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

Matinee: The Man Who Laughs

I promise, my gritty, hold-nothing-back review of The Fast & The Furious septology (series?) is coming. I'm just not quite done all the movies yet. Instead, I'll review another movie I saw to cleanse my palate of whatever was going on in Tokyo Drift, the foreign film The Man Who Laughs (2012).
Based off the novel of the same name by Victor Hugo (L'homme Qui Rit), this French movie is set in France on the cusp of the Revolution. Our story follows Gwynplaine, a young boy whose face has been carved into a permanent Joker grin by the evil Doctor Hardquanone. Abandonded by his captor, Gwynplaine wanders the destitute winter countryside only to discover Dea, a young blind girl huddled underneath the corpse of her frozen mother. Both children are taken in by Ursus, a travelling herbalist who habitually spits profound philosophical advice and proudly boasts that he has never cried (spoiler alert: you can bet your bottom dollar he ends up crying). As the children grow, Ursus realizes that the peasants are more interested and amused by Gwynplaine's face than his naturopathic cures, and they soon start a travelling show that quickly garters the attention of the sexy and seductive Dutchess Josiane. But wait! Gwynplaine is in love with Dea! But Dutchess von Booty will not be ignored! Also Gwynplaine is actually a Marquis??? Hilarity ensues (It's not spoilers if the book has been out for 150 years).
Let's start off by talking about the character of Gwynplaine himself. Specifically, what he looks like.

This is not an unattractive man, despite his claims that he is hideously disfigured. I get it, we don't pay money to watch ugly people dance on a screen for us, but really? Also, on a completely related and interesting piece of trivia, this isn't the first film adaptation of this movie. The original, also titled "The Man Who Laughs", was released in 1928, and Gwynplaine's disturbing clown-like appearance (shown below) was inspiration for a then newbie villain hitting the Batman scene; The Joker.

Why this is interesting is that our new, hunky Gwynplaine's smile bears a striking resemblance to another Joker we've seen recently, namely, Heath Ledger's.

But see, the thing is; The Dark Knight was released in 2008. The newest adaptation of The Man Who Laughs was released in 2012. So what we have is Gwynplaine (1928) that inspired the Joker's look and the Joker (2008) that inspired Gwynplaine's look (2012). Everything is connected. Illuminati confirmed.

Moving away from the physical appearance of our dashing hero (looks aren't everything, after all), the character of Gwynplaine himself is a little too flat to be loved and adored as a big screen hero. We see and hear all throughout the movie that "fame will go to [Gwynplaine's] head", that he "loves attention", and despite all this, when his "family" (Ursus and Dea) decide that they want to leave, Gwynplaine is almost completely complacent, with only a few muttered protests to be heard. We see again later in the film; despite getting everything he could ever want (hot booty, money, etc), he easily drops everything to return to his life as a travelling performer. Gwynplaine is impulsive, but we never see his flaws develop or define him. It is also difficult to get a read on his and the Dutchess' relationship. It's clear that she represents earthly temptation and desire (her hair is red, for one thing), but we see Gwynplaine resist her tempting apples quite easily. She is dropped quickly and never heard from again, as it would be an inconvenience to the story otherwise.

This movie makes me think of a thesis presented by another French man, Voltaire, in his novella Candide; "All is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds". Despite "hardships" presented to the characters, including another encounter with Doctor Hardquanone, the characters never face any real hardship that makes us think they are questioning their beliefs or values. We never see them tested. Things end up working too easily, everything is too convenient, plot points are dropped and never picked up. Things really are for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds.

Stylistically, the movie is remnant of Tim Burton, with intense colours but an overall dark setting, and a main character that looks like the lovechild of Sweeney Todd and the Joker. We find a lot of the easy symbolism you would expect from a stage-play present in character design, with the beautiful, innocent, angelic Dea never wearing anything darker than pale blue and the seductive, sensual Dutchess often in red or rich hues. There's nothing wrong with this, except again the problem of characters being too flat and almost cliché.

The original novel, I was surprised to discover, actually takes place in England, with this movie changing the setting to pre-revolutionary France. This doesn't affect the overall story, and actually makes a fair amount of sense, but does give Gwynplaine the chance to rant to the house of parliament about the storm that's coming in the form of monarch beheading peasants. Maybe a bit too preachy, but it did fit the tone of the story.

In conclusion, the movie itself is aesthetically pleasing, barring a cheaply shot drowning scene at the end. The story is a romantic melodrama, and it really lives up to that name. The characters are quite static, and none of them experience a change that would mark them as a dynamic, or at least three dimensional, character. The ending was a little unsatisfactory, unless you find the ending to Romeo and Juliet to be especially profound and worth repeating. Not sure I would recommend it if you were looking for anything other than cinematography, but that being said, the cinematography is quite nice and not disappointing. 

Matinee: Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance

In this time of fresh starts and new beginnings, I decided to watch a touching story about killing the people who wronged you deeply. Fitting, right?

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002) is a Korean film directed by Park Chan-wook and is the first part of his Vengeance Trilogy, followed by Old Boy (2003) and Lady Vengeance (2005). Although I've seen the entire trilogy, it was accidentally out of order, as a result, this was the last movie in the trilogy I saw. There isn't continuity between the three movies in the sense that they are all individual stories; instead, they are united thematically and stylistically.

Without spoiling the movie (because the deepest level of hell is reserved for people who release spoilers. Also people who bring infants to the movie theater. Seriously, hire a babysitter), the story follows Ryu, a deaf-mute with an anarchist girlfriend and a sick sister desperately in need of a kidney transplant. This desperation leads Ryu to kidnap his former employer's (Dong-jin) daughter to demand a ransom. Of course, things don't go off perfectly, from a black market organ vendor stealing Ryu's kidney to an unfortunate drowning incident involving Dong-jin's daughter, and both Ryu and Dong-jin are set on converging paths of vengeance in their respective quests for healing.

Park Chan-wook has a very specific style, and all three movies exist in an ethereal dream state where we are never quite sure what is real and what is imaginary. It is not uncommon for characters to encounter ghosts, or what could be perceived as ghosts, and treat it as perfectly normal. This dream-like state is amplified for a North American audience, who do not have the benefit of the same cultural background to clarify what is and is not normal. This is not to say that a North American viewer is completely lost and can't infer proper actions, but a comparison of the Korean and American versions of Old Boy confirms that not everything translates perfectly (re: the ending. But that's a different tale for a different time).

While all three movies are unmistakably that of Park Chan-wook's (in that they are clearly made by the same person, I'm not familiar with his other work), each movie is also unique as well. Devices for story and imagery are different between all three movies. Of course, this is just a review of Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, but it is difficult to talk about one movie without including the other two. In that regard, I believe that Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is the weakest of the trilogy (the strongest being Old Boy and the middle being Lady Vengeance). My opinion, of course, is influenced by the fact that I have seen the other two movies, and perhaps I would feel differently about it if I had watched them chronologically. Compared to Old Boy and Lady Vengeance, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance drags. The pacing is painfully slow, to the point where both me and my boyfriend were surprised to discover that we were only an hour into the movie after an eternity of watching. Towards the end of the movie, particularly when Ryu and Dong-jin are on their vengeance quests, the pacing does pick up, but the meticulously setting up of the story to that point is slightly too slow. This could be the result of a stylistic choice on the part of the director, as the dragging story and lingering shots does seem to reflect this kind of purgatory the characters seem to be caught in. Alternately, it could be the result of inexperience, as both Old Boy and Lady Vengeance are paced much better.

While all three films are quite violent, and graphically so, the violence is different in Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. Every action has a reaction, every bad thing that happens is followed by a violent action to attack the evil. What this means is that the violence serves a very specific role, and to that end, we see a very circular "what goes around comes around" story. In this way, it almost makes it a more perfect vengeance story than either Old Boy or Lady Vengeance, where the ends justify the means and "innocent" people are hurt with impunity. What does confuse this vengeance is that we are first treated to solely Ryu's perspective, and then later flip between Ryu and Dong-jin. This confuses where our sympathies are supposed to lie, as both characters are essentially hunting each other. It is again possible that this is intentional, although it does risk detachment from both characters.

Overall, I would highly recommend the entire trilogy, despite the pacing of Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. While the story does drag and the switch from one to two central viewpoints halfway through the movie is disorienting, it does deliver a good revenge story with strong artistic imagry and a justified if somewhat dissatisfying ending. Though I would argue that both Old Boy and Lady Vengeance are stronger, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is not a bad movie, but is merely the weakest of three strong movies from Chan-wook. Who exactly Mr. Vengeance is, Ryu or Dong-jin, is a matter of interpretation, however placing your sympathy with one over the other will answer the question for you.

~Sassa

Happy New Year!

As a rule, I am opposed to New Years resolutions. Not because I have anything against resolving to be a better person, but I think it's silly to wait until the New Year to change. You want to change? Do it now, don't make excuses to wait. 

With that in mind, I didn't make any resolutions this year. But I did decide to challenge myself. Challenge? Maybe the wrong word. I decided, given that my hobbies are "marathoning TV series on Netflix", "overanalyzing everything", and "avoiding responsibilities", that I would simultaneously give myself the opportunity to continue my marathoning tenancies while also avoiding responsibilities. I thought it would be interesting to track the books, movies, and TV series I consume this year and write reviews of them here. This does several things.

1. Gives me the ability to see just how much pop culture I consume this year.

2. Helps me to develop my writing skills (for whatever reason, I find blogs impossible to write)

3. Helps me to develop my critical analyzing skills (a useful tool for writers to have).

4. Gives me an excuse to not do homework.

Everybody wins (except possibly my GPA). Of course, I'm not a professional critic, and everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt and not treated as gospel truth (unless you want to treat it that way. You do you). I will attempt to approach everything with an open mind, though I make no promises (I am only human, after all). You're welcome to keep up with my blog posts (which I will try to update frequently but it really depends on whether or not I have anything to review), and you're welcome to walk away if you don't agree with my opinions. 

So, a little bit about myself. I'll be graduating this year with a BSc in Biology with a minor in creative writing. Sounds like an odd minor for a science degree, but all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Creative writing is my passion, and what is university good for, if not wasting thousands of dollars to explore those passions? I work at Starbucks as a barista (yes, I am aware that we aren't considered "real" baristas but that's what we're called). The job itself isn't any worse than any other customer service job, with the added bonus of appearing insufferably hipster, which is where the idea for the title came from. I take nothing seriously (just kidding I take everything too seriously but pretending that I don't helps me keep my sanity).
I'm currently working my way through Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein, so look forward to that, but in the meantime, I've been watching a lot of movies with my boyfriend to greet the new year in style. Look forward to that too, some of them are real winners (including 2 Fast 2 Furious).

~Sassa