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