Change Your Image
please_stand_by
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Neon Demon (2016)
An Airy Yet Vicious Satire of All-Consuming Vanity
"The Neon Demon" is a film of mesmerizing aesthetic brilliance, but one which also contains visceral depravity. This makes it highly similar to much of Nicolas Winding Refn's other work. What sets this film apart is its unsettling hollowness. Its lack of emotional attachment. Its lack of a traditionally satisfying narrative. Many critics have invoked the dubious criticism of "style over substance" in order to attack these elements of the film. But is style itself not the ultimate substance in a film which is altogether about the obsessive depths of vanity? As I see it, that hollowness is very much by design. With that said, "The Neon Demon" is most definitely not something that everyone will enjoy, so tread with caution.
The film is frequently quite extreme in its imagery and visual metaphors, particularly with its infamously disgusting ending. For this reason, it can perhaps be classified as an exceptionally slick and beautiful exploitation film, albeit one with many subtleties to it and which moves at a slow, confident pace. At no point do the exploitative elements feel cheap, even when they feel excessive. Jena Malone's incredible performance as Ruby is perhaps the best example of this subtle/extreme dichotomy. She remains disconcertingly calm, soft-spoken, and amiable, yet she is also a terrifying enigma, full of menace and dread, capable of bizarre, disturbing acts. The characters of Gigi and Sarah are similarly threatening in relation to Elle Fanning's Jesse, who anchors the insanity in a simple tale of innocence encountering for the first time that which preys upon it. Will she overcome it, embrace it, be consumed by it, or paradoxically all of the above?
One criticism I had was that a few of the extraneous characters such as Hank, the character played by Keanu Reeves, seem underutilized. Hank, aside from being yet another menace for Jesse to avoid, doesn't do much. My best guess is that he serves as a way to juxtapose the masculine and the feminine, the two different types of threats that Jesse encounters both seeking to use her in their own selfish way. Ideally this would be a bit clearer.
Ultimately, though it is an unusual film, I don't think it is one which needs to be heavily analyzed in order to be understood or enjoyed. However, if you do decide to check it out, make sure you are prepared for just how bizarre and shocking it can be. In a twisted way, you just might find it to your liking.
Pitch Perfect (2012)
An Off-putting Mix of Cynical Mockery and Sugary Acapella
In many respects, I got what I expected with "Pitch Perfect". A mash-up of a fairly standard rom-com plot with numerous song-and-dance acapella performances of pop songs and a cast of oddball characters. The ongoing competition aspect also makes it reminiscent of movies such as "Bring It On", which certainly has its audience. If you like these things, you might deduce from this information that you will like this movie. But what ultimately separates this film from the standard set of expectations is the heavily cynical, mocking tone and complete deficiency of genuine emotion. This movie has no heart.
I underestimated the sheer irreverent goofiness and cheesiness of this movie, as well as the humor, which was surprisingly nasty, strange, mean, and raunchy throughout. Some of it was funny, but most of it was just... off. I can only assume that this was partly the result of some of the actresses, particularly Rebel Wilson, being given extraordinary leeway to improvise odd, tangential humor on the spot. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that lengthy sequences of her improvised comedy can often be boiled down to "I'm fat and weird and disgusting, now laugh". On the other hand, some of the odd comedic sequences were definitely scripted, which I don't understand. Is this really what people want in a movie about an all female acapella group? To be grossed out, confused, and even mildly offended? It may just be that this movie seems like the wrong place for such humor. I suppose it will either work for you or it won't.
The movie is not completely beyond some level of redemption, though. The acapella performances themselves are enjoyable enough, but they usually feel so glossy and over-rehearsed so as to no longer feel authentic. Anna Kendrick herself is also a genuinely good lead for this movie and she keeps it on the rails enough for it to be tolerable, though the romance aspect of her character arc is, like the rest of this movie, excruciatingly devoid of substance. She is, however, one of the few characters to have any sort of genuine personality and not just a cynical one-dimensional cardboard cutout stereotype for the purposes of cheap mockery.
If you're looking for a few cheap, awkward laughs, an empty clichéd romance subplot, and a cast of annoying characters all accompanied by some intermittent sugary sweet acapella pop song performances, "Pitch Perfect" is the movie for you. My only lingering question is: What is this movie supposed to be? A musical? A farce? A gross-out comedy? A cheap, cynical cash-grab for the teenage girl demographic? All of the above? I really don't know, but whatever it is, I can't say I much care for it.
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Apocalyptic Levels of Entertaining Nonsense
X-Men: Apocalypse is a movie about an ancient Egyptian mutant Pharaoh with blue skin and godlike powers who transfers his soul between bodies via magic golden goo using his solar powered pyramid who gets buried underground for thousands of years by his servants who didn't like him then wakes up in 1983 and decides to destroy/take over the world. Naturally, this results in many scenes featuring explosions, lasers, people punching each other, exposition about destroying or saving the world, some brief emotional interludes, and of course, more explosions and punching.
Silliness aside, X-Men: Apocalypse is filled with lots and lots of, well, stuff. People, places, things, ideas, and everything else. Anytime one person, place, thing, or idea starts to get developed, all of a sudden something else is happening. We go from serious dramatic sequence, to superfluous semi-comedic fluff, to introducing this character, then that character, to giant CGI action scene, then introducing another unnecessary character, to lofty dialogue about the nature of good and evil, to a scene played for laughs set to pop music, to a psychic battle set inside a character's mind, and so on and so on. It's all over the place. Needless to say, movies like this have their place, particularly in the comic book genre; however, this certainly isn't the best the genre has to offer. A smaller cast of characters, a more consistent tone, and a shorter run time all would've helped this have more staying power.
The movie does certainly have some genuinely great scenes scattered throughout. Unfortunately, many of them feel incredibly out of place in this glorious mess of a movie. That being said, for what this movie is, it works well enough to be tolerable and fairly entertaining throughout. However, it should be noted that if you have no familiarity with the X-Men comics and/or previous movies, it will make very little sense. But if every once and a while you like to see an over-the-top big budget movie that has 173 characters and subplots with giant computer generated battles and supervillains scheming to destroy/take over the world, you'll probably like this. The spectacle of it is impressive at the very least.
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
Stylishly Unique and Strangely Compelling: Wes Anderson at his Best
To use the word "quirky" to describe a Wes Anderson film is like using the word "wet" to describe water, "hot" to describe fire, or "horrible" to describe Adam Sandler's film Jack and Jill. That being said, The Grand Budapest Hotel takes that very recognizable element of Wes Anderson's well-established style and embodies it in the most thoroughly enjoyable way yet. I would go as far as to say that this is his masterpiece. It has a fast-paced, humorous, and stylish cleverness to it that pervades nearly every setting, character, costume, and piece of dialogue contained within it.
The entire aesthetic of the film, particularly the hotel itself, is so vivid and energetic so as to border on surreal, while being so uniquely stylized as to be completely distinct from anything else you've ever seen. The music for the film is also a tonally perfect match, being equal parts mysterious and playful. All of this brilliantly complements the revered, nearly mythical status of the strangely compelling lead character, eccentric hotel concierge M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), who carries the film on his shoulders with great enthusiasm with his loyal lobby boy at his side.
The film's universe and characters also have a distinctly "out of place, out of time" feeling to them. They feel just realistic enough to not be complete fantasy, but so fantastical so as to not feel real. The actual mechanics of the plot are compelling in their silly simplicity, revolving around a valuable painting known as "Boy with Apple," yet the adventure that surrounds escalates into fantastically amusing absurdity. Even the villains are filled out in such a way so as to function as effective, intimidating villains yet still be surprisingly funny and almost cartoonishly nefarious. There is also a looming, somewhat nonspecific war on the brink of breaking out in this fantasy world (reminiscent of World War II era Europe), that threatens to tear it apart. Additionally, the way the story is set up is such that we know in the beginning that the glory days of this great hotel and its legendary concierge will, with time, come to an end. These elements add hints of melancholy and longing for a bygone era, which gives the film a bit more punch and substance than it might otherwise have.
At its core, it's funny, fast-paced, witty, and weird, yet surprisingly simple and enjoyable. It will almost certainly win you over if you're interested in seeing something that isn't too heavy or serious, but still satisfying and full of substance. My only really complaint is that occasionally the Wes Anderson signature "quirky" style shines through so strongly in some of the more comedic scenes as to be cringe-inducing, but this is merely a matter of personal comedic taste. That being said, I think this movie maintains a wide appeal, even amongst individuals that haven't been a fan of Wes Anderson in the past. After all, this is probably his most universally liked film, having a unique and imaginative aesthetic and a fantastic leading performance.
La La Land (2016)
Dreamers in a World of Classic Spectacle
La La Land's opening musical number is perhaps its most incredible moment, being so catchy and beautifully filmed so as to immediately impress and engage any viewer who doesn't outright despise musicals. The amusing thing is that this scene could be cut from the film and have absolutely no impact on the story; it is purely for show, but what a show it is. This element of showiness is true for much of the film, which is certainly no insult given how impressive such a classical spectacle is in our current cinematic landscape that is almost completely devoid of such things. It's rare to see a musical released to the silver screen that isn't animated, a parody, a remake, or an adaptation. And that alone makes this film noteworthy. The fact that it is put together with tremendous talent and care also helps.
Almost every aspect of this film is executed with great flair and confidence. The cinematography is beautiful. The singing and dancing are fun, well-choreographed, and varied in style. The music in and of itself is enjoyable, and a perfect fit for the story and tone. The overall aesthetic is evocative of a colorful quasi-fairy-tale world. The characters are developed thoroughly and compellingly. The acting of the two leads is great. Romantic clichés you'd expect are present, but the strength of the overall product makes them forgivable. And the story itself is a well-crafted vehicle for all of these things to work in tandem, directed with great confidence and stylish precision, the lynchpin for it all being the classic, simple theme of pursuing one's dreams. Though admittedly if you're the type of person who is cynical about the film industry, then the constant bright-eyed Hollywood worship may get pretty grating for you.
The ending is where the movie either makes its mark or misses it, depending on your interpretation. Without going into much detail, it involves a beautifully clever musical sequence juxtaposing fantasy and reality, which I think most will agree is a highlight of the film. However, following this sequence the film ends very abruptly, which is jarring. It felt to me like it lacked the last ounce of closure needed to bring everything home, instead leaving a hollow, indecisive feeling in its wake. Perhaps this was precisely the intention, but it seemed out of place in a story that was otherwise mostly light, fun, and easy to digest.
That said, by breaking away from expectations the film is likely to make a more lasting impression on the viewer. In a way, this actually elevates the material from an objective film-making perspective as opposed to being predictable and derivative, though whether it works for you or not will largely depend on whether you come into La La Land looking for fantastical reality or realistic fantasy.
Captain Fantastic (2016)
Great Potential Soured by Strange Decisions
This film left me a bit perplexed. The premise of six wilderness dwelling, society-shunning children and their unusually strict, blunt, and academically-inclined father being forced to confront modern society is genuinely very compelling. Viggo Mortensen's performance as the father is great (dare I say 'Fantastic'?), and the family's chemistry feels energetic and natural, albeit highly unusual. The film's cinematography and general aesthetic is also quite striking. The film's writing, however, is truly baffling at times. Most of this stems from the family's interactions with the modern world once they leave their home in the wilderness.
Before I get into that, though, I really want to stress that Captain Fantastic is, on most levels, a fine film. Despite my reservations about many of the choices that were made, I'd still probably be inclined to recommend it to most people who are interested in exploring the dynamics and problems of a strangely unique family if they can tolerate the occasional dose of insufferable hypocrisy or arrogance. I honestly went into the film expecting to like it a lot, so I take no delight in picking it apart to explain what I believe is wrong with it, but I think it is worth doing. Also keep in mind that because this is probably going to be a love/hate movie for many people, these things I list might not bother you at all. That being said, let's get into some of the strange choices with the writing, of which there are many.
We as the audience naturally expect the family to behave in an unusual manner given their rather extreme lifestyle, but what we don't expect is the rather distasteful undercurrent of arrogance and contempt for other people that seems to consistently guide their behavior. They are not merely fish out of water innocently bumbling through their interactions. Instead, they are constantly reassuring themselves of the inferiority and hopeless degeneracy of those around them, while reinforcing in their minds their own superiority.
The family's inwardness allows them to justify various narcissistic antisocial behaviors. This includes the family stealing large quantities of merchandise from a store using a deceptive scheme, insulting and/or mocking nearly everyone they encounter including members of their own extended family (even when treated with hospitality), the father instructing his children to perform dangerous activities resulting in injuries, and openly despising Christians (but no other religions or beliefs). The family also has rather extreme communist leanings, even going as far as to identify favorably with despicable totalitarian communist dictators (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.). The oldest son goes as far as to seriously refer to himself as "not a Trotskyist anymore, but a Maoist", which is just an embarrassingly asinine thing to say.
There are numerous other bizarre behaviors, such as the young children's fetishization of knives and other weaponry, clinically utilitarian honesty about sex, drugs, violence, death, rape, and suicide with young children, not only allowing and justifying young children drinking alcohol, but pouring them glasses of wine under the assumption they will drink it even if they didn't ask for it (with an ironically absent diatribe about the real dangers of alcohol particularly for children, despite going into morbidly and tediously explicit academic detail about almost every other subject imaginable), and who could forget the family's inexplicable worship of Noam Chomsky. I can't quite figure out if these are inserts by the writer/director that in some way reflect his own viewpoints, or if he is attempting to poke fun at people who think and behave this way. Either way, it doesn't come across as funny or satirical despite the film being labeled a "comedy". But it sure is obnoxious.
Why do these details matter? Because this mixture of unpleasant traits make them come across as not just weird, but delusional, antisocial, arrogant, hypocritical, mean-spirited, and even dangerous. These traits can absolutely work in the right story, but they don't work well in a narrative about a father raising his impressionable young children. It's not a good sign when it's easy to see how if the father wanted his children to kill someone, it wouldn't take him long to convince them how, when, where, and why to do it with some lengthy pseudo-intellectual lecture about the evils of capitalism, his kids then rushing off with their knives to do the deed, all while smiling and singing. To put it simply, the family dynamic is that of a cult. Yet the film never ceases to treat the cult's leader (and chief brainwasher of children) as completely sympathetic.
But all of this could be forgiven if the right ending properly redeemed these character traits. Could the children ever live within society, or would they forever be outcasts? Is there some disastrous consequence of the way they have chosen to live? Instead, the father is more or less bailed out of his problematic situation by a relative, despite being extremely disrespectful towards this person constantly. This is essentially a deus ex machina moment that makes no sense and provides no satisfying resolution. After the father has his realization that maybe his kids need to be prepared to deal with the real world, he leaves on his own, only to have his entire brood of kids inexplicably emerge from a compartment in their bus hours later to console him at the exact moment he needed it, another deus ex machina moment. The film then ends with, again, no resolution to the characters' actual underlying problems integrating into society.
It really is unfortunate that such a great premise is burdened with so many elements that are obnoxious, hypocritical, or just don't go anywhere. The family of characters, especially the father, are just grating enough to frequently be annoying or alienating to the general audience member. I really feel that if the aggressively smug and cult-like family dynamic was toned down and the ending was better executed, this would be a genuinely great film. But the devil is in the details.
Wonder Woman (2017)
Exceeding Expectations, but not Perfect
With the last DC film to come out being Suicide Squad, there was good reason to be concerned about Wonder Woman. Even after the initial wave of positive reviews for it started coming in I was extremely skeptical. With DC having been in a slump of critically unpopular movies and with superhero movie fatigue on the rise, I really thought there was almost no possible way this would be good or be received well. For the most part, I was wrong. That being said, it is by no means perfect. The fact that this movie is being lauded by many critics as some kind of masterpiece is strange. I was reasonably satisfied overall, but let's not get carried away.
First, the good news: The overall premise of Wonder Woman helping to bring about an end to WWI by finding and battling the god of war Ares, is a perfectly straightforward and compelling superhero plot. The characters mostly work well, even if some of the side characters that accompany her later on feel a bit pointless and underused. Tonally this is also substantially lighter fare than the other recent DC films, which are all pretty heavy and dark and grim.
Initially, I doubted Gal Gadot could pull off carrying an entire movie, but once again, I was (mostly) wrong. She embodies the role to the point where she is probably the best part of the movie and carries it with surprising competence. Part of my skepticism came from the fact that she is/was a model whose previous forays into the world of acting have more or less been as eye candy in the mind-numbing Fast and Furious franchise.
Thankfully, her model looks are not used as a cheap device to hijack the movie into the realm of fan service. That said, her looks do help her to believably pull off a character that is essentially a goddess. Her character is also very clearly a warrior, yet she still mostly plays the character as feminine, not as a male proxy. She also plays the character with an innocent earnestness that, along with her looks, help her to stand out like a beacon in the drab, dreary, and miserable setting of WWI era Europe. And even though she may not have the acting chops of a top tier actress (and it shows in a few scenes), her being cast here fits well enough that I would have a hard time seeing anyone else in the role now. Strong casting usually trumps raw acting experience.
Some of the scenes she is in with Chris Pine's character, who she has an appropriately awkward chemistry with, were allowed to be improvised, which sometimes leads to some very clunky interactions. It kind of works with the naiveté of the character, but perhaps a more clever scripted sequence could accomplish the same thing better. I also wasn't a fan of the early sequences of the movie where Diana is growing up and receiving lots of exposition about her homeland and history. It's a beautiful setting and it sets up the rationale for her leaving, but it drags on and the other characters there are mostly uninteresting. Once she leaves, the plot picks up, with a few rocky patches here and there.
The usage of slow motion during action sequences all the way until the ending is excessive, but not to the point where it's overly obnoxious. My thoughts on the ending and the accompanying battle are mixed. It works as a flashy and climactic way to resolve her motivations for entering the war, but it almost becomes a completely different movie at that point. I think this could've been executed differently so it didn't feel as out of place.
One other problem which personally bothers me the most is the body count. Superman, Batman, and now even Wonder Woman all kill tons of people (Marvel is occasionally guilty of this as well). With Wonder Woman it feels especially wrong, since not only is she against the idea of war to begin with, but the German soldiers she is so easily crushing with her incredible strength are to her merely innocent men being manipulated by Ares. Yes, this is a war, but at no point is subdual or allowing surrender even considered after demonstrating her immense power. I understand that an action movie needs action, but action doesn't need to mean killing everybody. The early fight on the beaches of her homeland is also strange, with both sides just immediately deciding to kill the other despite having no idea who they even are. If you were a WWI era German soldier who accidentally sailed up to an unknown island and saw a bunch of women riding horses on the beach wearing ancient Greek looking armor, would you immediately open fire on them? It just doesn't make much sense.
All in all, it's a good movie made better by the fact that it exceeded expectations, but I wouldn't overdo it with the praise. Let's hope DC movies can stay at this level or improve, and maybe Gal Gadot can counterbalance that dark pessimism in the DCEU with some refreshing hopeful optimism.
Logan (2017)
A Gritty, Heartfelt Send-Off for a Legendary Character
In purely literal terms, Logan is a comic book movie. However, it's a significant departure from the standard comic book movie formula. It does not have a super-powerful threat intent on destroying the city/world/universe. It does not have a gigantic CGI battle sequence. It does not have a contrived romance subplot. It doesn't even depend on the audience having seen some number of previous films to understand the plot or character motivations. And it certainly wasn't made for the standard PG-13 audience. Instead, Logan plays out in way that could perhaps best be described as an extremely intense, violent, and emotional family road trip. And as strange as that may sound, it works almost perfectly.
The tone of the film is one of weariness and struggle; from very early on it is made clear that Logan and Professor Xavier are in hiding. The look of the characters and world itself both reflect this tone perfectly; Logan and Xavier both look like they've seen better days. Not long after the film begins, Logan becomes the begrudging guardian to a seemingly mute young girl, Laura, who is being hunted by dangerous people. What follows is a road trip across the country, punctuated by a mix of quiet, heartfelt moments and brutal, unforgiving clashes. The tension of being pursued is a constant driving force giving our characters' actions a sense of purpose, and keeping the audience engaged at all times.
If I were to note a flaw with this otherwise very strong story, it would be the abrupt introduction of a large number of characters towards the end of the film. They are mentioned previously, but they aren't really developed beyond the bare minimum. They weren't particularly necessary to the ending, and it is hard to care about them seeing as we barely know them. I couldn't help but find myself thinking that if they were written out of the story it would have been more focused overall.
That being said, the three main characters work perfectly together as a strange little family, and they are developed in such a way so as to not alienate viewers who have never seen any of the other X-Men movies. The villains are also threatening and scary throughout while still being completely believable, albeit fairly one-dimensional. The near-future world in which the events take place is also a very grounded and believable one instead of a monolithic comic book fantasy world. References to events in past films are also minimal, though they reward people for following this character through his various past adventures. The ending is incredibly satisfying.
Overall, Logan is a highly compelling standalone film that can even entertain crowds that have no interest in comic books or the movies based on them. It is one of the rare comic book movies that transcends being great within the comic book genre to being simply great, period.
Leaving Las Vegas (1995)
Love in the Midst of Terminal Despair
I'll start by saying this isn't a pleasant film to watch; however, it's a powerful one. It is executed methodically, through an unapologetic, uncompromising lens, examining the self-destructiveness of human beings in agonizing circumstances, with the caveat that even in utter anguish you can find some degree of comfort through the mutual support of another.
The main character, played by Nicolas Cage, has given up on life. He is deeply dependent on alcohol to numb the pain of a life-altering tragedy involving his past family, though the details remain unspecified. He meets Sera, a disillusioned prostitute, after giving up and moving to Las Vegas to die. They quickly become reliant on one another for support in their otherwise profoundly lonely, profoundly miserable lives. But it quickly becomes established that their paths are set; they will not change.
The film's greatest strength comes from the uncompromising nature of its exploration of difficult themes such as caring for someone in the face of unending despair and inevitable death. The story itself is fairly minimalist, making its thought-provoking points brilliantly without diluting them with anything artificial or sappy. The whole thing feels honest and genuine in its execution. The way the characters are portrayed by the two lead actors is also excellent, particularly Elizabeth Shue. Nicolas Cage's performance rides the line of overacting in a few places, but it works given the extremeness of the character.
At a few points, the film does feel like it meanders from its strengths. This is most notable in a few scenes when the main characters are not together. Whenever they are together, the film shines. I also found some of the music for the film (which was, in part, composed by the director) to be distracting or out of place, particularly in the first half. The film is also so raw in its depictions of human despair and misery that it is a hard one to really derive true enjoyment from. It's not a film I anticipate wanting to watch again any time soon.
Even while much of the film is unpleasant and difficult to digest, it is nonetheless a very strong, well-made film with a conclusion of a subtly uplifting nature. One person can make a difference in another person's life, even if it is at the very end.
Turbo Kid (2015)
An Endearing Adventure w/ Campy Violence, Made with Love
Turbo Kid is a fun little post-apocalyptic adventure, heavily evocative of certain landmark films from the 80's, particularly Mad Max; however, the creators do not rely on cheap references, but instead revel in the stylistic nuances of their influences to create something new and, for the most part, novel. Their love for what they are making is tangible throughout, giving the entire experience an earnest sincerity that most films, particularly those with a larger budget, simply don't have.
The film is quite bloody and violent, to an extent that could easily alienate viewers who are averse to such things; however, the violence is so incredibly campy and over the top so as to mostly be endearing, or even funny. That said, the film's main characters, The Kid and Apple, are so lovably innocent and optimistic that the overall tone remains lighthearted and fun. Their friendship gives the film a wonderful heart. The villains provide a good counterpoint, though they are fairly one-dimensional. The original music is also absolutely fantastic, matching the tone perfectly.
The world itself isn't developed much and occasionally the film's small budget becomes slightly detrimental to the viewer's immersion. The creators are mostly very clever with their budget though; all the characters riding bikes instead of driving cars is just adorable and matches the film's tone perfectly. The costumes and overall visual style are also top notch.
The amazing thing is that despite the silliness and low budget, this film still manages to have far more heart than most big budget films. It's a genuinely endearing and fun experience.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Dark, Relentless Intensity in its Purest Form
No Country for Old Men is an intensely unforgiving film experience, one which is built on the back of six things: 1. Intense, often darkly humorous writing. 2. Beautiful, evocative cinematography. 3. Slow but relentless pacing. 4. Stark, disturbing violence. 5. A deeply cynical, yet resolute worldview. 6. An unstoppable antagonist, more force of nature than man.
It's rare to find a film that is as beautiful as it is cynical, as intense as it is slowly paced, or as humorous as it violent. As one might expect, this odd combination of attributes does not work for everyone, and some of the most prominent user reviews on this site certainly confirm this to be the case. However, if you can get past the discomforting nature of the film and you aren't already someone with a dislike for the Cohen brothers' style, you will almost certainly be impressed. You are in for what many consider to be a masterpiece, myself included.
But why, specifically, should No Country for Old Men be deserving of the title of "masterpiece"? As with almost every Cohen brothers film, the answer isn't easily summarized. While I can't speak for others, I think there is brilliance in the way that the six elements above are synthesized into a grim but vibrant story, one that explores the human components of evil, the inhuman components of human actions, and the innate longing to return to a better past that may have never actually existed.
But ultimately that question, "why?", is the same one that the Sheriff character is left trying to answer throughout the film in the wake of various seemingly pointless acts of violence. Instead of answering that question, the writers leave it up to the viewer to contemplate, just as it is up to the viewer to decide whether such a conclusion is brilliant, empty, or both.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
A Brilliant Puzzle Worth Trying to Solve
Many have compared the underlying story of Mulholland Drive to a puzzle, and I must agree. However, unlike a traditional puzzle, this one arguably has only partial solutions that each depend upon personal interpretation. For much of the film, identities are blurred, events appear unrelated or pointless, and even the acting and character motivations come across as unnatural and bizarre. The atmosphere created by David Lynch's dreamlike style (through both cinematography and music) is wholly surreal as well, as anyone familiar with him would expect. But unlike other stories that explore the surreal by descending into the frustrating realm of purely subjective interpretation, Mulholland Drive is anchored by several critical, objective events and relationships in the central character's life. As the end of the film nears, the details surrounding these critical events are revealed, quickly bringing clarity to much of the bizarre amalgamation of prior events, but the vast periphery remains mysterious. When all is said and done, the viewer is left with many questions and even more answers waiting to be uncovered.
In short, Mulholland Drive is an incredibly complex film, and one which can also be very engrossing and satisfying. It will inevitably confuse and disinterest some viewers, particularly those not interested in working to decode such a puzzling narrative. Yet unlike many films which lose much of their appeal once the twist or mystery has been revealed, this film only gets more interesting the more you piece together. Perhaps others will have a different experience, but for me it was as if the answers to the peripheral mysteries of Mulholland Drive were all there, right in front of me, but just out of reach; just out of focus; just needing one more connection to be made. And the more you piece together, the more you realize that the number of meaningful connections between various events is absolutely staggering. It never ceases to fascinate me with its depth and for this reason, I regard it as a truly brilliant film.