weren't "evil". The Revenant is likely a movie that would benefit from a second watch. Unfortunately, this probably isn't going to happen for me. It was raw, and it was real, and I can appreciate its artistic value as a film, but I can't say that I particularly enjoyed it. Maybe if I was more interested in that time period. Maybe if I was more of a cinophile. But alas, I am not but a humble barista with ordinary tastes. I can appreciate art without enjoying it, but I'm probably not going to watch The Revenant again. Even if it was what finally won Leo his long awaited oscar gold.

I realize this was briefer than previous entries, but please reference sliced finger. Cleaning blood out of my keyboard is not really how I want to spend my afternoon. Next entry will be The Revenant's competitor for best picture, The Martian. Stay tuned, it's going to be out of this world.

~Sassa

(get it?)

(Because it's about Mars.)


(It's hard being this funny.)

I am Legend

No internet, this is not that god-awful Will Smith movie. This is the (vastly superior) novella the movie is based off of.

spoilers.

But I understand how you might confuse the two, given that I talk about both books and movies here. Also my God that title is centered horribly this is why I have no future as a graphic designer. So. Let's just move on.

Spoiler warning: So, in order to talk about books, I kind of have to talk about the plot, and in this case, the ending, given that it's really crucial to the novel. Buyer Beware.

Okay, so when I first saw the movie, I was disappointed in how badly it sucked. I think I knew it was based off a novel, but didn't pursue it, until much later in my life (actually my boyfriend has the novel and the re-awakened my interest). The obvious convention among book movies is that they are never as good as the source material. There are a myriad of reasons for this, and I try and not judge adaptations too harshly, with the exception of Eragon. That movie can rot in the fiery inferno of bad CGI.

who puts feathers ON A DRAGON SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS NOT HAVING FEATHERS ASL;DFJK DID YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE BOOK LIKE EVEN ONCE

Moving on. Reading I am Legend reaffirmed for me what I already knew; the movie sucked. The book, by contrast, was excellent. Robert Neville is your typical Joe Average trying to survive a global pandemic that has turned the world's population into "vampires" (I put it in quotations because they aren't technically vampires...it's addressed in the novel). He spends his days fortifying his house and hunting the creatures, and his nights tormented by both the vampires outside his house and his own past. During his quest for survival, he encounters depression, alcoholism, a dog, and another survivor. The novel ends with Robert being captured by the vampires, who have formed their own society, and our intrepid hero realizing that, in this new world, he is the monster, the terrifying legend.

I am Legend is a dark, horrifying look at what it means to be human. This novel is actually credited with popularizing the zombie pandemic genre, and was an inspiration behind Night of the Living Dead. Huge cultural impact. The novel itself is a lesson in loneliness, and gives us a humanistic twist on the 'Last Man Alive' trope. Basically everything the movie failed to do. That being said, it had its sins. Namely, not a lot happens. In that sense, the book is almost too realistic. Robert becomes depressed and falls into an alcoholic funk often, to the point where it feels like him lying on his floor drunk dominates the novel. He is frustrated in his attempts to find answers, This makes sense, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't necessarily make for good fiction. Granted, it can be easy to point fingers when this "sole survivor" genre has been around for so long, forgetting that this was an originator of that genre. It isn't going to be perfect. Also the dog dies and that is sad because dogs shouldn't ever die ever.

seriously I don't care how bad the movie is if the dog dies I am a puddle of tears

The movie completely misses the point of the novel. For starters, Robert is not a hero, nor is he a brilliant blahblahologist. Robert's heroic Hollywood sacrifice at the end of the movie literally COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS WHAT THE BOOK WAS TRYING TO SET UP. Robert is not the hero. What is exceptionally frustrating about this is that they set the movie up like the book, even hinting that the vampires have their own society. And then they take this set up and SHIT ALL OVER IT. YOU ARE NOT LEGEND, WILL SMITH. I MEAN YOU ARE, BUT NO.
Matheson himself is a master of horror. In addition to the novella I am Legend, the book I have also includes a myriad of short stories that have a very Twilight Zone feel to them (the internet has reliably informed me that Matheson used to be a writer for the Twilight Zone). With little to no world building, he establishes complex and frightening stories where our reality and fantasy combine in plausibly but scary ways. All of his stories are surreal and terrifying. This does not mean that he is a one trick pony. While some of the short stories echo each other in terms of tone and style, for the most part he is able to switch up narrative styles to enhance the horror and give each story its own distinct flavor.
Overall, I really enjoyed the novel, and the accompanying short stories. My critique lies largely around the pacing, and to some degree the ending as well. Don't get me wrong. I love the twist at the end, that Robert isn't actually the hero he thought he was. What I didn't like was that this realization and acceptance takes him a grand total of 2 pages to achieve. Given how slowly paced the rest of the novel was, the conclusion seemed rushed. Robert has lived for four years in this hellish apocalypse, this plague has taken away everything he has ever loved, and at the end he just accepts that he was in the wrong. Just like that. For me, that was a little unrealistic, given the fighting spirit Robert displays throughout the novel. But again, I really enjoyed the novel, it was well written and, despite little happening, it keeps you reading and wanting to know more.

Next up, the movie that popped Leo's Oscar cherry.
~Sassa

Matinee: Mad Max: Fury Road

WITNESS MEEEEEEEE write this blog post...Okay, so it's cooler in the movie. This will be the first movie review I've done of a movie I've already seen. So exciting! If anything, this should add more insight and depth to my already insightful and depthful reviews. Let's get started.

Spoiler Warning: There will definitely be spoilers, particularly around the character of Max, plus spoilers for the original Mad Max Trilogy. It's been around since the 80's, if you haven't seen it by now, you need to ride your diselpunk deathtrap to Valhalla, but like, away from me. Just kidding, you clearly won't be going to Valhalla, shiny and chrome, if you haven't seen the originals. Sorry. I don't make the rules, Immortan Joe does.

The first time I saw Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), I was disappointed in it. I decided to give in a second chance in the interest of pop culture references (seriously, I yell "witness me" all the time). The second time, I loved it. I'll address both what I loved and what initially turned me off, as well as a quick refresher on the original Mad Max Trilogy.

I'll be honest, the first Mad Max movie (1979), is nothing to write home about. It lays the framework for Road Warrior, but we're just not quite into the S&M Leatherpocalypse we all know and love (seriously, were sex shops the first thing raided? Civilization has collapsed, better get out the leather harness' and gimp suits!). However we do meet Mad Mel...er...Max, and we get the backstory of his wife and child being murdered. Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981) is the shining jewel of this trilogy, and also there is a dog which makes any movie 10,000% better. This is Mad Max is all his dusty glory, which takes the "maybe this is an apocalypse maybe this is just what Australia is like" setting of the first movie and turns in into the recognizably insane "no, no, this is definitely an apocalypse, see all the S&M gear?" world which will be parodied for years to come. 

"I hope you like leather, Mr. Squidward."

Max is our reluctant hero of a small settlement against the evil Lord Humungus (I mean technically you could argue there are no good guys and bad guys in an apocalypse, but we all know this is obviously false. The ugly ones are evil. Always). The third installment into the franchise, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (1985), ironically is not worth watching beyond the Thunderdome scenes. Set 15 years after the events of The Road Warrior, it yet again features Max being a reluctant hero, this time to a group of orphans. But seriously, Bartertown and the Thunderdome is the best part, it goes drastically downhill from there.

Plus Bartertown features Tina Turner, who looks better at 50 than I will ever look in my entire life.

Overall, all three Mad Max movies, all directed by George Miller, establish a pattern for Mad Max movies; Max is the aptly named angry protagonist, he is a "good guy" but also does bad things, and there is an excess of driving for a society where oil is gold. Like seriously, the oil/gas crisis can't be as bad as everyone makes it out to be, people have FLAME THROWERS.

This takes us to Mad Max: Fury Road, also directed by George Miller, a solid 30 years after the last Mad Max movie came out. The story for Fury Road is pretty linear, in the most literal sense of the word. Mad Max teams up with Furiosa to free the slave wives of Immortan Joe, a tyrannical ruler of The Citadel, who is not happy that his breeding stock has been stolen. "Let's escape this tyrant by driving out really far, then drive back the way we came." Literally, that is the movie. So it didn't win over audiences for it's compelling narrative, although an argument could be made that it doesn't need a complex storyline. It's also very difficult to place this movie within the Mad Max timeline. Given that, up to this point, the movies have flowed in a strictly linear fashion, it would be logical to assume that this movie takes place after Beyond Thunderdome. This feels a bit off though, as Tom Hardy looks a lot younger than Mel Gibson did in 1985. It could, theoretically, take place in the 15 years between Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome, but this is odd given that all the other movies have happened linearly to this point. Or, the ultimate "fuck you" to continuity (I'm looking at you, Star Trek reboot), it could take place in an alternate universe. This is suggested by the constant visions Max has of a little girl (in the original Mad Max movie, it is established that Max has an infant son, not a pre-teen daughter). The correct answer is, in fact, the first answer, which you wouldn't know by watching the movie, but would know by reading the comic book series that accompanied the movie.

#marketingscheme

The comic books, by the way, are an excellent backstory for the movie, and provide more information about the actual world of Mad Max, which is great if you're a nerd like me who's totally into that. Butttttt I'm not going to talk about the comic or the information therein because it isn't the movie, and in a perfect world, whatever movie you're watching should provide you with enough information to understand it. The Mad Max movies have a history of thrusting you into a completely alien world with little to no explanation, ballsy enough on its own, never mind that they literally created their own genre, and Fury Road is no exception. This doesn't work against the movie per se, but it certainly doesn't answer our questions about when exactly this movie takes place.

The largest flaw in this movie, again, apart from the basic story line (as a writer, story is important to me), is the character of Max himself. Mad Max is, as his name suggests, an angry person (much like Mel Gibson. This role probably wasn't much of a stretch for him honestly). Tom Hardy's Max is more like Sad Max. The character he portrays is less the angry, vengeance fueled road warrior we see in the original trilogy and more the shell of his predecessor, broken and haunted. Mad Mel was blindly charging towards whatever future lay out there for him in the wasteland. Sad Tom is running from something. The other problem with Max is that spoiler alert: he isn't the main character. This is a jarring shift from the original trilogy, and what made me dislike the movie the first time I saw it. How could you possibly have a Mad Max movie where Max isn't the main character? That would be like if The Dark Knight Rises, instead of having Batman as the main character, had Joseph Gordon Levitt's Pseudo-Robin character. Note that none of the advertising for this movie would change, it would be something you discovered once you sat down in the theatre. The fact that 90% of the advertising focuses on Max also leads any potential audience members to believe, with nothing to suggest to the contrary, that Max is the main character. Check out these posters.

Notice anything about them? I didn't cherry pick these by the way, these are the first four images that pop up when you google "Mad Max Fury Road Poster". Two of the posters feature Max exclusively. The third poster features Furiosa, but in a secondary position (less of her body is shown, she is "hiding" behind Max). The fourth poster is the strongest case for Furiosa being an important character, but again, she is in a passive role here (they picked a shot from the one, 10 minute scene where Furiosa ISN'T driving the War Rig). The official trailers, including the Comic-con trailer, also focus far more on Max than they do on Furiosa. Even the opening of the movie starts with the most Max will ever say in a gruff voice over, and the apocalypse's lamest car chase (seriously, Max loses his car in the first 10 minutes). After the introduction of Furiosa, we switch to her being the protagonist. That was bad. This wasn't a Mad Max movie. This was a movie that takes place in the Mad Max universe. It's an important distinction. Honestly, I was frustrated with Max in the sideline role (and also not, but we'll get to that). If you're going to reduce you TITULAR CHARACTER to a side role, you might as well go all the way. I would have preferred to see a cameo from the mysterious Road Warrior than Tom Hardy grunting his way through the two hour car chase that was Fury Road. As an interesting aside, the original title for the film was Mad Max: Furiosa. I would have preferred this 10,000%, since you find out in the opening title card that Charlize Theron is Furiosa. You would have known right away who was going to be important to this movie. Granted, I still would have been chafed that Max wasn't in the lead, but at least I would have some fair warning.

So that was largely what I disliked about Fury Road, and why I initially walked out of the theatre disappointed. Here's why I gave it a second chance:

That's right, Furiosa and the brides. "But Sassa, weren't you just complaining about Furiosa?" Hush child, all will be explained. While I was frustrated about being mislead about who the main character actually was, and that I feel like Mad Max should be the main character in his own franchise, Furiosa was a unique and refreshingly wonderful character. I hate the term 'strong female character' and I'm not going to use it, but Furiosa is dynamic, with motivation apart from "gotta get that D", and, perhaps most importantly, is not sexualized. You know who else in this movie isn't sexualized? I'll give you a hint; it's the four other women in the picture with Furiosa. Despite their costumes, the women are never turned into objects in the camera's eye. This is one of the themes of the movie, which they literally spell out for you when the wives escape.

Literally.

This may have to do with the fact that the film editor was George Miller's wife, Margaret Sixel, who had never edited an action movie before. Did giving the editorial power to a woman create a movie that was, among other things, about female empowerment? Perhaps. Likely it was a goal all along, and having a female editor helped expedite the process. Whatever the reason, it's refreshing to see in an action movie where typically, women are little more than eye candy for the lascivious viewer and camera.

What was also refreshing about Fury Road was its loyalty to practical effects.

Yes, this man was, in fact, strapped to a moving vehicle with a guitar that spat fire.

In a lot of ways, practical effects feel like a dying art form. Why do for real what you can have a computer do for you? This isn't to put down CGI, certainly it was used in Fury Road, and there are some things you can do with CGI that you simply can't do with real things, but practical effects age a hell of a lot better. Very little in this movie was CGI, right down to flipping the War Rig (a stunt that took one take, apparently). Practical effects add a flavor to a film that CGI lacks, a certain spice that makes it easier to suspend our disbelief. The cinematography itself was also gorgeous, by stylistic choice. Things are vivid and bright, adding another layer of unreality to this already crazy world. Miller did this intentionally, saying something to the effect of people in the wasteland wanting to see the beauty in things that might not be beautiful to us. This again reinforces the Furiosa viewpoint, as she is a character much more likely to want to see this than Max, who's view of the world is dull and bleak, much like in the original movies.

Overall, the Mad Max universe has this compelling way of drawing you in and captivating your imagination. The world, which doesn't burden us with world building, in intricate and complex, and you know that a lot of thought has been put into its creation and design. Despite the fact that Sad Max disappoints (it's partially not his fault) and the advertising campaign leads the viewer SERIOUSLY astray, Mad Max: Fury Road is a rich addition to the world of Mad Max, with again the distinction that it is not a Mad Max movie, but a movie set in the Mad Max universe. Furiosa is a compelling and complex main character who could easily spawn her own series. Basically, I'm glad I gave this movie a second chance.

witness meme

Nightfall

Hey look it's another book! One of those things this blog is supposed to be about. So awkward. And what's up with the 10 days of silence? No comment. I had a productive reading break, but didn't actually do much writing...or reading for that matter. Nevertheless, school is back in, and I have a bunch of entries to do to catch up (I've been watching a lot of movies). So, let's begin.
~We're going to say this one is spoiler-ish. Major plot points ruined? No. Minor plot points? Yes~
Nightfall was initially a short story written by Isaac Asimov (of I, Robot and the Foundation Series fame), and, according to the book jacket, "ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR STORIES OF ALL TIME". Alright, Asimov did great and interesting things for Sci-fi. But of 'all time'? Yo, Asimov, Imma let you finish, but Poe did one of the best stories of all time. Is that meme too tired? #swag.

OF ALL TIME

Okay, moving on and getting down to serious business, let's discuss things. Nightfall (the novel, we'll address the short story later) tells the story of Kalgash, a planet with six suns. Because of this, there is never night on Kalgash, the Kalgashians have a crippling fear of darkness, and they have no concept of stars. All of this is entirely plausible, given the parameters we've established. Here's where the plot comes in: Kalgash is heading towards an 18 hour period of night. No suns. No light. Chaos ensues.

The book is split up into three parts; Twilight, Nightfall, and Daybreak. In Twilight, we are introduced to the concept of 'Darkness Disorders' with a psychologist investigating the "Tunnel of Mystery", an attraction in which you ride through a completely dark tunnel for 15 minutes. People died, others went insane. Next, we're introduced to an astronomer who's stumbled on a new discovery concerning Kalgash's six suns. We meet an archaeologist who, while working on the oldest known "human" settlement, discovers 8 more, older settlements, buried beneath the earth. We also meet a reporter who I didn't think was important but was actually the main character, and a bunch of other people who are relevant to the aforementioned characters but overall are not super important. There is also a cult, the Apostles of Flame, who are constantly warning everyone that "The end is nigh(t)". They are generally ignored and ridiculed by the scientific community that represents 90% of the characters in this book.

Next, we get into the Nightfall section, which is, more or less, the original short story by Asimov. The timeline established in Twilight, where we can pass by months in a matter of pages, is compressed for this short, 24ish hour period when the eclipse occurs. Finally, we have Daybreak, which is honestly the most useless section of the novel, largely because we skip over all the insanity that happens at night. Literally, we go from, "The long night had come..." to "The first thing of which Theremon became aware...was that something huge and yellow was hanging over him in the sky." Seriously. You don't get to see the actual night, just the aftermath. No keeping up with the Kalgashians for you.

Okay, I'll stop, I promise.

Overall, the novel dragged. The concept was really interesting, but the text just didn't deliver. We don't see what happens in the dark, just a bunch of crazy people wandering around afterwards. It's difficult to get connected to any of the characters, we're kept at arms distance from all of them, and honestly, none of them are sympathetic enough for a reader to want to care about. Nightfall as a section is fine, but we actually don't need the build up, or what happens after. It should have stayed a short story. 

The most frustrating part of the novel is Daybreak. Things slow to a stop, and we're met with an overwhelming sense of "who cares". The aftermath is boring. What was also weird about Daybreak is its total shift in favor of religion at the end. Throughout the ENTIRE novel, the largest organized religion on the planet (the Apostles of Flame) are ridiculed and mocked. At the end of the novel, they're embraced as the only way. It's a sudden, jarring shift, and it takes all of two pages for the Apostles of Flame to go from villains to heroes. That's sloppy. It doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, especially given that their leader (Folium 66) is basically a symbolic representation of Satan (you'll note that F is the 6th letter in the alphabet, and that his name in the original short story was Latimer. Like Lucifer. Get it? SO CLEVER).
I had a lot of hopes for Nightfall. It was an interesting premise, and I was interested to see what would happen to a society who had never known darkness at night. You don't really find out. Because we skip over everything that happens at night, it's difficult to suspend our disbelief for Daybreak. Really? One 18 hour period of darkness is enough to completely collapse society? Everyone goes insane? Are you sure? The characters, while flawed in their own way, aren't very relate-able, and we don't care about any of them. Don't even get me started on the sole female character, who starts as a "I am a strong independent work driven woman don't need no man" stereotype to the romantic interest of the reporter to his loving sidekick.
Not the best book I've ever read, but it only too me a few days to read, so it gets a pass for not wasting too much of my time. The short story in itself (the Nightfall segment of the book) was more than enough of the story, the rest of the novel is just exposition, and boring exposition at that.

Next time, we'll be looking at Mad Max: Fury Road, and discussing why I love it now despite being so disappointed at my first showing. I promise one day I will shift away from sci-fi. But today is not that day, nor is tomorrow. In fact, you should just make yourself comfortable.
~Sassa

Matinee: Fast & Furious Septology

It's here. The moment you've all been waiting for. My review of all seven Fast & Furious movies. It's been quite a journey. Up until this year, I hadn't seen a single one. Difficult to believe, I know, but such was the sad reality of my existence. I feel as though my life has finally been given purpose with this series, I am complete. Well. Maybe it wasn't that magical of an experience (not like, say, The Dark Knight), but it certainly was an experience. I decided that instead of spamming you with seven reviews, I'd just do the whole thing in one entry. Less work for me, less reading for you, less time for 2 Fast 2 Furious (AKA The-Fast-&-Furious-Movie-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named). So let's begin.
Note: Given that I'm reviewing the entire series, spoilers are going to happen. You have been warned.

The Fast & The Furious: Awww they all look so cute in that picture. Such precious babies. The Fast & The Furious (Rob Cohen) is a car movie masquerading as a heist movie. Vin Diesel leads a rag-tag crew...or rather, family (he's very adamant about that point) of street racers that also steal stuff. They all dress the way people thought badasses dressed in the 90's (so much leather). Undercover Cop Paul Walker who does not actually understand how undercover investigations are supposed to work is sent to inflitrate this fast paced furious world and get to the bottom of these heists. Vin Diesel adopts him into the family, and Paul...sorry, Brian, must decide between his new family (complete with sexy Latina booty) or the law. Given that he stars in six of these movies, I'm going to leave it with you to figure out which he picks.

All horrendous fashion choices aside (Paul Walker has frosted tips. Frosted. Tips.), The Fast & The Furious wasn't a terrible movie. The plot was pretty basic and it was mostly an excuse to exhibit car porn. What this movie did have going for it was solid character interactions. Walker and Diesel have great onscreen chemistry, and you really do get the feeling that Vin Diesel's crew is an actual family.

2 Fast 2 Furious: I tried to find a picture that encapsulates everything that's wrong with this movie. This is the best I could come up with. 2 Fast 2 Furious (John Singleton) finds our intrepid hero Paul Walker living as a street racing criminal, having chosen family love over the cold arm of the law (except for the fact that, you know, the family hates him. Details). But wait! The FBI needs him and his equally criminal friend Tyrese Gibson to bust a drug cartel. Except the FBI doesn't really understand how undercover operations work either. Eva Mendes is brought in to fill the obligatory sex-appeal role and give Paul another latina to pine after.

So 2 Fast 2 Furious took everything that was good about The Fast & The Furious (namely Vin Diesel and his motley crew) and got rid of it entirely. All of the street racers you meet are flamboyant and have absolutely cringe-worthy dialogue (Suki, the girl in the pink hot-pants, being the worst perpetrator of this). The plot is more convoluted, and they really tried to step it up from a racing movie to a full on action/heist movie. They failed. The romance between Eva Mendes and Paul Walker was uncomfortably forced. Tyrese Gibson is comedic relief in a movie that is practically a parody of the original. Ultimately, this is tied with The Fast & The Furious: Tokyo Drift for being the weakest of the series. Which brings us to our next installment...

The Fast & The Furious: Tokyo Drift: You know, it's really hard to find good promotional pictures for that movie. Swerving even further away from the original, The Fast & The Furious: Tokyo Drift (Justin Lin) is the story of teenaged hick Sean who likes to drive fast and furiously. He is deported sent to live with his dad in Japan in an effort to keep him out of juvie. Instead of  stopping Sean from driving, he instead picks up with the drift crowd, and gets his ass beaten by DK, the drift king with a sexy latina-ish girlfriend and yakuza connections. Sean learns how to drift through the power of friendship, and ends up beating the drift king, and his yakuza uncle, at his own game.

So, what this movie was good for was bringing in Justin Lin to the series, who gives it the serious facelift it needed (more on that later), as well as the introduction of the character Han, who is basically just awesome and perfect in every way (no sarcasm). Han really is the saving grace of this movie, which tries to convince you that everyone in it is a teenager. Sorry. No. The only one who fits that description is Lil Bow Wow, who actually was a teenager.We are taken away from everything we know and love and forced to care about characters that are quite flat and boring. Cinematically, it was better than 2 Fast 2 Furious, but it's still not a shining star in the Fast & Furious series, largely owing to the fact that you actually require the presence of Vin Diesel to make a good Fast & Furious movie (it's science). Let's move on.

Fast & Furious: Aw yeah. Punch the turbo, we're hitting hyper speed (those are racing terms, right?). Five years after the events of The Fast & The Furious (the first one, naming is confusing), Vin Diesel is back with his super friends, and they're hijacking oil tankers in the Dominican Republic. The group disbands after fear of their blazing trail of glory getting too hot, until Vin Diesel learns that his girlfriend Letty has been murdered. We are treated to scenes of him playing detective the only way Vin Diesel knows how (with his fists...he's basically Batman), and we learn that her death is linked to a Mexican Cartel boss. Somewhere along here we are also introduced to Paul Walker, who is now an FBI agent, because that's exactly how criminal records work. Both Walker and Diesel enlist with the cartel boss for individual reasons (Paul has convinced the government they can trust him and Diesel is on a vengeance fueled rampage). Their job is to smuggle drugs across the Mexican-US boarder, except SURPRISE! The cartel boss kills his drivers after every run...which is really bad business. Like. You think other drivers would get suspicious that this guy is ALWAYS looking for drivers. Shenanigans ensue, and it ends with Vin Diesel being sentenced to 25-Life for basically being an international terrorist despite bringing down the cartel boss. I would say that he goes to prison, but I think you know better than that by now.

Fast &Furious (Justin Lin) kicked it up a notch in terms of action for the series. Before this movie, we were basically dealing with street thugs. Now? Professional, internationally wanted criminals. It really steps up its game as an action movie. I don't want to say it rescued the series, but after the mess of 2 Fast 2 Sequel and Tokyo Why-Do-We-Care-About-These-People (I need to work on snappier nicknames), it really is a god-send. It gives the series a new direction to go in, and steps up the action in a way that is as impractical as it is awesome. Because I mean really, how much can you expect from an action movie?

Fast Five: Seriously, who was in charge of naming these? Fast Five (Justin Lin) is 100% a heist movie that just happens to focus very heavily on car chases. Things get kind of complicated in this movie plot wise, but here are the main points (in bullet form because paragraphs are harddddd):

-It unites a variety of characters from all the movies (including Tyrese Gibson and Han)

-Vin Diesel does not go to prison

-Paul Walker decides once and for all that a life of crime with his heterosexual life mate Vin Diesel is better than not that thing

-"This will be it. One last ride." ~Vin Diesel

-They're basically trying to steal approximately ALL TEH MONEY from a crime boss that basically owns Rio de Janeiro

-Letty is still dead

-The Rock is there as an FBI agent tracking these criminals down

Continuing with the direction established in Fast & Furious, this is a high action fast paced thrill ride that draws from other movies in the series to try and unite them all in one big fire-powered nostalgia bubble. Fast Five is probably one of the better movies in the series, but I can't say much more than the fact that it's a pretty typical action/heist movie.

Fast & Furious 6: In the spirit of I'm getting tired of writing and you're probably getting tired of reading, I will continue with my main points bullets.

-The Rock needs help to catch an international terrorist and only Vin Diesel and his crew can do it.

-"This will be it. One last ride." ~Vin Diesel

-The terrorist is Bard from The Hobbit

-Letty is not dead!!?!
-Paul has a son, and will not be a responsible father
-It is possible to have a high speed chase involving a tank
-Starring the world's longest airstrip
-Criminal records are not a thing anybody cares about
If Fast Five was the pinnacle of Justin Lin's involvement in the Fast & Furious series, then Fast & Furious 6 is its younger brother. Good, just not quite as good as his older brother. Maybe one day, Fast 6. Maybe one day. We get kicked up another unnecessary notch, and it's just not quite as mindless and enjoyable as Fast Five. We do see more of the Rock though. That's cool. We also see how Han ends up in Tokyo, meaning that everything that happened between Fast & Furious and now has merely been a prequel to Fast & Furious: Tokyo Drift (which is clearly not included because it's the other one Justin Lin did. Nope).

Furious 7: Okay, so we all know that this is the last movie for Paul Walker, who died while the film was still in the process of filming. It is not the best Fast & Furious movie. It's plot is so complicated and convoluted that it borders on nonsensical. Let's get the breakdown.
-That terrorist they killed in the last movie? He had an equally terroristy brother!!
-"This will be it. One last ride." ~Vin Diesel
-Vin Diesel does not understand what "last" means
-They crash a car through two sky scrapers
-Something about the plot from the movie Eagle Eye?
-FBI???
-Mountains???
-Dubai???
A sexy computer hacker has created a program (God's Eye) that can find anyone anywhere on the globe. Despite the fact that evil terrorist #2 Jason Statham is literally chasing them across the globe, Vin Diesel and the Diselettes are persuaded into helping the FBI get this God's Eye program so they can find Jason Statham. Also there is a second terrorist group that has a helicopter. This was a successful hollywood pitch folks.
Furious 7 was directed by James Wan, who saw how insane the franchise had become and said "No, we can go crazier." Honestly, there was just too much going on in this movie, something needed to give. The ending will make you cry.

Here is a graph I drew charting my enjoyment of the Fast and Furious Franchise.

As you can see from all the science I've done, Vin Diesel is required to have a good Fast & Furious movie. Overall, I can't complain much about the franchise. It's action-y. It's heist-y. It's nothing that will change your life, but they're (mostly) enjoyable to watch.

Well, that was quite the marathon. Next time, I'll be reviewing the science fiction novel Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg. Should be a nice change of pace. You might even call it Slow & Serene. 

~Sassa

Stranger in a Strange Land

Hey, look who finally read a book! I've been dutifully working on Stranger in a Strange Land since the New Year, but I only just finished it a week ago--partially owing to the fact that my copy was literally falling apart in my hands, and that makes the going tough. But at least for once, this blog will live up to its name and not feature a movie. Feel free to applaud me whenever the mood strikes.

So, let's get down to it. Stranger in a Strange Land is hailed as a science fiction classic from one of the greats, Robert A. Heinlein. I've previously read Starship Trooper, which was fantastic, so I set my hopes quite high. Heinlein's 1961 epic tells the story of Valentine Michael Smith, a human raised on Mars by martians who is brought back to Earth in adulthood. Despite being heir to quite a hefty estate, Mike knows nothing of wealth, greed, or money. He's never met a woman, and barely speaks English. With some help from his water brothers (humans he's bonded with), Mike is able to adapt to this strange land, and even goes so far as to start teaching people the ways of the Martians, and most importantly, how to grok.

There were a lot of good things about this book. There were also some not so good things. All will be addressed. But let's start with the positive. Robert A. Heinlein has a very engaging style of writing, and he punctuates the story with snippets of top stories from the news. This is a great strategy for not only introducing important concepts to us, but also world building without launching into paragraphs upon paragraphs of description. This isn't a technique that's new to Mr. Heinlein, as it also appears in Starship Trooper, but it's a great way to keep us focused on the main narrative by giving us little brain breaks and teaching us more about the world. A+.

Mr. Heinlein also does a great job of conveying naivety and innocence in Mike without coming off as forced or silly. The reader honestly believes that Mike doesn't understand shoes or social situations, but can grok wrongness in someone and act accordingly. Of course, Mike's idea of rightness and wrongness is quite primary and not bound by human laws. If someone has hurt a water brother, they are acting in wrongness. Water brothers cannot act in wrongness, but have only their water brother's best interests at heart. This childlike simplicity we read in Mike is utterly believable and not difficult for us to grok. 'Grok', in case you were wondering, is a martian word for complete understanding; so complete that you practically become the thing you are trying to understand. This will never be stated clearly in the novel.

So lets move on to the sins. First and foremost, Mr. Heinlein is quite fond of lectures, and we often see some of his more intellectual characters serve as mouthpieces for long-winded rants about social structure, economics, and morality. These rants are often one-sided and are not open for dialogue. The character of Jubal Harshaw is particularly bad for this. Not to say that these tangents aren't interesting or good food for thought, but they're not exactly good fiction either. It is easy to forget that you are reading about the fictional life of Michael Smith and are instead reading a manifesto on why the hippies were actually onto something.

Initially, we get the sense that Mr. Heinlein doesn't have a very high opinion of religion, the only one featured prominently in the first half of the book being the Fosterites who, among other things, practice ritualized suicide and indulge in sinful behaviours because they are 'eternally saved'. They seem to be set up as a parody of the modern church (or at least modern for Mr. Heinlein's day) and are ridiculed and mocked by all the characters being shown to have any sense. Now, the mocking of religion is not a sin in itself (I mean, if we want to get into technicalities, it is, but who cares?). What becomes confusing is that this view is flipped 180 degrees in the second half of the novel, where we are introduced to confusing segments that appear to be happening in heaven, along with some heavy Jesus imagery to accompany Michael. The second half of the novel sees Michael establishing his own church, the Church of All Worlds, which is more along the lines of a free love commune with seriously cult overtones. The Church of All Worlds is a front to teach people to grok, but everyone there, including the highest, inner circle, treat it like a cult. Mr. Heinlein's views on religion seem to be almost the complete opposite of what he established in the earlier part of the novel, and this is confusing on some levels, particularly the "heaven" sequences we are treated to with no explanation or grounding.

Finally, the biggest, baddest sin; his portrayal of women. Now, I know this book was published in 1961 and written in the ten years prior to that. I understand that women's rights and equality were not quite up to modern standards. However, I do still feel that it's something that needs to be addressed, because some of the lines are quite horrific. Let's start with the worst offender, a line from Gillian, Mike's #1 water brother. To note is the fact that Gillian is a nurse, and is talking to Michael:
"Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault."
Ouch. I actually had to stop reading after that line, because I was so angry about it. Stranger in a Strange Land is a largely satirical work, but we don't get the feeling that Mr. Heinlein is being sarcastic with this viewpoint. I can't even begin to tell you what's wrong with that statement. Another big offender comes from the eternally enlightened Doctor Lawyer Jubal Harshaw:
"Pipe down, Anne. Close your mouth, Dorcas. This is not a time when women have the vote."
I really do understand that this book is a product of its time, and lines like this speak volumes. Generally though, I don't agree with Mr. Heinlein's portrayal of female characters. Gillian is painfully incompetent when it comes to anything outside of nursing, and there is never a time when she doesn't rely on a man to save her in a tight spot. Anne, Dorcas, and Miriam are all secretaries of Jubal, and while they are strong willed and largely independent, we are still treated to several scenes of them quietly making dinner, and then retiring to silence to let the men talk. Also, all three girls are completely interchangeable in terms of personality, all that differs in them are their names and physical descriptions. A science fiction novel? Certainly. Futuristic in all ways? Definitely not.

I understand that there are two versions of this book floating around; the originally published, cut version which purportedly cut 60,000 words, and the re-released uncut version. I'm not sure which one I read. What I do feel, overall, is that the book loses strength the further you get into it. The beginning is quite interesting and poses some interesting questions about morality and economics and how our world is run, and it continues to present questions later on, but they are questions more along the lines of "what is love?" and "why can't we all be friends?" The general atmosphere of the last half of the book is unsettling and off-putting, and though you feel that you are supposed to be sympathetic to this group of characters, you can't help but be made uncomfortable by their actions. Again, with the introduction of the surreal "afterlife" segments, we are left confused, and the ending is equally confusing. It was certainly an interesting read, but I enjoyed Starship Trooper more. Maybe my expectations were too high. It feels like Mr. Heinlein tried to tackle too many things at once, and overall lost the point he was trying to make. It is thought provoking and definitely provocative, you can understand why this book was banned off school reading lists when it was first released. Perhaps it is simply a matter of not grokking deeply enough, or perhaps Mr. Heinlein bit off more than he could chew.

Next review will be the ever awaited judgement of the Fast & Furious septology. I also just finished reading Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, so look forward to that too!

~Sassa

Matinee: Hotel Transylvania

Good news! I just finished reading Stranger in a Strange Land, so for once, this blog will actually live up to its name and feature a book. But that comes later. I still have a couple movies to plow through, this one included.
Hotel Transylvania is a cute family movie about love, letting go, the cost of prejudice, and finding that special someone you 'zing' with. Of course, to keep it "fresh" and "modern", Sony Pictures Animation decided to cast Halloween monsters for this movie, with Count Dracula playing the role of the over-protective control-freak father running a hotel for monsters. Idyllic, right? Except a human (I can't remember his name, so we'll call him Carrot Top) penetrates the monster sanctuary. Before Dracula can be rid of this nuisance, Mavis, Dracula's teen-aged sheltered daughter meets Carrot Top and, spoiler alert, they zing! Hilarity ensues. Here's the movie in one frame:

Honestly, this was a pretty cute kids film, I don't have a ton to say about it. The focal relationship is between Mavis and her dad as opposed to Mavis and Carrot Top, which is nice but certainly not new these days (re: Frozen, Meet the Croods). In addition to having the monsters be the viewpoint we're meant to sympathize with, we are treated to the price of prejudice: both against the monsters, and by them. Good lesson to teach kids (and I'm not even being sarcastic). Also, Adam Sandler voiced Dracula, and didn't manage to ruin the movie. Was that harsh? I'm not a Sandler fan (Fandler?) and I was actually surprised to discover he worked on this project. Guess even monsters have good in them.

The weakest part of this movie probably came at the end. It felt rushed and more than a little awkward in some places. Also, what is up with big dance parties where all the main characters are singing at the end of a movie? I blame Shrek 2 for this. And yes, if you're curious, Dracula lays down some sick beats. I don't know if that counts as a spoiler or not. Ultimately, it's a cute movie that ends exactly like you would expect. I wouldn't recommend seeing if if you're lactose intolerant, because it's quite cheesy (and that pun was not gouda I apologize).

For me, I tend to judge kids films by how often they make me cry. While I did look a lot like Dracula up there, there were no tears. Not to say there isn't the emotional roller coaster that is always and forever associated with children's movies (are we trying to scar them?), but it didn't affect me enough to make me cry about it. I have been assured that there is a sequel I will have to watch some day (it wasn't exactly my idea to watch Hotel Transylvania in the first place), but even viewing the trailer leaves me with a lot of unanswered questions. But Hotel Transylvania is a cute movie, if you're into the humanization of creatures created specifically to be dehumanized. Take your kids to see it. Force your girlfriend to watch it. It's not the amazing magical adventure of Frozen or Tangled, but it's a cute, harmless, romantic kids film, and I don't know what more you could ask from it.

I realize this one is shorter than normal, partially because I don't have a lot to say about it, and partially because I haven't been well of late and it's affecting my ability to concentrate. Next one should be more opinionated.

~Sassa