FILM REVIEW: Spectre

After Skyfall, I couldn’t help but think: “How can they top this?”

Before Spectre came out, I had it pinned as one of my most-anticipated films of the year. Sam Mendes proved himself as a quality action director, and I was sure that even with the absence of master cinematographer Roger Deakins (Skyfall, most Coen Bros. movies, Sicario, Prisoners, etc.) that we’d get a fantastic outing.

I mean, Christoph Waltz as the villain? That’s perfect. That’s one of the very few actors who might’ve been able to top Havier Bardem’s role in Skyfall. Making Waltz the leader of the eponymous organization was a great idea.

Then the first trailer hit, and I began to hear some things. It looked good, but at some point during the film’s development, there was a script leak. People started to talk of a very poor third act and a very contrived twist, and a few shots in the trailer seemed to synch up with that leaked script.

I think about an hour and a half into Spectre I slowly started to realize that this film wasn’t going to top Skyfall. It wouldn’t top Casino Royale. It might even just be the worst of the Daniel Craig-era Bond films.

By the end, I don’t know if it was worse than Quantum of Solace. I don’t think that matters, though: What’s important is that this film was a waste. A waste of several good actors, a waste of good cinematography, a waste of a good opening scene, a waste of a good director, and worst of all, a waste of time.

Let’s talk about the good parts, though.

I’m a big fan of tracking shots, and I definitely found the “Day of the Dead” opening sequence to be impressive and intense. It sucked me in. The film handles itself with good action scenes, but the tracking shot followed by a sequence in which Bond fights a guy in a tumbling helicopter over a crowded Mexico City? That’s just phenomenal. It’s worthy of Skyfall and Casino Royale’s openings.

It’s impressive when the scene draws you in with little dialogue. There’s even suspense implied by the costumes. There’s a period of a couple of minutes where you’re not even sure if they guy in the skeleton suit is Bond, so you don’t know what’s going to happen. You just know this is an intense action series opening with allusions to the dead.

Even when Bond takes off the suit, you’re quickly made aware that the guy he’s after is somebody you saw in that opening tracking shot.

Bond in a skeleton suit.

The film soon after involves itself with Bond tracking down a man from a mysterious organization, all based on a ring he found in Mexico City. Even when it lacks the action, the film is still handled very well o a technical level. The shots look beautiful, and they convey so much without a need for exposition. Franz Oberhauser’s introduction is suspenseful, intense, and promises an intimidating villain.

Franz Oberhauser.

Franz is introduced in shadows. You can’t see his face until he finally begins speaking, directly to Bond. As he does, the light slowly creeps onto his grinning face. In fact, the entire room is cast in this sinister and dim lighting, drawing a lot of attention to the great size of the room.

The opening emphasizes the tentacles of the Spectre symbol, but this scene illustrates it perfectly. This is a man who controls a lot of people, and most of them are afraid of him.

That makes the introduction of Dave Bautista’s “Mr. Hinx” character even more jarring. He comes out and “replaces” another henchman by savagely murdering him.

After Franz makes mention of Bond’s presence, Bond flees and is pursued by Hinx. The resulting car chase is pretty great.

C, the leader of an intelligence agency comprised of MI5 and MI6.

But… there was a warning sign early in the movie. A scene that starts a very, very boring subplot to the film. It involves Adam Scott (of Sherlock fame, where he played Jim Moriarty) and his plan to shut down the 00 program and do NSA things. Because mass-surveillance is the hot topic now.

I mean, this guy was basically The Joker. Not the first time the Craig-era Bond movies took something.

I think the flaw with this is that the idea isn’t examined with any depth, yet it takes up a significant amount of screentime. We don’t even get scenes where Adam Scott acts insane like he did in Sherlock, either.

Yet, it’s integral to Franz’s plan. It fits with the symbolism, but it lacked the amount of even basic depth it needed. It’s interesting because it shines a light on this film’s worst problem. It’s trying to be two different movies, but it can’t commit to either, so it’s just a mess.

Its attempts to have a plot where this mastermind attempts to control the whole world are interrupted by the film’s attempt to make this movie a personal journey for Bond by having said mastermind be linked to him.

It’s at this point that there’s little to say about the film that’d be positive. I’ve emphasized that the technical aspects of the movie are phenomenal, but that’s where the good ends because the film overthinks things.

See, that’s why I can’t give it a pass. It struggles with itself for reasons stated above, and it takes its sweet time to convey the convoluted plot.

But the twist. Oh God, the twist.

Star Trek: Into Darkness is an example of a movie with a plot-twist that only existed so it could have one. That film’s revelation of the identity behind Benedict Cumberbatch’s character was only a nod to a fanbase. Cumberbatch’s character had nothing in common with the one he turns out to be.

This movie makes the exact same misstep.

It’s not an unexpected twist, mind you. I think most people caught on given “Spectre” is literally the film’s title. Even if they didn’t have a terrible excuse to give Franz the name “Blofeld”, he still would’ve been a new version of him.

The problem is that outside of aesthetics, he’s… not Blofeld. Not at all. He just exists as a reason to give the film a twist.

But that’s not even the worst part of it. Instead of ending it there, we learn that he’s also Bond’s adoptive brother, and we learn he’s behind everything in the previous movies.

This film retroactively decides that the entire series has led up to this point, even though the previous films had no indication of such and no mention of Spectre. It’s all inserted, and the buildup this film provides, as good as it is, can’t justify the convoluted twist.

Even with the knowledge of the prior films, none of it feels like it matters. It all feels fake or inserted at the last minute. Like I said: It feels like an excuse to have a twist, rather than building up to it naturally. If the other films weren’t written with that twist in mind, the ultimate reveal isn’t going to seem like a story’s natural conclusion.

Even when I consider that these are supposed to “just” be action movies, that doesn’t excuse poor decisions that impact the film’s quality. The scenes involving M slow the film to a crawl, and the film makes an active attempt to be personal and developed, but it can’t fully commit to it.

On the other hand, it tries to be topical with mass surveillance and tries to have an all-seeing villain with immense power. It ventures into self-parody when it tries to do both at once and make itself seem important to the whole franchise. It doesn’t synch up with Casino Royale or Skyfall’s genuine attempts at character building.

That’s why I call it wasted. This film is great on a technical level and has good action scenes, but it’s hard to get invested as a result of the story’s flaws. It ruins the suspense. Waltz doesn’t get the time he deserves, and what little time he gets has dialogue pertaining to the convoluted and absurd plot twist.

Verdict: 5/10. The outstanding technical effort and the awful third act cancel each other out, resulting in an average film with much to be desired.

FILM REVIEW: The Martian

While this isn't in the league of masterful works such as Blade Runner or Alien, The Martian is a worthy science fiction film that puts a unique spin on its premise through its main character.

It stars Matt Damon as botanist and astronaut (Mark Watney) that's stranded on Mars after his crew, believing him to be dead, flees the planet from a violent storm. With his wits, Watney has to figure out how to make contact with NASA so he can return home.

This could've easily been a psychological thriller, but Ridley Scott decided to change up the gritty formula he's been using for years by making a hopeful film focusing on a comically optimistic character.

That's one of the film's many strengths: Matt Damon's acting and how he sells Mark Watney as a character. This is a film where things frequently go wrong, but Watney doesn't crack. Even when he knows the situation is grim, he keeps a bright sense of humor while he performs tasks that could decide whether he survives or dies by the end of the month.

It's this surprising comedy and energy that makes the film so engrossing to watch. You're glued to your seat because you're witnessing a properly toned film that can juggle the intrigue of the tech, the comedy, and the intensity of Watney's situation. It's a two and a half hour film, but it hardly ever drags or slows down. At worst, it speeds up a bit too much at the end.

Of course, the film isn't just about Damon's optimistic botanist. It also handles NASA's end of the story, where they slowly discover that Watney survived the Martian storm and the operation they're rushing to create that could save his life. The supporting cast (especially Jeff Daniels as the director of NASA and Chiwetel Ejiofor as a head of Martian operations) shines brightly with a mixture of comedy and drama.

If there's any weakness to the movie, though, it would be the Earth scenes. They aren't bad by any stretch and they help move along the plot while still giving characterization, but the Mars scenes are far more captivating to watch.

Mars looks real here. They used a Jordanian set as the base for the Mars shots, and it works beautifully. The realism of the set and the cinematography allow the film's environment to provide the tension, which is a perfect contrast to Watney's hopeful personality.

Ultimately, I feel like this movie is a true cinematic experience. Those types of movies are what made Ridley Scott famous in the first place, and while it isn't as good as his best, it's a true return to form and provides a lot of hope for his career going forward. I highly recommend this film.


9/10. Matt Damon and Ridley Scott's best work in years.

FILM REVIEW: Lost River

(Rated R for graphic violence, graphic language, and disturbing imagery) 

After a pile of disparaging reviews at Cannes, I was skeptical after seeing this film's trailer. The film's reception had led to only getting limited theatrical releases throughout early 2015, and the movie otherwise was placed straight-to-DVD and video on demand. These are very bad signs for almost any movie.

Despite these factors, there seemed to be tons of promise in what was presented. I anticipated the movie with a skeptical mind until I finally managed to catch in the 10th. The result? Well, I'm glad I saw the movie.

The film's narrative is split between two different plot lines that rarely intersect, but still have a deeper connection. The first plotline is about a boy named Bones (Iain De Caestecker) trying to help his mother (Billy) pay off their mortgage. He does so by scavenging copper from abandoned houses, but eventually, a man by the name of "Bully" proclaims himself the ruler of this unnamed Detroit-like dystopia. Bones drops his bag and runs after a brief stare down between the two. 

Bones foolishly goes back to get his copper back and succeeds. Yet, he finds that he can't sell it, and he learns that Bully can do much more than scream through a megaphone declaring kingship.

(Matt Smith as the chilling and unhinged "Bully")

This plot line offers both stronger and weaker aspects to the film. While there's plenty of memorable stuff in here, including a monologue by Bully about "Living life like a bull in the wind", the audience is subjected to an incredibly tedious scene involving Bully arguing with some random lady in a parking lot while Bones and his girlfriend Rat (Saoirse Ronan) are hiding from one of Bully's henchmen. It's... terrible. Really. One of the stupidest, most ill-placed scenes I've ever seen in a movie.

But the film manages to quickly bring it back with a scene that closely resembles one from David Lynch's "Blue Velvet", where Ben Mendholson's character sings Bob Nolan's "Cool Water". This is far from the only similarity to "Blue Velvet" in this film, but it's probably the most obvious homage, especially in the context of the film and the horrifying scene that follows.

On the other side of the movie, you have Bones' mother Billy (Christina Hendricks of Mad Men fame.) She loves her old home and she's willing to do almost anything to keep it for the sake of her two boys. This includes taking a vague job from a partially-deaf, ill-mannered banker by the name of "Dave". 

The job she takes is at a violence-oriented nightclub that features a fantasy-like hologram/projection device that allows women to "mutilate" themselves whilst sealed within a shell device. The banker seems to have an interest in Billy, and his creepy demeanor serves to make the scenes at this nightclub even more disturbing than they already are. 

(Ben Mendholson as Dave, a slimy banker with ulterior motives.)

Like with Bones' storyline, Billy's has its own scene that felt unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps the fact it felt so out of place is because it's a scene where explicit amounts of blood is shown, which is something the film otherwise doesn't go for. It's a movie that likes to show a split second of a violent act happening before cutting away, then cutting back to show an obscured aftermath. To call the violence "graphic" may even be wrong, but it has an even more disturbing effect than what would've been had it explicitly shown all of the bloody violence. 

This is helped in part by the eerie, unsettling soundtrack that plays for most of the film. Because of it and the unpredictable nature of the villains in the odd environments our protagonists are in, the film never ceased to be intense for me. I have a feeling a second watch would be totally different because the film really only delivers on that apocalyptic feel in the last act. 

Not only that, there are several visual cues. When watching the film, I never understood what the burning bike meant until I learn how keen towards arson Bully is. The same applies to the graffiti. You'll notice plenty of sprayed images of scissors, and one comes just after the film's most unsettling and disturbing scene. It serves as some sort of haunting reminder to what took place, almost as if it was engraved as a piece of history on the ancient and abandoned town the film takes place in. 

This is the kind of film where you'll forget quite a few scenes after finishing it, and that's the ultimate flaw. You'll get introduced to a memorable scene you'd swear would be in an Oscar-worthy movie, but it's proceeded by tedium that you'll hate while watching or you'll even be cringing at. The script is as weak as it is strong in numerous spots, and the film feels bloated and underdeveloped as a whole.

Most underdeveloped is the film's very namesake. The original title of the movie was "How to Catch a Monster", and... that title didn't fit either. In fact, "Lost River" makes sense purely since that's near the setting, but the legends about a curse, and the plotline involving Rat and her grandmother feel almost forced onto the film. 

Without it, the film would've been totally focused on the well being of a poor family trying to keep their house in some sort of fantasy world. With it, it feels like there's shades of a third plotline that doesn't come to fruition. It could be as simple as it is,and have no deeper meaning, but it also could be that there's some symbolism at the end of the film I'm not getting. 

I think highly of what got the film right, and I believe Ryan Gosling has a bright future in directing. I just think the film has quite a few flaws. But, sans the aforementioned parking lot scene, I think even the film's flaws are fascinating and worth discussing. It's a well-crafted and very genuine debut of someone who loves art.and I look forward to his future releases. 

7/10. 

My Most Anticipated Movies of 2015

It's about that time. Quarter one has just about passed, and it's starting to get into the season where a lot of good movies come out. Some indie, some blockbusters, some eventual award winners - and I'm here to list and discuss some my most anticipated.

I'll probably release more lists later in the year before the fall/winter season happen. I'm excited for films like "Snowden", "The Revenant", and "The Hateful Eight", but there's simply far too little info about them to be able to comment about at this point in time.

One note: I don't list "Age of Ultron" here because after two hours of trying I simply couldn't find anything to write about it. It's one of my most anticipated, but there's little for me to speculate or discuss. It's more likely I'll write an entire article on Phase 2 of Marvel's film series just before or after I see Age of Ultron.


SPECTRE
(Directed by Sam Mendes. Not yet rated. Release Date: November 6th.)

I haven't exactly seen many Bond movies. In fact, besides the Craig films, I've only seen Goldfinger. Skyfall was the very first Bond film I ever saw, and I was blown away by it. The atmosphere, the acting, and Roger Deakins' perfect cinematography built up to a really well done spy thriller movie well worth the praise it gets.

With the same director on board for Spectre, I'm excited. Even better, they're getting Christoph Waltz to play what appears to be the main antagonist. If Waltz' recent roles in Tarantino movies are any indication, he'll be a great villain that could even surpass Havier Bardem's role in Skyfall. Honestly, if it comes within even a mile of Bardem's role, it'll be outstanding.

The teaser recently came out, revealing that Bond seems to be searching for a lost family member or childhood friend. There seems to be some fallout from the events of Skyfall, and things lead eventually seem to lead to the discovery of an organization called "SPECTRE". It's hard to tell, but the trailer makes it seem as though Christoph Waltz' character leads the organization, or at the very least, has a pivotal role in it.

Despite the absence of Deakins for this film, the cinematography still looks absolutely chilling. They hired another noted cinematographer known as Hoyte van Hoytema, known for directing acclaimed films like Her and Let the Right One In. He also was the cinematographer for Interstellar, which was a beautiful and well shoot film in its own right.

I'm anticipating things and I have very few reservations. Craig has played a good aging Bond and sans Quantum of Solace this iteration of Bond has the villains down quite well.


LOST RIVER
(Directed by Ryan Gosling, Rated R. Release Date: April 10th, video on demand.)

After starring in roles in films like Only God Forgives and Drive, it seems Gosling is making an attempt at directing to be what appears to be a tribute to both Nicolas Winding Refn and David Lynch, among other directors known for style and complex storytelling.

Based strictly on the trailer, the film seems to be some magical, dystopian thriller about a mother protecting her children, a crazed self-claimed ruler, and some sort of flooded utopia named "Lost River".

The film's most intriguing aspects come from the smooth electronic soundtrack and the stunning visuals mixed with incredible looking cinematography. Nicolas Winding Refn is probably one of the most skilled directors of our era, and I can only hope Gosling learned well enough to emulate the likes of Refn's best. As Gosling's directorial debut, I don't expect absolute perfection - but the film has a lot of promise and might set the stage for future dream-like movies.

There will be a review of the film on my blog as soon as I see it in a week.


STAR WARS EPISODE VII: THE FORCE AWAKENS
(Directed by JJ Abrams. Not yet rated. Release Date: December 18th.)

With serious reservations, I'm anticipating the continuation of the films. It's been ten years since the prequels went by, and that subject is still very fiercely debated. I didn't find them to be competent films at all, but they still hold nostalgia value for me since I enjoyed them growing up.

But, George Lucas doesn't appear to be in control anymore, and most detractors of Return of the Jedi and the prequels note that the worst things tended to happen when nobody stepped up and told Lucas when it was time to stop. Now, we have a director known for his work with the new Star Trek universe. JJ Abrams must be the luckiest director of all time. He gets to direct films from two of the biggest sci-fi cultures ever.

But, that comes with concern. The Star Trek movies, put simply, weren't really Star Trek. Star Trek is about philosophy in the science fiction realm, it's about exploring and finding new things, often about peaceful resolution whenever possible, etc. It's frequently talky and minimalist, but besides the technobabble, the dialogue is noteworthy for helping to create a vast reach of intricate, beloved characters and putting them in situations that became classic science fiction.

Not to say that action is prohibited from occurring in Star Trek, but it's about the characters first. One of the biggest mistakes made by the Next Generation films is that they mostly betrayed Picard's character and made him a bumbling old action hero. The JJ Abrams Star Trek movies don't stray very far from that action-adventure element that the previous films failed at, and in the process, they didn't really feel like traditional Star Trek.

They worked as films, and I mostly enjoyed them, but there was always a feeling as though they created a new Star Trek in-name-only. This couldn't be more apparent in Into Darkness, where they insert a character specifically because they can, even if he bears no resemblance in any given way or form to his namesake.

That's my worry for these new Star Wars movies, but the Star Wars is primarily an action-adventure story. There were plenty of people comparing the new Star Trek movies to Star Wars, and I think that's a positive thing going into The Force Awakens. Yet, based on the paragraphs above, I'm worried Abrams might somehow miss the point and try and do something different for these movies.

These are the perfect movies to just do what he's been doing, but I know that directors can get antsy about that. They might not want to bore audiences, so they do something different so people don't negatively say "These two franchises Abrams directed are the exact same."

Through all the debates on minor details like the claymore saber Kylo Ren has and the details over what the roles of Luke and Han or going to be, all I can really think of is if Abrams is going to get the tone we saw in A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back right. A film that isn't too serious and can be enjoyed, but one that still carries meaning and emotion with a bright and well constructed cast.

This is something Abram's Star Trek movies did well, but it still brings in one final concern. Both of those movies had very convoluted plots that were filled with holes and inconsistencies, and Abrams is known for his complicated plots. He's the guy that helped start LOST, and he ran with Alias for years. I hope that doesn't spill too much over into Star Wars, because he doesn't tend to create fluent, mind-bending plots that make sense by the end.

I like some of Abram's works, but he's going to helm a flagship of cinema that last left us with what many consider to be one of the worst and most disappointing trilogies of all time. He has a lot of pieces to pick up. I believe he can do it, which is why I'm anticipating this movie, but I'm not going in with blind hype. I know well that Abrams could botch it, or make it far less than it could've been. Here's hoping it'll be the best since Empire.


CRIMSON PEAK
(Directed by Guillermo del Toro. Rated R. Release Date: October 16th.)

With a wealth of acclaimed movies and cult classics, Guillermo del Toro seems to be trying his hand at writing, directing, and producing once more. The last time he did this was the fun and visually pleasing Pacific Rim, and before that, the striking dark fantasy Pan's Labyrinth.

Del Toro is now aiming to create a gothic thriller of sorts by mixing classic sets, gothic fiction, and inspiration from movies like The Exorcist and The Shining. He wants to get away from the found footage genre of today, and have a callback to older classic horror. But, he still promises very few but effective scenes that he describe as "...really, really disturbing in a very, very modern way."

The plot is vague, but the setup promises for something terrifying. A newlywed wife (Mia Wasikowska) comes to visit her husband (Tom Hiddleston) in an old, decrepit mansion. She discovers there's more to him, and the trailer shows haunting images of some sort of otherwordly creature wandering through the mansion. Of course, this all appears to be set during a long and violent snowstorm, most likely trapping the inhabitants in with whatever lurks the mansion.

Del Toro has proven he can honor a genre when he honored the Mecha genre in 2013 with Pacific Rim, but Crimson Peal has the potential to make that small fry in comparison. The big question is if he can honor horror classics and create something unique. I believe he can, but we'll find out in October.



MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
(Directed by George Miller. Rated R. Release Date: May 15th.)
























The post-apocalyptic genre in this form seems like a rare breed nowadays. You see elements of it in films like Interstellar, but last year's Snowpiercer seems to be the closest thing that's been made in a while to emulate the chaos and insanity of the world on its last legs.

I've never actually seen the original Mad Max films, and this is something I intend to fix before this movie is released. Though, judging by the trailers, this (potential reboot?) seems to be intended for the current generation in some capacity, and I doubt that viewing of the previous films will be required to watch or understand this one.

George Miller has claimed that the film is is mostly using practical effects over CGI, which should alleviate concerns that the film might appear fake. There's a few things shown in the trailers that are clearly CG, but it blends nicely due to the repetitively colored environment.

Now, colorless environment such as the wasteland of a desert featured may seem dull, but it does two things - it helps highlight the designs of the vehicles, and it helps create a sense of helplessness. This seems like a smart directing choice, making this long road seem like an ocean that you'd die in if you fell off your car. The emptiness of the desert only further helps to highlight how vast it is just at a quick glance.

Miller has stated he intends this film to be a visual experience, and one that you could understand even if you spoke a different language. By that measure, I expect a simplistic plot (Miller even referred to it as a unique sort of Western) but that the film will be visually striking.

One of my biggest hopes for this is that George Miller can effectively convey emotion and chaos through his directing. Based on a few shots from the trailer, this seems like he may well succeed. Because of that, I consider this one of my most anticipated films of the year. Beyond how well directed and visually striking it may be, it looks like a total blast.

FILM REVIEW: Whiplash (2014)

(Rated R for violence and graphic language.)

Whiplash is a 2014 film directed by Damien Chazelle starring Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons. The film is centered on a determined and driven first year Jazz student named Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) and the experience he has being taught by a harsh conductor named Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons.)

The film starts out quietly enough after an opening scene involving drum practice. We get a general idea of Neiman's life;  he's mostly a normal kid, but he has a drive and determination to be one of the "greats" of Jazz drumming. He's enrolled in a famous music school in New York known as Shaffer Conservatory to help better his skills, and it's his drive and determination that leads Terence Fletcher to eventually bring him into his personal band.

We get the idea from the first scene of the film and the couple that follow that Fletcher is a very precise and unforgiving teacher, but you don't really get an idea of how truly terrifying he is until the moment every member of his band frightfully stands in unison when he enters the classroom about twenty or so minutes into the film. I like when movies can use scenes like that effectively: It uses a few scenes to build what a character is like, then sets you in an environment that prepares the viewer for how unrestrained that character will be. The film is full on good visual cues, but the scene where he walks into the band room was one of my favorites.

Where Neiman has a drive, Fletcher sees that and is willing to use anything against him (including personal insults and throwing objects) in order to humiliate Neiman. The idea for Fletcher is that once he exposes his students to his cruelty and mockery, those students will want to push themselves and train harder to prove themselves. There's an understanding of Fletcher's viewpoint to be had, and there's a scene at one point in the movie where he quietly expresses his viewpoints on jazz and teaching people, but it's just as easy to see that what he's doing might push some people to the brink.

He's verbally trashing people in cruel ways and going as far as to use physical violence. He even looks intimidating, as he dresses himself all in black with shirt that shows off his muscles. He's not just verbally intimating, he's physically so, adding another layer of fear for his students. For him, this is just to drive his students to be beyond good. In Neiman's case, he pushes himself to distressing extents.

I won't go too far into what happens, but it becomes evident that it's not just about the music. It's about the morality of how far one should push someone as a teacher, and the film never really answers that question. We see perspectives on it, but it's through the characters talking to each other like people. There's no long rants about Jazz that's attempting to speak to the audience, and I respect the director for having the sense to include good dialogue that respects the audience. It lets the viewer decide on who was morally right, if anybody, and has no trouble portraying Neiman's character as insanely egotistical in parts of the movie. While Fletcher is far easier to identify as a potential villain, Neiman is hardly free of guilt. Or maybe he is, depending on how far you take what effects Fletcher's character has on him - but that's the beauty of ambiguity in movies like these.

While Simmon's character is probably the highlight of the film (he won so many awards for his role he probably has a closet specifically for them), the directing is top-notch. It has a very dim lighting throughout that owes very well to jazz, and the reaction shots are filmed well to music. It feels like you're in the film from Neiman's perspective, and the film never slows down because of it. When Fletcher isn't screaming his head off at every little mistake Neiman makes, Neiman is furiously practicing the drums to the point where he injures his hands. As a result, there are very few points to breath in this movie, and even those tend to be awkward or uncomfortable in some manner or another after the first fifteen minutes. The film is just constantly laced with tension.

Everything that happens in the film builds up to a third act. The third act is so phenomenal that it could've worked as a short film by itself without any of the context of the rest of the movie, but it's so much more special that you do have context to it. It's an intense final twenty or so minutes that I don't hesitate to call unforgettable. It's one of the best finales to any movie out there and does a rare job of utilizing all of the previous tension into the movie and adding it altogether for one final heart stopping finale.

Whiplash gets a 10/10. I'm not too sad over how overlooked this film was at award seasons outside of some specific categories since I believe this film will probably stand the test of time. I imagine it'll be remembered decades from now for all the detail and work that went into making a near-perfectly constructed film. I'd rank this behind Drive as my favorite film of the decade thus far.

After all the work and care that went into this film, I can't wait to see what Damien Chazelle has next, and I hope whatever it is is as masterful as this was.

FILM REVIEW: American Sniper (2014)

(Rated R for graphic violence, graphic language, and adult content.) 

(Above: Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, preparing to take a shot.)

This is sort-of-spoilery, but the film is based off of pretty well known real-life events, so I figure a few spoilers here-and-there is okay. I don't go too much into detail beyond conveying the film's message. 

American Sniper is a 2014 film (released wide in Jan. 2015) about Chris Kyle, the deadliest sniper in U.S. history.

This film had been in the works well before Kyle had ever died, with David O Russel and Steven Spielberg being attached to direct the project until Clint Eastwood was given the go-ahead after Spielberg's script was considered too costly. 

Despite production troubles (not to mention the sudden and tragic death of Kyle himself in 2013) the film got made, and stars Bradley Cooper as the titular sniper.

The film seeks to document Chris Kyle's life, and does so in a fairly erratic way by frequently making jumps. We start with the pictured scene above with him preparing to make his first kill, and before he makes the decision on whether or not to pull the trigger, there's a lengthy flashback showing his early life.

We learn he's raised by a traditional conservative family and that as he grows up he lacks much aim in his life. When he sees an embassy get bombed, he takes the opportunity to join the military and feels he needs to protect his country. After rigorous training and meeting who would later become his wife, he sees 9/11 unfold on his television screen and becomes more motivated to fight than ever before.

This motivation eventually begins to consume him. Throughout the film, he becomes eaten away by acts of violence that occur. Either by him having to kill children roped into war, or by witnessing utter brutality at the ends of the enemy. He's found his calling in life, but it's slowly destroying him.

Each new tour he goes on eats away at him more, and it eats away at his family life because his wife is raising their children alone. Despite this, the audience can understand why Kyle is doing what he does in the film. He feels obligated, and truly believes that he's protecting his country and comrades. 

Bradley Cooper has a wonderful display of emotions in this film, making him the honest highlight. Not to discredit the film as a whole, as the directing is pretty spot on, but the film manages to drag in a few spots. These aren't too negative since Cooper is more or less constantly present in the film, and it's just frequently astounding how much of a genuine job Cooper does conveying Chris Kyle.

As per the film basically showing his life, I feel like Eastwood plays to the audience's expectations on some level. Most viewers understand that Kyle dies, and the film gets more and more intense as it goes on. Kyle becomes more and more unstable, and the biggest tragedy is that when he finally finds a calling in life helping others in a way that doesn't eat at him like war does, he ends up dying.

That's the common element between most of the most brutal and tragic elements to the film - war caused them. Whether it's civilians dying in the streets, whether it's Kyle's friends dying to gunfire, or whether it's Kyle himself dying trying to help others with PTSD, the common element is that war is the cause.

The film never really has to say it, but it's one of the more poignant anti-war films I've seen as of late. Eastwood tends to be able to craft films in a way that's easy to grasp but still relatively subtle (Unforgiven) and American Sniper is no different.

8/10. Cooper gives a wonderful performance with a full spectrum of emotions, and Eastwood rarely spares a moment in crafting the message of his film, down to the end credits. I recommend it, though mind the content warning.

To address the controversy surrounding the film:

I don't really like to discuss political things, but I feel kind of inclined to jump to the film's defense a bit here in what it's intending. I think a lot of people seem to interpret it as "Pro-x" when it really is a pretty ambiguous film in terms of its portrayal of Kyle. The movie certainly isn't pro-war in any capacity, though people who don't watch many of Eastwood's films might not catch that narrative. I mean, I recently saw Unforgiven, so I'm well aware that Eastwood can put a lot of dedication and time into crafting something very morally ambiguous.

As for Kyle himself, I don't like that the issue has been spread black and white. I see some people calling him a psychopath, and others calling him a hero. I don't think it's fair to call him either, and just to consider him another victim of war. He had extraordinary talent as a soldier, and that should be recognized, but I think the film made a big point that he wasn't some superhuman and was deeply afflicted by his experiences in the Middle East. That was a major point of the film. No matter how amazing at combat you are, you can still be mentally vulnerable.

The film pays respect to him without making him some mythical heroic figure and also recognizes that war is bad. Rather than simply conveying that with a little dialogue, though, Eastwood and Jason Hall manage to convey that scene-by-scene in an increasingly intense film. It's a complex issue, and that's exactly how it's laid out. I don't understand the controversy behind this movie or the debate behind it. It's not an outstanding film, nor the best war film out there, but it's still a good piece of work that doesn't deserve the political dichotomy tainting it. 

Reviews of most of the series I watched in 2014.

I've picked the blog back up. To make up for my absence, I will now post reviews of all the series I saw last year!

This will include series released in previous years that I only managed to see this year. Still, I would consider 2014 to be the best year television has had. If not, it's certainly one of the best. There was no shortage on quality cable television. 

A list of what I go over so you can ctrl+F a specific series if you aren't going to read through my entire post. Some aren't interested in anime, specific TV shows, etc, so I want to be helpful to my readers. 

-True Detective

-The Knick

-From the New World

-The Walking Dead (Season five)

-Homeland (Season four)

-Attack on Titan

-Game of Thrones (Season four)

-Fargo 

-Sword Art Online
-Ergo Proxy

TRUE DETECTIVE (2014-present, season one. TV-MA) 

I already posted a review of this, but I must reiterate how quality the series is after having seen it a second time. The acting, directing, and scripting are almost flawless and the eight-hour series plays out like an extended film.

Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson work amazingly together, as their characters ("Rust" Cohle and "Marty" Hart) discover as much about each other as they do about the horrors that lie in a post-Katrina rural Lousiana. They have constant back and forth dialogue that never get boring, showing amazing script-writing skill from Nic Pizzolatto. 

I won't spoil anything, and I already have a more extensive review of the show. I highly suggest watching it.

9/10. 

THE KNICK (2014-present, season one. TV-MA.)

A period drama set in 1900, The Knick is about a master class chief surgeon John W. Thackery, his associates, and the Knickerbocker Hospital in New York. 

The show itself has vague inspirations in real life people, but it often aims to paint a picture of the era itself. We see post-Civil War racial tensions in the North, we see the early days of innovation in the modern medical field, and we see allusions made to class struggle.

Thackery himself, as noted before, is a master surgeon. But, he's addicted to a then-legal cocaine. There are some clear indications it will eventually be a real problem for him, and towards the end of the season we see the ill-effects take hold as he begins to experience withdrawl. He becomes increasingly desperate, and loses more and more of his integrity and skill.

Thackery is an interesting character. To begin with, he's clearly prideful and arrogant. He's initially unwilling to let a black surgeon (Algernon Edwards) operate, but he eventually comes to respect Edwards as a professional when Edwards repeatedly proves himself.

Edwards has his own host of problems. He has unrequited feelings for a white childhood friend who's scheduled to marry, in a time where interracial relationships aren't accepted. This and him initially not being accepted by Thackery lead to him taking his anger out through back-alley fights.

This is a pretty interesting parallel to his rival, Dr. Everett Gallinger. Gallinger was going to be assistant chief surgeon before the people funding the hospital essentially demanded that Edwards take that position. Everett is already hot headed, and his only real place in the world seems to be with his wife and newborn. 

Both of them slowly destroy themselves and their lives are torn apart, but Everett is clearly more showing in public about it. Nobody even seems aware that Edwards engages in underground fights, and nobody is at all aware of his unrequited feelings. 

Because of these elements, the show isn't just a medical drama. A medical drama setting allows the show to feature the darkest of what went on at the time, but it's first and foremost about the people employed within the hospital itself.

This doesn't take away from the surgical scenes. They are very, very cringe worthy and accurately represent the surgery of the time. Despite the focus on character, the medical procedures and surgeries done might turn away the faint of heart.

Besides portraying medical procedures, we also are given details on life in this era. Most of the patients in the Knickerbocker hospital are poor immigrants, yet we also see men in fine suits, and men and women of higher class often spouting nonsense about inherent worth that was common at the time. There are a lot of lines of dialogue that give authenticity to the picture of the era Steven Soderbergh and his writers were trying to create.

For example - we see people being reckless with primitive X-ray machines. This leads to some chilling dialogue that nobody would've considered to be a bad thing one hundred years ago, and it leads to one karmic moment where the hospital manager is told to have been exposed to an hour's worth of radiation. 

The manager's life as a whole gives a small peek at the criminal underworld. It's not particularly expansive, but the manager (Herman Barrow) is in debt to a mobster by the name of Bunky Collier. The corruption of the police and bribes are commonplace, further solidifying this as almost an examination of the harsher parts of the era rather than just being a medical drama.

It all leads places that I won't spoil. I can't say the show isn't somewhat predictable, but at least in this case it's because the cast is full of fully-realized characters that seem like real people. They're like real people with addictive problems, so you can have some guess as to where their lives will go. 

It's all the more tragic that it happens to many an accomplished person in this series, but it also shows just how ridiculous the statements of the wealthy end up. I appreciate that. It doesn't just rely on the audience scoffing at statements that imply the rich were simply born better, but it clearly displays that everybody here is human, and everybody vulnerable. A background of a medical drama perfectly illustrates that through the common threat of illness. 

9/10. It's an effective period drama. If you're into interesting dialogue, I'd highly recommend it. Just keep in mind that it's not for the squeamish. The opening scene in particular is wrenching and probably the most difficult to sit through. 

FROM THE NEW WORLD (2012-2013. TV-MA.)

A Japanese-Animated series released two years ago, From the New World details a world one thousand years into the future after people with telekinetic powers began to exist. 

The series is absolutely brilliant from both a storytelling and sociological perspective, and gives a convincing, thorough look into a future authoritarian society. It understands on premise that telekensis, if available in real life, would be an exceedingly dangerous power that could give any malicious individual immense power.

With that in mind, the sociological element is how the authoritarian government can prevent any single case of malicious telekinetic use. The series doesn't solely focus on that, of course - it would be boring if the only element to the series was its sociological ideas. Rather, we learn about the authoritarian government through the experiences of a group of schoolchildren, and follow them as they grow up over the course of 25 episodes. 

While the schoolchildren themselves aren't particularly complex or interesting, they don't really have to be. The point is that they're normal kids in their own society roped into something horrid and frightening that they never could've imagined.

Though, the series does have an interesting character based on more complicated emotions - and that's the antagonist. I won't spoil that or much of anything else, but the show's antagonist and the debate of morality behind their actions are one of the biggest strengths of the show.

Another major strength is the absolutely stunning animation. It's highly detailed and frequently breathtaking, and uses colors in a way that manages to present this otherworldly feel to this future. The future presented seemingly lacks technology to a point where it appears to be like feudal Japan in aesthetic, yet the vivid colors of the seemingly magical creatures encountered give that futuristic feel.

The world itself is very well thought-out. High-grade medical technology exists, and there are things that seem absolutely magical in nature, but the suppression of information creates a resistance to using electricity, especially when telekinetic powers (that the entire living population by this point have) accomplish the tasks of many basic machines we have today.

As anime has waned in quality since the start of the decade, it's great to see a series that returns to the quality of the golden 2004-2008 era. 

10/10. Best series I've seen this year, by far. I don't hesitate to call it the best visual-medium based work of science fiction/speculative fiction that I've seen.

THE WALKING DEAD (2010-present, season five. TV-MA.)

Spoilers for the series and season five below.

The Walking Dead's quality is subject to much debate within online communities, and there are rarely any consistent opinions on the show's quality from start to present. Usually, you'll see someone point out a season or a half a season they didn't care for. I particularly disliked season two and a lot of elements in season three, though I think season one and four are pretty outstanding and to par with a lot of the better shows currently airing. 

Season five, to me, mixes the best and worst of the Walking Dead. It carries dramatic and compelling moments early in the season that act as a wonderful finisher to season four's events, but once the focus goes back to Beth, the show slows to a crawl and feels the need to dedicate four episodes to an arc around a character that had just sort of been "there" until the second half of season four.

While I'd say it was much too slow, there were still some interesting idea presented in police controlling a hospital and struggle among those police to keep things orderly. Not to mention the waning morality and corruption of power that occurs. 

The hospital arc does carry those interesting ideas and has a pretty good ending, but I think it was underdeveloped and that the writers never really had much of a plan. My evidence for this is that, until the mid-season finale, Beth as a whole was pretty much forgotten by Maggie. Given the show is written by writers, you know that means the writers themselves never even considered or thought of such an obvious angle they could've taken. They were sisters, but we only ever see Maggie's reaction when Beth's body is being carried from the hospital after the confrontation between Rick's group and the police. 

There is one mention of Beth to Maggie early in "Coda", but it's obviously just set up for her later distressed reaction. This was one slight negative I had with season four - Maggie placed a lot of concern in Glenn, yet never mentioned her own sister. This would've been fine if they remedied that across the season, but they sort of just tacked it on at the end.

Dawn was the far more interesting person, and it made far more sense for her to die than Beth. of course, both died, but Beth really did nothing in the hospital that made her feel "complete". Her act of trying to kill Dawn was ill-conceived and kind of stupid, unless it's meant to be interpreted as Beth giving up on life and purposefully trying to get herself killed. In that case, her actions could've spiraled into the police and Rick's group having a shootout.

I think she genuinely tried to kill Dawn and had no consideration of the consequences, which removes a lot of sympathy I had for Beth. Even though nothing spiraled into chaos after the two died, it easily could've and resulted in absolute chaos. This all would be fine if more had been given to the viewers about Beth, but she felt like she tailed along for most of the series an innocent girl.

Was the end to her arc simply her trying to take initiative, but it ending tragically due to poor planning that could be attributed to her innocence? I suppose I respect the arc more if that's the intent, but I still think it dragged on too long. 

Besides the negatives I have with Beth and how underdeveloped she feels even after so much time dedicated to her this season, there is a pretty distinct positive with "Self-Help", the fifth episode of the season that delves more into Abraham's character. There's such a wonderful parallel done between the hopeful flashback of Abraham finding his will to live with Eugine, and the truth behind who Eugine really is. Abraham's actor Michael Cudlitz puts on a wonderful performance, perfectly acting out a man who is completely and utterly broken. 

Carol and Daryl are, as always, a big positive. They have an interesting relationship, and feature some good dialogue even in the midst of a pretty slow and poorly paced episode, giving some positive elements even when the show slows to a crawl. 

I was hoping for more from Gareth and his gang, but it's nice to see Rick and his group have some sort of victory together after all the strife and hell they went through in the previous season. They didn't take any beatings sitting down, and they fought back hard. It was ceaselessly entertaining. 

Half-season rating: 7/10. Some excellent moments early on, an outstanding fifth episode, good character interactions, and interesting concepts all give enough to where I'd say the good far outweighs the bad. Though, I can't ignore the bad - and I hope that the pacing speeds up when the series returns. 

HOMELAND (2011-present, season four. TV-MA.)

Major spoilers for series and season four below. Seriously, lots of things happen this season. 

If you told me after last year's third season that Homeland's fourth would be amazing, I'd have a very hard time believing you. Homeland's quality, as with The Walking Dead's, is very hard to find a consistent opinion on. 

I personally would consider all four seasons good, but the third season was a step below the first two, and ended up being a step below this one. It had too much poorly scripted and melodramatic family drama with Brody's family, and it lacked any of the emotion or resonance it carried in the first season. 

With Brody's story finished and his character arc having come to a conclusion, it was difficult to imagine what could come after. Carrie had been so linked to him, so her moving on seemed unrealistic.

Yet, this season did not spend much time on mourning Brody. It focused primarily on a quickly building turmoil between Pakistan and the United States, through their respective intelligence agencies. 

What follows is what can best be described as the CIA getting completely outwitted and outmatched at every turn. Homeland does have a pretty consistent theme of this, though - season one and two both concluded with at least semi-successful terrorist attacks resulting in many deaths. 

The difference between those and this, however, is how utterly bleak and hopeless things are at the end of the fourth season. Carrie and Quinn can't find their place in the world, Saul has to compromise his morals, and they've all nearly died horrible deaths at the hands of the either the ISI or the terrorist leader Haissam Haqqani. 

There are a lot of complaints pointed at the season finale (with an IMDB rating of 5.1/10 after a season full of 8 and 9 averages, with a staggering 9.7/10 for "There's Something Else Going On" and 9.5 for "13 Hours in Islamabad") that I don't think are entirely justified. To many, it felt like something that should've been the season opener for season five, but I thought it was a good bookend to the start of the season. The characters begin the season aimless in life, and end it aimless in life after everything in Pakistan goes horribly, horribly wrong. 

The best way to think of season four is that it had a different structure than the rest, and that the season build-up was either to the devastation in "13 Hours in Islamabad"or it's all just build-up to season five, where the CIA will spar with the ISI again. Or, maybe, both. 

The performances are wonderful as usual. Mandy Patinkin as Saul Berenson is his best work in the series up to the point. Saul goes through hell in a hand basket this season after getting captured by the ISI and given to Haqqani, and Mandy perfectly sells Saul's struggle. The highlight, of course, being the tarmac scene in "There's Something Else Going On" where Carrie has to convince him to not give up on living.

Rupert Friend continues to do well as Peter Quinn, but I do wish there was more of a conclusion to his character. I figured that, after seasons of build-up, him going off the radar in "Krieg Nicht Lieb" would have been a good opportunity to in some way conclude his arc either by having him die or simply vanish away once his plan to car bomb Haqqani failed. 

Clair Daines is good as always, perfectly selling the bipolar nature of Carrie Mathison. However, this season tones that down a bit outside of a mid-season freakout in "Redux" that results in her running around in Islamabad after her medications were replaced by LSD. With the show sometimes bogging down to much with her insanity after season one, season four did it right, and was even somewhat subtle about it in "Redux" despite how off-the-wall it inevitably gets. 

These are just some of the main performances, of course - the rest are as good as one can expect from a show that has gone on this long. 

8/10. Despite what could be called an unexpected finale and a bit of a slow start, Homeland's fourth season captures a lot of what made the first season so good, staying mostly realistic in events and staying out melodrama that reared its ugly head on occasion in season two and was far too apparent in season three. This season has some of the series' best work, and I hope season five continues that trend.

ATTACK ON TITAN (2013-present, season one. TV 14/MA.)

Lots of profanity in this particular review. Also, major spoilers for the show below. Don't be concerned about manga spoilers: I'm aware of them, but I won't detail or give away any for people who do enjoy the series. This is my opinion on the show, and it doesn't in any way reflect my opinion on the fans of it. 

This is the second of four Japanese-Animated series I will be tackling today, Attack on Titan is a popular Dark Fantasy/Military series based on a manga of the same name. The series takes place in a multi-layered walled city that exists to protect humans from gargantuan humanoid giant-like beings known as "Titans". (Featured in the above picture behind the wall; the "Colossal Titan".) 

I can't really fault the premise. It's not exactly unique, though - despite differences in genre, Neon Genesis Evangelion has a very similar set of ideas. Except where Evangelion is a fascinating take on teenage development/depression and stress mixed with a post apocalyptic setting, this series is an uneven clusterfuck.

After the outer wall of the city is attacked by these Titans, the main character (Eren Yaeger) loses his mother. This seems to be a major point if anger for him, and his character is best described as a human with loads of condensed rage. Does this go anywhere? Does he suffer consequences for his repeated recklessness that's due to his anger? Noooooope. People around him die, but all he does is self-pity. After his mother's death, he doesn't lose anybody truly close to him or suffer personal damage as a result of his recklessness. 

That's a major negative for me - the characters in the show are poorly created. I don't demand some greater complexity or brilliance to every character I see. I noted in my "From the New World" review that normal kids could be compelling to follow because you understand their plight and want to see them have a happy ending.

I might have a different tune on this show if the focus was in its plot, but it isn't. The show styles itself in a way that made me think of military films like "Saving Private Ryan" where the goal of the writer was to have you follow a group of soldiers and connect to their situation in a series of harrowing events. Most of the characters in that film were NOT particularly developed in terms of motivation or life story, but they were humanized through dialogue in a manner that made you sympathize.

The series attempts to be character-based, yet the script is utter shit and hardly ever humanizes its cast. I couldn't tell you half of the names of the random people you see in the series because none of them have a personality.

Then, you have people mistaking characters like Hange and Sasha for having "personalities" when they're just zany. They have quirks, which are additions to a personality, which neither of them have. Sasha's primary function is to be the comic relief, but it's whacky "I LIKE FOOD HAHAHA" comedy in a series where people get devoured by eldritch abominations. The ideal would be to maybe have more subtle comedy, not things that take you out of the bleak universe.

Hange is the standard exposition-deliver scientist. Most speculative fiction, fantasy, sci-fi, etc. have characters like these. I can't really fault the show for that, but it's been done better, and she didn't need to have this weird obsession with Titans that turned her into a sort of secondary comic relief for when Sashsa wasn't there. 

I shouldn't forget Mikasa, Eren's adoptive sister. She is what one would refer to as a "satellite character", which is a character that depends on the existence of another to even do anything or have any purpose. This can work if done well, and secondary or minor characters can innocently fall under this style of characterization. 

Problem is, Mikasa is not a secondary or minor character. She's the second most important character in the story, and she's only there because Eren is and her motivations and existence revolve around him. The worst part is, when the show teases you with the idea of Eren dying, you might think the whole thing was a genius master-stroke and that she'll develop into her own. Oh, wait, no, Eren lived being eaten alive, he can turn into a Titan, and Mikasa is the same as she ever was. Fuck this show.

The worldbuilding in this is virtually nonexistent - you get these tiny glimpses that imply class disparity in a somehow capitalist system, and the technology seen is very steampunk. The way these soldiers even fight the titans is effectively be basically being Spiderman with swords using clinging devices mixed with steam engine booster-jetpack things . It's unrealistic since whiplash would logically snap everybody's necks, but it's excusable considering the outlandishness of the premise.  

If the show had a salvageable plot, I'd give it higher marks. But the plot is about as basic as you can get - Eren is dragged into a series of mostly unconnected events that have no greater purpose or meaning.  There are two major arcs (the Titan's attack on Trost district and the hunt for the Female Titan) and neither imply any greater structure or plot. We learn almost nothing pertinent about the Titans themselves in the process of this, despite all the mystery that's put into them. 

Trost goes on for nine fucking episodes and the only important thing that happens is Eren becoming a Titan shifter after getting eaten by one. The Female Titan portion of the story goes on for nine as well, and has the addition burden of a totally obvious plot twist. The female Titan looks exactly like the only then-unaccounted for named major female character (Annie Leonheart) in terms of hair color, style, and facial structure.

The way she's figured out isn't even true to the emotions the story presents. Armin, a friend of Mikasa and Eren, manages to figure out it's her based on a couple of suspicious things that went down before their military group went on an expedition beyond the wall. Armin's plans in this show have a habit of failing and his character is ultimately inconsequential. Eren, however, supposedly has some undefined feelings for Annie.

This comes out of nowhere before the final battle of the season and is never effectively utilized past giving Eren initial hesitance. You'd think that if Eren was the one who loved Annie, he'd be the one who ultimately figured it out that it was her. The two fought before as humans in military training, then later as Titans in a forest. Perhaps this might be setup for Eren realizing it's her during their fight in the forest.

Most baffling, he even screams something akin to "I always knew it was you since our fight in the forest!" during the final battle in Stohess District, indicating he DID actually know it was her yet had the exact opposite feelings about it, to the point where he initially denied that it could be her. What the fuck is even going on in this show?

This brings me to my last two points - lack of antagonist motivation and pacing. The show's pacing is absolutely awful, with it most notably coming to a complete stop in the middle of the show. These pacing issues don't feature any sort of character development - only more poorly scripted exposition that's setup for a lot of nothing by the time the military enters a forest.

The lack of an antagonist motivation is something that never would have been a negative to begin with had the series stuck to its premise without making people who can turn into Titans a thing. But since they went that route and stuck with it, it's their responsibility to give a reason as to why Annie is doing... whatever the fuck she's doing. 

We don't know the reason for her tracking the the expedition group down and attacking them. At least in Stohess, one can gather that she's fleeing because everybody knows her secret and she's surrounded - but we still never know what her motivations are before she encapsulates herself in crystal. The show's mystery never even pans out. The show doesn't build its plot off of character motivations despite being a characters-create-the-plot-type story. 

You're left with a show that does not give proper characterization despite being structured as a character-based series, a show that doesn't have a coherent structure to its plot, a show that lacks motivation for its antagonists, and a show with often poor directing and an absurdly bad script that ends up as 90% exposition. 

Most infuriatingly, it tries to pretend it has that emotional resonance by having many unrelated scenes of soldiers dying. It carries this hyper-dark tone throughout, yet remains the second-most-vapid shit I've seen this year. 

Some can ignore these negative elements and just enjoy the show for what it is, but even on that level, I find it hard to watch by the end. The show takes itself seriously and has too little action to compensate for me, so I can't enjoy this as a silly romp like I can with something waaaaay less serious and anime-related like Dragonball, or any given action movie I stumble across. 

I watched this the whole way through trying to find some positive elements. The animation isn't quite to my liking, even, and I can usually at least give marks to a bad series for quality animation. It's mostly the same-y brownscale coloring. That behind said, the first scene with the Colossal Titan is truly good looking. There is a sense of scale captured in that scene that the series rarely is ever able to replicate, because too often scenes are zippy-and fast and don't show a good perspective of a human body vs. the giant scale of the Titans.

The dub, as with most modern dubs, is fine. There are several unintentionally hilarious scenes that were supposed to be somber or depressing, but that's more the fault of the script rather than the fault of the voice actors. 

2/10. Some anime fans will be able to ignore the inherent flaws with the story and enjoy it for the action - I found them too great to ignore. I doubt I'll be tuning in to see any potential questions answered since I don't typically continue shows I so vehemently dislike. Nothing gained from that. 

GAME OF THRONES (2011-present, season four. TV-MA)

Major spoilers for series and season four. No book spoilers - not that I'm aware of many at all. 

Game of Thrones is an often risk-taking series, so you can never expect the status quo to remain the same for very long. This are constantly changing without mercy in Westeros, and that's part of the reason it's so compelling. The characters do actions that uproot everything and change the whole landscape of what's going on. 

The usual idea for Game of Thrones seasons up to this point is that they build-up to some sort of huge event, usually occurring the the ninth episode. There's a lot of smaller events or deaths trickled throughout that keep you glued to see what'll ultimately happen.

But this season, things went into overdrive. There is a slight lag of events after Joffrey's death, but things pick up in "The Laws of Gods and Men" after a few episodes of setup. We're lead into a trial where Tyrion suffers humiliation and betrayal, yet still bites back and reveals his honest hatred of the people around him who turned their backs on him.

The established hatred between Tyrion and his father Tywin comes to a head this season - Tyrion directly defies him at the trial, and ends up enlisting a vengeful Oberyn Martell to fight for him against The Mountain in a trial by combat for Tyron's safety.  

The fight is a major highlight of the season, and a pretty shocking and sobering conclusion to Oberyn's charismatic and fun character. The series draws a lot of gray lines on morality, but it's hard not to root for Oberyn considering how much of a bad man Tywin is. In a sense, his plan worked - but not the way he intended. The political events and scorn that could've resonated never were, as Tyrion ends up vengefully killing his lover and Tywin after he finds them together. 

Surprisingly, I actually enjoyed The Wall and Jon Snow's story this season. "The Watchers on the Wall" was a pretty compelling episode after so little happening with Snow's story, and it leads into a good opener for the season finale. Despite me liking it, that opener in the season finale probably should've been included in the previous episode. Stannis' arrival would've been far more gripping had it happened at the end, but that's more of an episode structure concept - the story itself was solid. 

Bran's story, however, continues to slog - and I'm glad that, according reports, Bran will be absent from the fifth season. He's not an interesting character. His motivations are very basic, and there's no back-and-forth between him and forces within the North. We got a lot of uninteresting dialogue from him and a cheesy action scene at the end of the season. 

It's like if Ayra was wandering alone and lacked an interesting personality. Speaking of Ayra, her scenes with The Hound were fun - they showed his softer side, and made her ultimate betrayal of him fairly tragic. Not to say The Hound was a good man - but he had some sort of moral core that kept him reserved. It's why he stopped serving Joffrey. Briene is definitely a more noble and well-meaning human being, so I preferred this outcome personally.

Sansa getting separated after the purple wedding and the continued exploits of Baelish were interesting to watch, but mostly for Baelish and his incredibly slimy personality. Sansa feels underdeveloped, and I hope her following Baelish will in some way remedy that. 

Speaking of - Daenerys. Her character was compelling during her struggle in season one and remained interesting in the second season, but I feel a common element of what makes her interesting is hr reaction to struggle. She had some good scenes this season, but overall, her character arc doesn't feel like it's going anywhere. I don't mean to say "RIDE THE SHIPS GOD DAMNIT", but I feel another antagonizing force that can truly match her would make things more interesting. It doesn't have to be Westeros itself, but I hope it happens soon.

Game of Thrones is a quality series, but the strengths are rooted very strongly in King's Landing. I hope Ayra continues to be interesting without the Hound, but I think her bold personality will help keep her plotline interesting. She didn't have the Hound in the second season, but her scene talking with Tywin remains one of the most tense and atmospheric in the entire series. 

I suppose the main reason King's Landing remains the most interesting location is because it's home to the most infighting and it allows for real sides to be taken. Ned Stark had a very different mindset from the Lannisters, and at the time, the Lannisters had a lot of power in King's Landing before they ultimately began to wane in season four. This allowed for a lot of internal conflict that led to heated discussions and ultimately Ned's death.

This continued with the increasing animosity towards Tyrion and Oberyn's hostility towards the Lannisters. It seems that the conflict that has come up in King's Landing over these last few seasons was littered with the motivations of several people,builds slowly, and results in a game-changing event that doesn't destroy the region or large amounts of people. It's all very personal in nature, and it's personal across multiple parties. 

This is why I don't believe The Wall, Bran's storyline, or Daenerys' storyline have captured people as of late. They have very narrow focuses and their antagonists are often unseen or seem inconsequential. This is never the case with King's Landing. 

Despite the flaws, the show still has such incredible high points with its character interaction and  authenticity of its environment that it's hard let those negatives significantly bog the show down. 

8/10. I'm cautious of season five, but I have faith in the show runners to make another quality season. I just hope that if the series ultimately has to diverge from the books, that it won't ruin it. 

FARGO (2014-present, season one. TV-MA.)

I've never seen the Coen Bros. movie "Fargo", but knowing that it wasn't a pre-requisite, I decided to check the show out. Now, while I haven't seen all of the Coen Bros. films, I have seen enough to be able to get the style of scripts and films they like to make. 

This show emulates their sort of black comedy perfectly, even though they didn't have a hand in writing it. The show itself is a mix of drama and black comedy, with many absurd scenes mixed with more serious ones. It creates a surreal atmosphere that can only be described as "weird".

The comedy plays out in several ways. You have some scenes that would play out terribly for people in the scene itself, but still be hilarious due to absurdity of it or due to witty dialogue usually on the part of an unknown drifter named "Lorne Malvo" played by Billy Bob Thorton. 

Billy Bob Thorton puts on what I'd probably call the best performance of the year. His character is merely some assassin, yet he has a personal code of anarchy that motivates him to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. He manipulates an cowardly insurance salesman going through a mid-life crisis named "Lester Nygaard" (played by Martin Freeman, who's great in anything he's in) into becoming a person who does what he wants. 

Malvo's actions are frequently random, ranging from amusing pranks to genuinely frightening speeches and actions. He's there to screw with the people of the town in whatever way he can, but he has many scenes where he gets serious and intimidating. Usually, those scenes are ones where he's messing with characters we're familiar with by that point in the story, or ones we can sympathize with. His unpredictability makes those scenes unbelievably tense, as Malvo is someone who's probably capable of mowing town this entire Minnesota town if he really wanted too. 

While Billy Bob Thorton's character is probably the biggest highlight for how he basically steals every scene he's in, there are plenty of other impressively done roles. Martin Freeman as Lester is brilliant, but he's far easier to hate because of his slimy and ultimate opportunist personality that leads him to doing loads of unsavory things. 

The town isn't all bad, though. Colin Hanks takes on the role of a single father raising his child, yet still trying to commit to his job of being a police officer. Until Malvo causes trouble in the small town, Hank's "Gus Grimly" character mostly tended to animal control. 

Whereas Gus struggles with his job as an officer in the face of danger, Molly Solverson (played by Allison Tolman) is dedicate to her job. The small-town community rarely sees violent crime, making her job all the more frustrating when her eventual boss (played by an always great Bob Odenkirk) is naive and trustworthy of everybody in the town. His incompetence combined with Malvo's wit leads to her having a hell of a time capturing those responsible for a major crime that goes down late in the first episode. 

I can't really detail much that goes on in the show. It plays out like a roughly nine-ten hour film, and there are plentiful twists and turn. It's frequently unpredictable owing to the nature of the characters involved, and it's truly a ride.

10/10. It's hard to explain my rating without being able to go deeper into what goes on, so I may do a spoiler review down the line. Until then, check the show out. It's brilliant scene-by-scene and constantly entertaining. 

SWORD ART ONLINE (2012-present, season one. TV-14.)

I include this series on a technicality. It began its run on Toonami late in 2013, but concluded in early 2014.

As with Attack on Titan, this will be more of a rant explaining what the show did wrong. As with that series, I don't mean to insult the fans of this series.

Sword Art Online is a series released in 2012 based on a light novel of the same time. It initially begins as a series where a teenage boy named Kirito logs into the world's first virtual reality game known as "Sword Art Online (SAO)". The players quickly learn that after logging into this VR world, they can't log out. The creator of the game appears as a towering cloaked being and informs the 10,000 players that the only way to escape is to beat the game and that if a player dies in the game they die in real life.

I don't play MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, but this premise was still very interesting to me. In places the characters in a foreign environment they can't escape from and have to adapt to, and the environment was created by the same guy who trapped them there. There are 100 "floors" to the giant world of Aincrad, and to escape, they have to find a way to clear the 100th.

Explaining what's wrong with what follows is like trying to perform an autopsy on a body that's been stabbed, shot, poisoned, drowned, set on fire, and hit with a car.

If I had to pinpoint a starter, the problem is that Kirito, the main character we follow through the story, isn't at all interesting. He's what's referred to as a "Marty Stu", "Gary Stu", or some other similar title related with the term "Mary Sue". A "Mary Sue" character is an idealized character created by an author. It's often a self-insertion into the story on the author's part through a proxy, and the story's events are wish-fulfillment.

In that kind of writing, the author projects a personal bias into the story to a level where that Sue/Stu character is perfect, lacking flaws.

With that in mind, the plot is also virtually nonexistent despite the promising premise. The series' first half that actually takes place in Aincrad is littered with time skips. From the New World, another series on my list, also has time skips. But, those are appropriately placed at moments where the arc has come to a suitable finish.

This is not the case with SAO. The vast role-playing game environment gives so many things to do, and series largely focuses on poorly done world building. The dialogue is mostly expository, and while expository dialogue is necessary for science-fiction/fantasy works like this, the show does it terribly.

There's an important element to story telling called "Show, don't tell". It's not a constant or universal rule, but it's usually better to show things unfold through action and dialogue rather than feel the need to outright explain how everybody is feeling. Attack on Titan's script faltered because the show was all tell and no show, but whereas Attack on Titan at least tried on some level, this series doesn't. The haphazard use of time skips really show this. It's a mesh of concepts and ideas that don't add up to anything.

In the poor attempt at world building, the show fails to create a complete world past its barely-complete concepts like virtual animal companions or quests to find treasure. In the midst of the narrator exposition on lazy backdrops, you lose any chance of having personality show when the characters are delivering the exposition. That's a thing that science-fiction and fantasy writers have to understand how to do correctly, and this series fails on every imaginable level.

Related to the show's underdeveloped characters, the romance that occurs between Kirito and a high-up female knight Asuna is cringe worthy on numerous levels. They start as almost adversaries, becomes friends, and eventually lovers over the course of two years. But we don't really see that develop. They have some dialogue together that indicates they're friendly, and BAM, two episodes later they're in love.

Asuna herself seems like a bad attempt at making what would be defined as a "Strong female character". It's not that she defaults to a romance that makes her weak, it's her dependency and her eventual need of Kirito. She has no real personality of her own. We don't get two different personalities belonging to interesting people that are in love, we get a frame of a character with Asuna eventually becoming just another member of what can best be described as Kirito's harem of women that fall in love with him.

The only difference between Asuna and the ladies that appear episodically in the first arc is that Asuna just happens to stick around. She's not more special than <insert name of character I forgot because there's nothing memorable about them in any way>, but she is more present.

That leads me to the secondary cast. Holy shit. If you aren't Kirito or Asuna during the first arc, you're essentially irrelevant and have no impact to the story. Unless you're a villain, but then you're subject to an ensured defeat by Kirito because Kirito is essentially unbeatable.

The villains (not antagonists, villains) are pretty much proof tat Kirito is an author self-insert. More than the generic character design with generic clothing and weaponry (pictured above: Kirito and Asuna back-to-back) you get Kirito's constant moral superiority. The story is written where the villains are unforgivably evil with no redeeming qualities in numerous instances so nobody has to feel any guilt when Kirito or Asuna inevitably kill them.

There's no moral dilemmas in this show. The threat is the motivation-less environment created by a man who ultimately has no comprehensible motivations himself. Kayaba, the creator, ends up just having disguised himself as a higher-up in the world. Why? No reason is even implied. The man he disguised as (Heathcliff) being the final boss of the first arc barely even qualifies as a plot twist. We don't even know who Heathcliff was, either, besides that he lead the strongest faction in the game. He had no personality traits until "WELL SHIT YOU CAUGHT ME I'M THE BAD GUY" happens abruptly.

On top of it all, the name of the show is inherently deceptive. After Kirito beats Kayaba in the most stupid, plot-hole induced, bullshit manner possible, Kirito and the few thousand survivors end up back in the real world.

The second arc, while better due to it having a coherent structure, is meandering and lacks tension. The tension that could've existed in the first arc would come from people dying in the game if they die in real life. Kirito ends up having to find Asuna after she didn't wake up after Aincrad ended, so he goes to another virtual reality game to find her. But this one is an actual game, rather than an elaborate deathtrap. Nobody dies in the game here, so there's no real tension. There's not anywhere near enough of a dramatic structure to make things interesting either.

I'd like to say that the second arc realizes it should stay in the territory of a fun action series, but it falters on that, too. The villain is pretty much threatening Asuna with rape the entire arc, and there's an entire offensively badly done subplot related to incest. The show carries a better structure at this point since it lacks time skips and follows one line of related events, but it makes up for it in bad quality by including loads of poorly handled subject matter that didn't need to be there to start with.

If this series was satire, it'd be genius. It'd encapsulate everything wrong with light novels. The series is so astoundingly badly written that it's hard to believe it wasn't intentional. The series' problems have their own problems. I didn't go over a lot of plot detail or every shitty example in this review because we'd be here all day, and because this rant has gone on more than long enough.

1/10. There's nothing good about this series besides its animation and soundtrack. Those sorts of things are wasted with a bad story and bad characters, making me hate the show even more. No part of me wishes to continue watching the series into its second season. At best, it's like Twilight or Fifty Shades of Grey in how you can dissect it and use it as an example of how not to write a story.

ERGO PROXY (2006. TV-MA.)

To end on a good note, I'll conclude this ten-review article with a look at a 2006 series that had been on my watchlist for about three years. I finally got to watching it, and I was intrigued by it pretty quickly.

Ergo Proxy is a philosophical science fiction series taking place in a domed city named Romdeau. Humanity exists in domed cities like this to protect itself from the toxic air, caused by the planet being made mostly inhabitable by an undetermined apocalyptic event.

In this futuristic city, humans are often accompanied by robotic servants known as "AutoReivs". However, recent events have begun that cause these machines to become self-aware via the "Cogito virus" and go mad. This occurs at the same time that experiments on god-like beings called "Proxies" are happening.

This is where the detective Re-L Mayer and her AutoReiv Iggy come in. Re-L is sent to investigate an incident involving a self-aware AutoReive, and things quickly spiral into chaos. Re-L meets a mysterious immigrant named Vincent who hails from a protective dome city similar to Romdeau.

As with many other series on this list, I can't spoil what happens. Ergo Proxy has many, many twists and turns. The plot unwinds  over the first ten or so episodes and we learn about the world they live in a discover many of its dark secrets.

Re-L is a frequently snarky and reckless character that gives a sense of brightness to the show's dark and often apocalyptic or mechanized backgrounds. Vincent, while less bold or easygoing, is still an interesting character as he's faced with the reality of who and what he really is. He becomes more assertive and unwilling to be stepped on as the series progresses.

I noted that the plot unwinds for ten or so episodes - this leads me to mentioning the flaws of the show. I feel like Ergo Proxy had the potential to be one of the greatest science fiction works, and while it's certainly a high-tier series, it has falters.

The shows goes a route in the middle that I can only describe as pretentious. The show's philosophical nature allows it to be incredibly surreal and disturbing, but it becomes almost episodic for a period of time. This can work well in its favor, and there are a few really good episodes in that middle section, but there are two or three that weren't necessary and add so little to anything that they feel totally meandering and pointless. A game-show related episode is kind of infamous for this among people who have seen the show.

This is more frustrating when considering that the ending to the show, while certainly answering all of the MANY questions the series presented, feels as though it needed more. Mind you, it's a complete ending - but there is a certain ambiguity to what comes after that makes me want either a sequel or some sort of epilogue. Obviously, those won't ever happen - the show is well on its way to being nine years old, and it was most popular with American audiences to begin with rather than the country that produced it.

Many will also find themselves tired of the philosophical discussions about human consciousness and existence that take place in the show, or even find the show hard to follow at times (especially during the last five or so episodes) which may add more negatives for some who watch this. I never thought it became too pretentious or self-important, but it did slog at certain episodes.

What salvages those is the personality of the characters and the interesting if eventually tired concepts they present, alongside absolutely beautiful animation. The character models are my only real issue with the animation, as they become somewhat fluid in certain episodes. This is most like a budget restraint issue, and most people probably won't find it too noticeable. On the flip side, a lot of work and care was put into the show's two minute opening, which is easily the best opening of any series I have on this list.

8/10. In a review I had posted to a forum, I had initially given this a 9/10. I feel like it's worth rewatching, but in hindsight, the sour elements to the show are enough that I feel like it's worth docking off two points. Despite that, it's a wonderful series that recommend watching. The English dub is pretty stellar, but most modern post-90s dubs are good. This is no exception, and probably the best dubbed series I've listed here.


CONCLUSION

That concludes my ten reviews. Pardon the occasional typos, and thank you for reading. I will be writing on this blog again and mot likely be doing some film reviews. I still intend to review "Lee Daniel's The Butler" as I mentioned in a post from late July.