Books
by: Donna Tartt
10/10
It is difficult to write about my favourite book. I have read it 8 times now; every winter since I discovered it, and twice a couple years ago. Several years ago I wrote a piece about it, but part of what I love so much about this novel is that my take on it legitimately evolves after every reading. You know that Maya Angelou quote which says something like "People will forget what you said and what you did, but they will never forget how they made you feel"? It's kind of like that. My relationship to this novel has moved past the way I engage with any other piece of media. I may one day forget the plot, my favourite quotes, and the characters in this text. However, the potent mix of nauseating anxiety felt, grandiosity exuded, and vibrant morally challenging relationships will stick with me forever.
I read this novel every year near Christmas in part because of the viscerally upsetting section involving a man slowly freezing to death, but also because it captures the life experience I was having in my early 20's when I discovered this book, and it is a period of time I am equally sentimental about as I am wary of revisiting.
The language is enchanting and unique as are the richly layered characters and relationships between them. Visiting Vermont, a state I otherwise would've had no interest in, has become a part of my bucket list. So much of me and how I've engaged with my world has been affected by "The Secret History", I struggle to explain exactly how it's taken hold of me. "The Secret History" is one of the most intellectually and emotionally challenging novels I have every experienced, and yet there are no direct feelings of grief or elated joy. The spectrum of emotion that this text has you engage with is almost on a spectrum totally separate from what I had known before. Its akin to the spectrum of light that I know is out there but I cannot see. Whatever it is I feel when I'm reading this book, I have found it only in glimmers elsewhere. This is a good thing because while there are certainly parts of this story which are warm, heavenly, and idealistic, the prevailing idea behind this is that we can never know one another the way we think we can. We will romanticize everything around us because we need to believe in the sentimental glow behind our friendships, experiences, and selves. Beauty is terror. Whatever we find beautiful, we tremble before it. Just so, this novel is stunningly beautiful and I humble myself before it every year, leaving it a trembling mess with an uncanny stillness in my chest cavity, a cerebral pounding in my head.
Tartt's other novels are good too, particularly "The Goldfinch". I sometimes say she is my favourite author, but Celeste NG is probably a better answer because Tartt's "A Little Friend" did nothing for me.
I also read the first 3 books of Lemony Snicket's "A Series of Unfortunate Events", but I'm not listing them or their rating here as I wanna do a whole thing on it sometime next year. I am still working on my "House of Leaves" essay too...and my "The Thing" one...and my "Honeyboy" one.
As it turns out, while this project I've done over the year has inspired me to write more and has gotten me more in the habit of thinking critically about everything, it has also been very demanding and time consuming.
I am in school for every month of 2021, including the summer months, but I'm determined to get at least the Snicket one out because the "House of Leaves" one is infinitely more complicated and difficult to organize, and I've barely got a rough draft on the other two.
Movies & TV
Movies & TV
Directed by: M Night Shyamalan
8.5/10
Once again, a brilliant opening scene from M Night. The set-up is instantly concerning, puzzling, intense, and emotionally engaging. The entire film manages to carry the traumatic weight introduced in this scene, adapting to the drama and tension as it unfolds. "Unbreakable" is reminiscent of "The Sixth Sense" in many ways. Both films have very vulnerable and intimate character relationships as their foundation for all arcs and development, they are harsh and tonally imposing (almost to a detriment, but not quite), and feature unfortunately gifted protagonists. I'm starting to see a pattern in most of M Night's films, actually. With the exception of only a few, he seems very interested in telling stories on the tragedies of unusual people. We have a boy who sees dead people, the pastor who has lost faith, a man fragile as glass, a person suffering from a particularly volatile case of multiple personality disorder, and a child possessed by the devil, to name a few. Considering this, I think it is also fair to say that M Night is at his best when he is doing tragic stories, as opposed to horror or thriller flicks. He is going to do a twist no matter what, this is his trademark, but at least when he gives us am emotional story it has legs whether the twist lands or not.
Thankfully, in "Unbreakable", the twist absolutely lands. Samuel Jackson's closing speech is chilling and heartbreaking following such a sympathetic performance. Bruce Willis is effectively withdrawn, morose, and subdued too. We were definitely spoiled by Osment and a Culkin in M Night's other films, so comparatively the child actor in this one is kind of a let down, but he is probably objectively good, all things considered. The real MVP in this affecting story on fate and origin stories is the soundtrack, though, which manages to conjure both tear-jerking feelings in me as well as a simmering moodiness. The cinematography has an interesting relationship to the soundtrack and I found myself consistently blown away by visual tricks used in nearly every scene- the movement in this film is dynamic, interesting, and compliments the emotion of the scene and soundtrack even when there is little to no action happening.
Incidentally, speaking to the scene where Bruce Willis and his son are adding more and more weight to his bench-weight, this is a great example of why women live longer than men. Who the fuck would endanger their lives like this on the 1% chance they are a superhuman, just on a hunch? Without a spotter?! Dudes. That's who.
Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
8.5/10
I really like this menacing Western even if there are too many dead dogs in it. The Coen Brothers are very good at what they do and this is definitely one of their best films in my opinion. While "Fargo" will always be my favourite, "Old Country for No Men" is possibly even more brutal and uncaring and left me with a heavier thud in my heart.
This is the first time I've seen this film, and I'd forgotten how much of a cultural phenomenon Javier Bardem was when this was released in 2007. I can see why now- his physicality alone is implicitly threatening, the way he speaks is unsettling in a way I can't quite put my finger on, and his perseverance in the hunt is almost in-human. He is almost like a terminator with the ability to pass more believably as merely a strange, vaguely upsetting man. He is a perfect antagonist to the blank slate Josh Brolin presents- you will inevitably see yourself in this every-man who doesn't have the time to be paranoid, frightened, or desperate. We all want to escape the lives we are in. Where we are bound to soften and sympathize for Brolin, we see nothing of ourselves or benign humanity in Javier Bardem. His motivations do not resemble anything which we know to drive people to evil, his methods are quiet and unresponsive, and he is never caught or contained.
I love the juxtaposition Coen Brothers films take with these godless atmospheric settings populated by humours and characters which comfortably live in a singular tunnel vision, unaware of the serious evil and depression which pervades all of their lives just out of focus. Most of all, I love protagonists like Frances Mcdormand in "Fargo" and Tommy Lee Jones in "No Country for Old Men" who are drawn in to this and reveal upsetting philosophies and realities which have been there all along in the body of these stories and places, just unspoken and filling the space between words. You can see this even in the dialogue and in quiet scenes between actions- the balanced art between comically natural and profoundly insightful.
This is a rich and thoughtful take on many themes for the Western genre including the futility of understanding God and evil, the tragedy of vengeance, and the brutal lack of closure in disturbing violence under the gaze of a bright uncaring sun. It seems wrong to say this is a "comfy" film, considering how bleak and brutal it is, but of course it is comfy whether we are comfortable with this or not. Westerns are comfy. Humanity is fucked.
Directed by: John Carpenter
7/10
This one feels very different from John Carpenters other films in practically every way, but it never feels "divorced" from his body of work because of one crucial signature- Carptenter's visual framing and sound design. Even when you're coasting along this summery teenage sex comedy with a concept free of all typical Carpenter-esque weight or politics, the shot composition and guttural baselines still hold the imprint of Carpenter's style. This is part of what makes him so talented, I think. His ability to make films like this that are entirely different genres with no thematic connections at all to the rest of his large body of work, while still clearly showcasing his characteristic artistic flair, is something I really respect about John Carpenter and I find it very endearing to see in his films.
"Christine" is a hoot. This is far and away the funniest of Carpenter's films both in dialogue (people drop lines like "New car smell is perhaps the best smell of all, except maybe pussy") and in ideas put forward like a woman being genuinely jealous of a car, believing wholeheartedly that her boyfriend is cheating on her with his vehicle. I mean, you can't take a film about a magical vengeful car too seriously, and "Christine" certainly steers in to its fun and silly vibe. The conceit is loose and not particularly deep, but its got charm nonetheless. The origin of the car, what it means to the world, and real character arcs are never really explored, but it isn't lacking anything by being what it is.
There are themes that are somewhat considered, such as toxic masculinity and it's relationship to virginity and social class, but by in large this is a film about a really endearing couple of friends and a protagonist that has a hilarious journey from nerdy dork to extremely sexual hotshot who falls in love with a car dead-set on murder. The action is well done and fun, even intense at times, and the 70's teen-comedy vibe is strong here. My only real complaint here is that it is a bit too long in the third act and it features the most egregious use of 30-year-old actors playing teenage boys I have ever seen. Fuckin Johnny Switchblade is at least 35 with a coke habit and Carpenter has him passing as an 18 year old who is still under the authority of his teachers. It's kind of hysterical.
Bless John Carpenter. He must be protected at all costs!
Directed by: Steven Spielburg
6.5/10
I was very nostalgic for this one, and it mostly held up to my hype. This film is a lot more bleak than I remembered, though I kind of love that. Bummer America is of course infinitely better than Patriotic America, and as an adult I really see the value in films which depict America the Great like this- as a place just like the rest of the world, full of people who are chaotically selfish and self-less. I know some of the criticism directed at this film regards how inconsistently human nature is portrayed, such that people will kill each other over a vehicle in one scene and all work together to save Tom Cruise in the next. However, I firmly believe that Spielburg depicting people this way is meaningful and intelligent- if their survival depends on it, people will claw over each other to get on the boat, but if they've got nothing to lose and find themselves all desperate together, of course they'll help one another! I honestly don't see why this is a criticism at all. In this respect, "War of the Worlds" is similar to "The Road"- it's a bleak story of a father trying desperately to protect his children in a world turned dangerous and savage, and they are faced with a humanity which will steal & kill as easily as it will protect and share. Fighting back is futile, running and hiding is the only real option.
2/3rds in to this film, I was convinced that this may have been a masterpiece we all slept on. The tripods are spectacular and still look incredibly threatening, alien, and sound heavy and other-worldly. The violence and action is sudden, upsetting, and Lovecraftian in horror and scale. The terror is huge and unspeakable, and the trauma witnessed is portrayed very well through Cruise and Fanning's lead performances. Honestly, I can't help but feel like Dakota Fanning is often stiffed in consideration for excellence in child acting. Fanning's unhinged panic, fear, and traumatic breakdown is raw and spectacularly genuine. I'm beginning to wonder if the cruelty of Hollywood has something to do with a significant boom in great child actors in the early 2000's. Sure, we have a couple today, but there aren't nearly as many and they don't seem to work half as much. I hope it has something to do with child labour laws increasing and parents being more wary to sell their children in to stardom, and not just coincidence. Tom Cruise also does well in this flick- he is incredibly likeable, believable, and is uniquely talented in action-packed scenes. I know Tom Cruise famously does his own stunts, which may explain why he always appears to present and engaged in the action on screen, but I have to believe there's an element of internal talent there too.
All of the grim disaster footage, non-stop threat, and spectacular special effects really elevate what could've been just a blockbuster schlock. It's honestly really good, but then Spielburg ducks out of having the teenage boy die in combat, that coward, and this in addition to having the last 5 minutes feature the American army gunning down a tripod really leaves a sour taste in the mouth. I cannot under-state how unfortunate it is that he pussies out of an objectively better choice, and then appears to toss in the trash every faithful philosophical element his piece had with the original "War of the Worlds". If the army could gun down these tripods, what was the point of the whole film? Why were they able to desecrate the land indiscriminately, if all we needed were a couple big guns? The entire point of the tripods and the aliens is that we are powerless to stop them and we must humble ourselves before them in fear. *sighs deeply*
Now, the Robbie problem. Another thing people moan and bitch about here is that they see no reason why a teenage boy would make a beeline to join the army as it heads toward certain doom. On a surface level I can understand this, but the moment you put yourselves in his shoes or use any kind of contextual perspective at all, you realize how stupid these people are (and, how stupid Spielburg is for having him survive).
Reasons why Robbie would Want to Join the Army:
1. He has experienced profound trauma. In experiencing trauma to this degree, the brain will illogically look for ways to have agency over it. This is why we see people become reckless while suffering from PTSD, why we see them get in to bar fights and even sign up to go back to war
2. General American attitudes towards the military and masculinity
3. A natural teen desire to overextend themselves to be perceived as adults
4. A desire to protect his family and country in vengeance
5. He has likely wanted to join the army his whole life, and now more than ever he sees a demand for it
You following? Ok. Now, here are the reasons why this film would've been unarguably better if Robbie had died in combat after running head-on towards a hopeless fight, with the tripods completely desecrating the area moments later:
1. Imagine the impact of Cruise talking to his daughter about Robbie's choice, possibly even moralizing and/or justifying his death depending on how Spielburg wants to direct this character. There are so many ways this could richen both Cruise and Fanning's characters and character development.
2.Imagine how much more authentic the ending would seem. Imagine the emotional impact of Dakota Fanning telling mom that Robbie is dead. At this point we may see, too, how Fanning has conceptualized both of Robbie's death and how humanity has responded to the alien threat as a whole
3. This would complete all character arcs. Robbie would be understood as a man and given agency over his trauma. Cruise would emotionally connect with both of his children in this grief. Finally, Fanning would learn to trust her father and form a more nuanced world-view.
4. The alien threat was already established to be immense and inconceivably terrifying. Imagine if it was also an emotional threat. Imagine how crushing Cruise's futile attempts to kill a tripod would be if he was also trying to avenge his son's death
5. Robbie dying would make an actual statement about the place American soldiers have in a war like this, about American values in general and what place heroism and valor have in hopeless wars like this. But, we can't have that, can we? Not when you are Blockbuster Bro Xtreme.
Directed by: Barry Sonnenfeld
9/10
This film is basically perfect. Will Smith has maxed-out charisma, Tommy-Lee Jones is unreasonably likeable, and all 90 minutes are perfect non-stop entertainment. It's kind of like the first Harry Potter film in that it is just absolutely saturated with indulgent magic and fun. Hell, it was 1997. This was the age of fun movies, and this is one of the greats. It is also really, really funny. I feel good just thinking about it, but I have almost nothing to say about it. It is good, clean fun with a lot of goop and fun alien bits. Godbless it.
Directed by: Barry Sonnenfeld
3.5/10
This film is embarrassingly bad and what makes it worse than something obviously terrible like "Land of the Lost" or "Ted" is that elements that were likeable and fantastic with such ease in "Men in Black" have been curiously desecrated in this sequel. For instance, lets take Will Smith. At first, I didn't hate the new direction they take his character. I thought it was kind of interesting to show him feeling dissatisfied and lonely in his life, the glamour and excitement of his career taking a back seat which seemed like an organic way to step in to new territory for the series as a whole, too. However, all sense of a spirit and soul for Agent J has been completely evaporated. It isn't just that he is no longer excited with MIB, he has an almost depressive demeanour and nothing in the script or direction seems to have any self awareness about this. I understand that they wanted to play with the idea of J being the mentor to K in this one, which is a fine conceit, but there are so many reasons why this doesn't work. You'd think they'd simply have them switch emotional roles too- Smith as a warm-hearted mentor and K as an excited newcomer. They don't do this though, maybe because they cant do this- apparently we have seen all of the magic of this universe, Smith does his best to portray J as a mentor but in doing so sacrifices all of his charisma, and K curiously is grumpy and withdrawn for the entire film. It's just a downer, even if the script believes itself to be funny and energetic. Smith's charisma comes from his energy which has been completely subdued like a newly neutered animal, and Tommy-Lee Jones's charisma comes from him being wise and knowledgeable while also likeable and relatable, of which he is none of these things as the grumpy amnesia dude. Somehow, Johnny Knoxville's character is the only one with any kind of spark of life. Seriously, not even the main villain appears committed to this flick. It seems as if everyone involved in this had no faith in it, was bored stupid, and just holding out for a paycheque.
Very few jokes land, the visual gags look cheap and terrible, and pretty much everything just comes across as limp and lifeless including the disposable female love interest. Maybe worst of all, there are some really really irritating bits. The talking dog damn near gets a lead role and he fucking word for word copies a bit from "Shrek" as Donkey. It is unbearably cringy, and I haven't even got to what they did to the coffee worms. The coffee worms are great. They are memorable, funny, and fit naturally in to the rich background of the series. Here, they become action heroes?
Ugh. It's just a mess and I'll probably forget it entirely in a couple weeks. This is the only solace I find in this disaster- that it will soon disappear from my consciousness forever.
Directed by: Ron Howard
8/10
One thing I've learned this year is that I adore huge cinematic openings in film. Not all movies are for sweeping you up in to awe and succeed in engaging your curiosity right away, but I love the ones that do. Watching "Willow" felt very nostalgic even if I'd never seen it before, and it wasn't just the old-school practical effects and giant sets reminiscent of the 80's. It has a classic "adventure movie" feel that has really been lost in modern film-making. The protagonist, Warwick Davis, is a genuine delight to watch and is instantly likeable. I actually think it's super funny that his first instinct upon finding the big baby is "fuck this, I already have two children. This one will literally eat me out of house and home". I mean, he isn't wrong. He is absolutely in the right here, but the adventure narrative must start somewhere, so he sets off to return the baby to the castle it comes from.
George Lucas has strengths and weaknesses, like us all, and I think "Willow" is an example of a movie which exemplifies his strengths very well. The world explored feels very believably fleshed out and full of touch-points which ignite our curiosity. The characters and their personalities all reflect the various attitudes and sentiments of their environments, too. Not the least of which, Val Kilmer, who is stellar as Ye Old Shitposter. Can I also say, fuck, the magic in this bitch is cool. Aside from Dark Crystal, I can't think of a single other film with magic that is even close to as awesome as that seen in "Willow". People are constantly turning in to demonic things, animals, summoning things, and incorporating magic in to fierce battles. Though I will always hold a bit of fondness for Harry Potter movies, I have to admit they absolutely killed magic in film. Aside from maybe one or two scenes, magic used in battle in the Harry Potter series is just zips and zaps of lightning, not doing much other than soft murder and push-back. Magical creatures are a whole thing too- "Willow" uses some legitimately bitchin' stop motion animation for huge lizard atrocities. Another thing I love about "Willow" is the absurd diversity of sizes in human races. There are the "regular" humans like Val Kilmer, there are what are essentially hobbits, and then there are tiny fairy people that are also caveman barbarians who are constantly looking for more liquor.
God, it's a fun flick. It's exciting, it's visually striking, and it's very wholesome. Remember when children's films could have kids in legitimate peril with consequences and tension? Those were the days.
My one complaint with "Willow", and I can't say I completely blame it because it does pre-date a lot of these things, is that a lot of times it just feels like a discount version of Star Wars, LOTR, The Princess Bride, Gullivers Travels, and The Hobbit films. It isn't a particularly focused flick and a lot of the aesthetics and story beats feel kind of all over the place, but hell- I can't hold creativity and a sense of adventurous fun against it because I loved every minute of it. I guess I just see how it could've been tighter and stood out more on it's own instead of feeling like a less spectacular version of other fantastic adventure films.
Directed by: Rob Reiner
10/10
I know, I know. Spicy hot take. This film is perfect.
I don't even know how to write about this in any kind of interesting way. It is just obviously great, universally adored, so easily flawless. "The Princess Bride" has near nuclear levels of wholesomeness as each storyline succeeds at being overwhelmingly genuine, masterfully executed and balanced with drama, humour, and danger. It is shocking that this flick never feels corny, and maybe that's due to how tight the script is. Each line is perfect, there is no fat at all that could be trimmed. There are endless excellent insults, rare and powerful uses of swears, and endearing exchanges. If humanity were to send out 100 films to space and beyond, to represent us and our art, I would hope this would be one of them.
Directed by: Sarah Polley
8.5/10
I was surprised to love this movie as much as I did. Up to half an hour in, I felt annoyed at the assertion that this unconvincing slimeball from Montreal was supposed to be some kind of romantic lead. This reaction, as it turns out, was probably entirely intentional as he doesn't really serve as a romantic character so much as an open door. You're not supposed to like the french dude, you're just supposed to understand Michelle Williams. As soon as she makes her choice, the french dude dissapears entirely in to the background. He never really mattered, but the conflict he sows in character development and dramatic choices does. Typically, this kind of treatment towards a character is done with disposable women. It is interesting to see how it looks with a male character- he was harder to immediately dismiss because I expect more. His being disposable isn't as transparent as, say, a female love interest in Men in Black, though. The choice to have him fade away immediately after his novelty is accepted is to emphasize that what he represented may have been shallow, novel, and fleeting- but that does not make the protagonist's journey in realizing what having agency means to her happiness any less significant and moving.
Anyways, I'm meandering a bit here. "Take This Waltz" is such a smart and subversive deconstruction of the romantic genre, you almost don't realize what it's doing until you're as far gone as Margot (the protagonist). While I do maintain that several of the monologues are over-written and some of what Margot says in the first act just...doesn't come off as natural speech or something anyone would just open up to about to a creepy stranger, the majority of the script is really fleshed out and engaging. I wont deny that there were a couple times that I had to roll my eyes. To the film's credit, though, at least I was never rolling my eyes at it being corny or trying to elicit un-earned emotion in me. Not once did I feel manipulated or tricked while watching this and every emotional beat was entirely earned. Honestly, more than anything, this is a film about a woman's relationship to her own mental health, confidence, and what it means in the face of an otherwise happy relationship with a husband who loves her but ultimately seems oblivious to her suffering. If there's anything to take from this film, it is that "communication is key" is not just some cliche. If you cannot communicate with your partner through things like this, you will feel alone no matter how loved you are.
There's just a lot to love about this from a film-making perspective, and I'm honestly shocked I haven't heard or seen more of this from film-essayists on youtube and such. The lighting and music in this film is absolutely gorgeous. Take the first shot, for example: Margo is baking muffins in a warmly lit kitchen, bare feet on a soft wooden floor. The colours of the cookware and batter are appealing and comforting and Margot's quiet ease through the baking process is relaxing to watch. The music, however, hints at an emotional layer behind all of this comfort. The music is that kind of subtly sad indie acoustic folk you hear sometimes, and Margot's expression is far off, thoughtful, vacantly sad. There's a real sense of the emotional place the protagonist is in without a single line of dialogue or anything revealed at all other than an orchestral feeling you get from all of these little pieces in place.
Seth Rogen and Michelle Williams's chemistry is really interesting. They are able to portray an implicit physical chemistry and a sense of natural co-existence and communication without any of the cliche's and focus that other directors may use, effectively holding your hand and spelling the relationship out for you. A really beautiful trick is played on you when you first meet Rogen. You know that Margot is probably going to leave him for the french guy at the airport that she was flirting with, so you have to assume that what you will be shown here is a husband that is dismissive, unloving, or otherwise lacks chemistry with her. And yet, right away they greet each other with affection and dozens of scenes follow with them laughing, joking around, quietly loving each other. There are obviously bits of conflict, but by and large these serve to extenuate Margot's dissatisfaction with the slow pace of her current life and relationship, severely depressed and drawn to the visceral excitement and spark of new love. I just love this warm depiction of marriage, even if its one that ultimately ends. It is comfortable and goofy, not always grandiose or hinging on power dynamics that seem to be the cornerstones of the romantic genre. "Take This Waltz" depicts a marriage with the same casualness and friendship of dating and the grandiosity of love and dedication lies between the lines- lines which the film is always just on the edge of revealing, but wisely chooses not to until the end.
I love so much of it, even when it is flawed. Even when I am bored with the 15 or 20 minutes dedicated to her flirting with the french guy, it is not long before I am blown away by inventive shots like the 360 degree time-lapse set to Leonard Cohen's song with the same title. So many seemingly small moments, like the infamous chicken line, are revealed to be rapt with meaning. This isn't just Seth Rogen saying a funny line, it is a portal in to Williams's mental health and Rogen's relationship (or lack thereof) with it. A beautiful film, through and through. I will definitely be watching more of Sarah Polley's films.
Directed by: M Night Shyamalan
9/10
Disclaimer: I know that this is a hard film to watch and justify as a practitioner of mental health, or as a person at all involved with bipolar disorders. I completely understand the problematic framing and coding of this work, and I am outing myself now as someone who can recognize this and write about it but I'm choosing not to right now. I adore this film, I respect the talent behind this film, and these things exist separately for me and this silly project I'm doing all year over the larger picture of dangerous stigma in mental health. On this platform, which only myself and 3-5 people see anyways, I'm just going to talk about the film as an artistic piece.
I did not expect this to be as good as I remembered it being in theatres, but god damn does it deliver. Having gone through all I care to of Shyamalan's work, I have come to believe that he is a firm lightning-in-a-bottle man. His films are either some of the most incredibly things I've ever seen, or actual poo-poo. That is what he does. He takes a buckshot approach, and it hits the mark enough of the time that he can afford to keep going. Honestly, I'm glad he keeps going. With the exception of maybe 1 or 2 films, you cant deny that he absolutely loves what he does and creates and you can tell that he is passionate about every single one. He is passionate, inventive,and takes big risks. For these reasons, and for the handful of incredible films he makes, I respect the shit outta the man and I hope he continues to make films well in to the 2020's.
Enough about him though. Obviously you have come here to marvel at James Macavoy's un-naturally gifted performance with me. I can think of no other word for it- whatever it is he had to do to himself to achieve this, it was not under the watchful eye of God. In saying this, I do not mean that he must've paid a high price for a witch to curse him in the Scotland moors. No, what you see here is without a doubt 100% raw human ingenuity and talent. I just mean, I can't imagine what capacities within himself he has tapped in to. Whatever it is, it comes from an evolution that definitively strays from God's vision of man.
For every character Macavoy has a distinct tic, body language, syntax, and other methods of communication to make immediate meaningful ties to each persona. Such a harsh and demanding focus is put on Macavoy, you have to assume it took outrageous confidence and bravery on both his past and M Night's to frame a film this way such that everything is hinging on Macavoy achieving the impossible. If Macavoy was not given this intense spotlight and unwavering trust, I do not think he would succeed like he does and the film would be an interesting one, but not the psychological torment it became. Even just the framing, lighting, and the stillness of a bold and unwavering gaze which the camera puts on Macavoy while he is performing, evolving, somehow portraying a barely concealed rage and torture clawing just beneath the skin, is indicative of raw talent in both direction and acting. I don't even want to google the academy awards for this year. I'm 99% sure Macavoy wasn't nominated for a thing, and though I'm not under any impression that the Oscars are representative of objective talent, for fucks sake's throw the man a bone! The camera rarely even cuts away from Macavoy as he transforms between personas- you know with a sickening certainty that what you are seeing here is all just the man before you, no smoke or mirrors. When he is bending those bars you know that this must be special effects, but the man transforming in to a beast is arguably true and I think this implicit knowledge which comes from placing the focus of this film totally on the transformations instead of just on the threat alone is what makes that internal awe and terror so visceral to me.
Macavoy is certainly the strongest component of this film, but by no means the only noteworthy one. I love that the relationship between "Barry" and his therapist is immediately strife with tension; interpretive and interesting. The therapist is a great character and I love to see a fulfilled career woman in film like this- totally dedicated, fulfilled, and not framed as a person who has yet to learn the true meaning of Christmas and the value of having a family. Anya Taylor-Joy is also great at bringing her signature quiet and empathetic intensity to the screen. The concept of "The Beast" and the threat behind him and all of Macavoy's other personas is a great conceit too- even up to the last moment of the film he is largely unknowable, unpredictable, and even so much stronger and more intelligent than you could guess or prepare for. This is terrifying and allows the tension to be carried with a sense of morbid curiosity as well.
Just a fucking great psychological thriller, through and through. If someone were new to the genre of psychological thrillers, this would probably be one of my first recommendations to them.
Directed by: M Night Shyamalan
4.5/10
This film is M Night's attempt at making his own Avengers movie.
I found it really underwhelming and the more I sat with it, the more I realized how unnecessary and empty it is. "Glass" offers literally nothing to each of it's three protagonists and only serves to give them all identical and fundamentally worthless endings. It's such a shame because after "Unbreakable" and "Split" we are left with extremely compelling characters with endings that, while not completely fused closed, are satisfying and complete a storytelling arc on their own. Why M Night felt that he needed to extend any of these stories, contrive some reason for them to all be together, and then end it all having covered no ground and accomplished nothing narratively, is beyond me. I have to assume he just wanted to put butts in seats and figured a crossover episode would do this. I mean, it kind of worked didn't it?! While it was critically panned, a lot of people loved it and it sold a lot of tickets I think.
There are a lot of reasons that this film really bummed me out for existing. Most of these reasons can be summed up with the fact that so much of what goes on has little to no thematic weight to it, everything feels forced and conceptually a stretch (even for M Night), and it has absolutely none of the tension or intrigue that "Unbreakable" and "Split" have. In fact, this film actively neuters the characters that come from it's predecessors. It's a real bummer. I don't hate this movie at all, it just let me down. It was boring sometimes, but the feeling that stuck with me was more of a disappointment in M Night for making this thing that seemed to cheapen his other films for me. Macavoy is now a ripped circus monkey, Samuel L Jackson is some kind of depressed and neutered lab rat, and Willis isn't really in it at all and kind of just sits in a cell until he escapes and is immediately shot just like the other two. They are put out of their misery but maybe I just liked watching them more when they were still spry young pups.
First, insert a "look how they've massacred my boy" meme for Macavoy. Instead of portraying 9 unique people on screen, in this film he does 32. I'm kidding, but he does do 20. In "Split", we see him evolve between characters. However, in "Glass" they have this gimmick set up where for some reason flashing lights will just snap him out of one personality and switch him in to another. Thus, we have a dozen scenes of people using flashing lights on Macavoy so that he may dance monkey dance and do a handful of characters in a couple minutes. The tension from his transformations is gone, and in fact it's often played for laughs! I think M Night is confused in thinking that what made this whole thing compelling was the variety of characters, when it is actually the unsettling transformation that takes place between them. Watching Macavoy struggle and physically transform his facial expression from one person to another is what is fascinating, not flicking a switch to see an instant new character like some toy. There isn't even much reason for half of these characters to be used, other than for spectacle. In "Split", every character is used for a specific purpose other than two of them which are revealed in a video diary just to give you an idea of his potential. Really, only 4 of them are given any screen time so that we can fully invest in to their respective motives and what emotional energy they bring to the screen. In "Glass", Macavoy hardly spends more than a minute with any given character at any one time other than Kevin (who is, tragically, used most in the last minutes of his life in an attempt to pull on your heartstrings) and The Beast. The intention in "Glass" is no longer on examining how well Macavoy can play different characters, but just on how many he can do. It is exhausting.
This is where it gets really sad for me. For some reason, The Beast is no longer a frightening and irrational animal-human hybrid who is bloodthirsty and barely held back by the other personas. Now, The Beast takes front stage, is frequently rational, and engages in monologues explaining his unique philosophy or something. Again, I don't think M Night understands that what made The Beast interesting and frightening was that he is so unpredictable and savage. In "Split", The Beast is used sparingly to elicit really intense emotional fear, and his real strength is mostly only hinted at until the climax. Nobody cares about what drives The Beast, intellectually. His motivations are not interesting or frightening, the rest of Macavoy is. So having The Beast be some rational sidekick, used basically just for muscle and shown in an overwhelming amount of action fight scenes, only to have him shot like an animal, is a really big bummer and a tragic misunderstanding of what made that character at all compelling. While "Split" is problematic in its depiction of mental health, I'll take that over Muscle Man On Command any day.
Don't get me wrong, Willis and Jackson were also done dirty. The thing is, both of those performances were mediocre and you can tell they'd checked out. Macavoy was still giving it his all and it is exhausting to watch him constantly dancing in front of the camera to keep your attention. He used to be able to sit in front of you and deliver a chilling, sometimes even totally speechless performance. Now, he is dashing at you to attack only to be stopped completely in his tracks by a camera flash. Bruce Willis can be apparently completely destroyed with some water now where, as I understood it, the whole idea was that his only weakness is that he can drown like the rest of us- not that he is extremely sensitive to water. Samuel L Jackson spends 90% of the movie literally sedated and even when he is revealed to be sentient the whole time, all of the empathetic and engaging emotion in his performance is gone.
The reasoning behind them all being together in that mental hospital is tenuous at best, and the more you talk and think about everything which suspends the plot, the looser and sillier it all becomes. There is a lot of M Night's unfortunately trademarked thoughtless sillyness, but sadly not much else to hold it up. Normally, I respect the man for taking risks, but this didn't feel like a risk- it felt like a cash grab. I don't see the risk in just smushing these characters together and stringing them along in a plot with no punch, no urgency or pacing.
The end credits scene of "Split" that hints at this movie is incredible, but I think it should've been left there. It was an interesting "ah-ha!", but all of the thematic ideas in both "Split" and "Unbreakable" were explored really well and mostly to their own natural conclusions. "Split" ended on a bit of a cliffhanger, but not so much that it doesn't have a concluding feel to it. You don't always need the whole story. Sometimes, an idea is only able to be interesting and fleshed out for the middle bit. I think a sequel to "Split" would be kind of challenging to do because you'd either have to lean hard in to humanizing him all over again which would turn it more in to a drama and would clash with the existence and actions of The Beast, or you can make it in to a horror movie starring The Beast which would be uninspired for a lot of the same reasons as "Glass" is. "Glass" just had nothing interesting to add, for me. Not one character is better having been seen through the lens of "Glass" and every new element introduced is pretty contrived and uninteresting as well.
On the bright side, the movie poster fucking rocks. Why can't we have more intricate posters? Minimalism is very bold and effective sometimes but it's used to a lazy degree lately, in my opinion.
Directed by: John Carpenter
8.5/10
Generally, I'm not a fan of "born yesterday" romance plots. This is the exception, and I think it's because a lot of the connection formed between the protagonist and the born-yesterday person involves moving through her relationship to her late husband and the grieving process. It may sound strange that this woman processes her grief by forming a relationship with an alien who looks identical to her husband, later sleeping with him and being impregnated with a human baby who will look like her late husband, but love and grief is messy and its genuinely really moving. The film wisely doesn't rush this, either. Their trust and relationship is developed slowly and while this film does over use that awful trope of the born-yesterday person constantly asking for definitions and acting stupidly in awe, at least in this film many of his questions lead to beautiful insights in to this woman's relationship to her world and her grief.
It's funny, initially I guess I didn't consider how much this film triumphs in its depiction of "functioning" grief and moving on, but the longer I sit with it the more it is this bit that sticks out for me. It is a good romance and a good science fiction film, but it's a great film about grief. It's probably John Carpenter's most intimate film, and certainly his smallest in focus. There are plenty of long, thoughtful shots brought on to make you consider the warmth and inspirational divinity in the creative aspirations of mankind. That's the thing that surprised me, too. Most of John Carpenter's film are very grim. Even "Christine", which is mostly a comedy, ultimately ends in murders and chaos. 'Starman" is different. Above all, "Starman" is shamelessly optimistic and hopeful. Through the lens of "Starman", humanity seems suddenly a huge and magnificent beauty, stretching out and fumbling along never realizing how remarkable it is that we work together at all. I love that the last thing the man has to say about Earth and it's people, before he returns to the space UN (Yes, the space United Nations), expresses a wistful admiration for us all; "You're all so different and interesting, and you're at your best when things are at their worst".
So, whoops. What can I say? I love this strange little alien love story. I love the spectacular landscapes, the profound synth soundtrack, and I love the perspective of the academic character that would've been abused and put down in any other film, but who gets to take part in the elated joy and awe in meeting alien life. I love that there is a kind of baby Jesus thing going on, but it carries the sweet and grounded emotion and personal weight of the romance instead of just being a religious allusion. The whole thing feels kind of like a loving and doting observation on humanity, and I don't particularly care how accurate it may or may not be in the eyes of cynics. I want to live in the world this Starman sees, and I have to believe maybe we have been living in it all along. The greed and corruption of the few do not sour the inherent wholesomeness in love and our collective aspirations. I also really dig what it has to say about love and companionship. This is what happens when you fall in love, isn't it? The whole world, all of it's people, everything seems suddenly a little more kinder and remarkable. You feel like you are part of a community you never saw before, like you've connected with something profound that goes back for generations and generations. It's all at once grandiose and profound, as if we were put on this Earth for this and this alone.
Directed by: Barry Sonnenfeld
7/10
After a brief blip in to shit-tier, MIB ends on a great note. No, I do not count the new one with completely new characters as part of the series. Whatever. I don't care. You can't make me care about it.
It seems like the writers and director really learned their lesson from the flop of "MIB 2" because pretty much right away, all of the shortcomings and issues of the sequel are solved. The character chemistry is back, the series has a little grit and balls again, and it's back to having fun with outlandish concepts such as alien criminals going back in time after escaping the moon prison!
This movie is arguably even more fun than the first, and it's premise is rich with potential. I'm happy to report that it seizes all of this potential for humour, adventure, and action. I don't have much else to say about it other than I love that it recognizes, comments on, and jokes about the obvious racism Will Smith would encounter in the 1960s (I mean, and now, but that'd be a little spicy for Obama-era America in 2012, to be fair). I also think the assertion that Andy Warhol was a MIB all along is fuckin genius and totally hilarious. I pretty much just loved all of it and I'm really happy that it could end on such a strong note. Oh, and Boris is fucking awesome. Boris is un-ironically one of the greatest antagonists I've seen in an action-comedy franchise ever.
Directed by: Brian Henson
9/10
I'm going to use a word here that I don't really like to use, but I can think of no other for this cinematic experience. "A Muppets Christmas Carol" is a whimsical and magical movie that captures, if not the true meaning of Christmas, at the very least emphasizes the virtues of kindness and comradery of the holidays. The whole production including the puppetry, set design, music, and acting is enormously satisfying and fills you with awe and wonder. I've had a soft spot for the Muppets since I was a child playing that Muppets party game for the gamecube with my stepdad, but for some reason I hadn't seen this gem since I was a very very small child, probably 6 or 7 years old. I can say with confidence that it absolutely holds up to an adult audience- it is witty, emotionally engaging, and relatable as a working class adult who could only hope that the greed of the 1% may grant them a day off for Christmas.
This flick fragrantly hates the rich and the greed inherent in their prospects. Though Scrooge is ultimately a sympathetic character, this is because he undergoes a complete and seemingly permanent transformation which, frankly, is kind of unbelievable in the real world. What, you're saying all we have to do is just show a slumlord what poverty looks like, and they'll drop the rent? Ha. Yeah ok. Cool dream, Dickens. In any case, it is made very clear that Scrooge isn't just a despicable human being because he has money, but because he exploits the working class. Even when little puppets are singing about how he may have a good heart underneath all that, how he is really just a lonely dude we should feel sorry for, the song ends with a definitive "Nahhhh!". I love that this story preaches the fact that Scrooge cannot be redeemed just by being sympathetic- by being revealed to be lonely and sad. Scrooge is redeemed by his kindhearted actions which explicitly work to right his wrongs. Unbelievable as Scrooge may be IRL, we all need a little wish fulfillment, and this is a great one.
Fuck Christmas movies that either shamelessly promote consumerism, or do that cliche'd bullshit where they have a consumerist protagonist that is *bad* and doesn't understand xmas, only to be welcomed in to an obviously rich and privileged family- beckoned to an elaborate feast with a billion gifts under the tree. The point of Christmas is to be with one's family, you silly billy! But actually, no, I disagree. I think the meaning of Christmas has to be a kind of sanctuary and reprieve from the hardships of the winter, a purposeful coming together as a community and sharing in kindnesses and joy.
A Christmas Carol ends with Scrooge celebrating Christmas with a feast which feeds multiple families and community members. Christmas isn't about family, it's about togetherness. Not that there's any point arguing for or against the "point" of a holiday, especially one like Christmas at this point. I've said my piece though. A Christmas Carol rules, especially this one.
Oh, also, Michael Caine is the only acceptable Scrooge. He is kino.
Directed by: Frank Capra
8.5/10
There's something really profound and comforting about watching a film that is so important and beloved in our Western society. I thought I had a pretty decent understanding of what this would be, almost just through cultural osmosis, but it turns out what I knew as the plot of this film is maybe 20% of the whole thing. Still, the authentic and timeless empathy on screen absolutely lives up to the hype of this being one of the most heartwarming movies of all time. I have a little bone to pick on how it ends, but I can't deny that I was choked up for much of the last half hour of this beautiful movie.
Apparently this film flopped when it first came out, but gathered a cult following when it started being shown on TV. I can absolutely buy this, and it makes perfect sense. "It's a Wonderful Life" is very explicitly about the struggles and heroism of the working class and continues to be unbelievably relatable and relevant, even today. It makes sense that upper class critics of the time wouldn't have connected with this the way families at home would have. I mean, for one thing, much like the Christmas Carol, rich people and greed is explicitly labelled as evil and a scourge on the community. Our collective cultural heartbeat can be felt through this film which had class consciousness even 80 years ago.
I think most people would assume that this film is about a suicidal man who learns that his life has meaning, after all. However, as I mentioned earlier, this is maybe 20 minutes of the film. The majority of the film is dedicated to showing the circumstances which have made George Bailey a working class hero and conversely, the greed and exploitation done by the antagonist which leaves Bailey in hopeless despair. It's not really directly addressed or anything, but I think it's important that in seeing all this we consider that despair is not always just an emotional state. Sometimes, we despair because we are in a genuinely hopeless situation, and I think it cheapens this film and the reality that many people are despairing over today, by implying that they just need a change in perspective.
No. No change in perspective can change how unfair it is to be exploited the way the working class is, and I hate that this is somehow what is gleaned from this film. I don't like that Bailey's problem is ultimately solved by the generosity of his community of other working class people barely scraping by. Obviously, the ending to this film has legendary status as being one of the most heartwarming of all time, and it is! It is overwhelmingly emotional and joyful to see Bailey understand how beloved he is by his family, friends, and community. You'd have to be a stone cold grinch to not be moved by the end scene of everyone getting together and rejoicing to the tune of "Auld Lang Syne", but I kind of resent that Potter gets away with everything without so much as scorn from all those he totally fucked over. Consider this: Potter stole 8,000$ from Bailey, and now the entire town has contributed what little they had to make up for this debt. Potter gets to keep the 8,000$, Bailey breaks even, and everyone else starts the year off even more desperate than before.
Honestly, fuck that.
I adored this film and was deeply moved by the story of a man who selflessly chooses to serve his community time and time again instead of following his dreams, having a honeymoon with his wife, buying a house, or any of the luxuries he has earned. I was surprised by how funny it is, too. Honestly, who is watching "Forest Gump"when they could watch this? This would be a hard 10/10 if all of the super based narratives on class consciousness and the working poor weren't completely abandoned at the end. Of course I agree that this film is inspirational, but it is inspirational because it depicts the life of a man who is humble and yet without doubt one of the most believable and compassionate characters of all time. It is not inspirational because he does not go to jail. A family not losing their kid to cancer because 10,000 people donated money to their cause is not inspirational.
Directed by: Peter Jackson
9/10
I can't give the attention to a good write-up about these films that they deserve. All day over the xmas holidays this year I am constantly cooking, baking, videochatting, and phonecalling. So instead, God forgive me, I'm just going to do a haiku on my emotional state for each one. Haikus absolutely translate to the English language and is the only honest form of poetry, everyone knows this.
I am so cozy
Oh god oh fuck oh Jesus
Peril and frighten
Directed by: Peter Jackson
10/10
I tried writing the haikus while watching the movie. It was Christmas Day and I was extremely drunk. I managed to write these haikus.
How did he become
How did he earn the title
Lord of all horses?
Oh, Samwise Gamgee
He hates safe consumption sites
You just know he do
You know, potatoes
Boil em, mash em, and stew them
Cooked and not wriggling
You know what I love?
Rohan is Shakespearean
I'm right about this
Directed by: Peter Jackson
10/10
Pippin, godammit
You know magic is dang'rous
You smoke too much, Pip
Lady Arowyn
Slow-mo Mary-Sue boring bitch
Yawn, who cares, fuckin' elves
So it comes, at last
The great battle of our time
Yet, no elves are seen
Spook scare skeleton
Ghosty and badass as heck
Crunchy crunchy skulls
Steep steps, sweaty feet
Tumble down stairs of despair
Hope is slippery
A stealthy spider
is a very unique horror
War, though, is bad too
Go now and die, Pip
In what way seems fit for you
Goodbye, Felicia
Directed by: Jake Kasdan
7/10
This Judd Apatow film stars every big comedian of 2007 and may be a scientifically perfect piece of satire. "Walk Hard" absolutely shits on every music biopic, and it's only more relevant every year that we get films like "Rocketman" and that Queen movie. It hits every beat, every cliche, every musical cue and stereotypical historically accurate period scene with the 50s, 60s, 70s, and disco.
It's got a bit of a bad rap because of John C Reilly and his association with Will Ferrell and other stupid shit, but the humour in this is all Apatow-brand and Riley is spectacular in it. Somehow, even the music is pretty good. Most importantly, it's hysterical. You may find yourself discovering that about 2/3rds in it starts to feel bloated, drawn out, and boring- but then you will realize that even this is a spoof. It's great. It may be the funniest film of the year for me. I have basically nothing to say about this other than it is perfect satire and I will die laughing at Paul Rudd's John Lennon.
Directed by: Christian Rivers
4/10
I'm more interested in what I enjoyed about this flick. This is a bad film in most respects, but its world building, ideas, and special effects are awesome. Watching this film fluctuates between being very very boring, bland, cliche, and un-engaging, to some of the coolest shit I've ever seen. I changed my mind on this movie every 10 minutes and it was due almost entirely to whether people were talking on screen or not.
Like I said, I'm more interested in what I liked about this movie though, so lets get the obvious out of the way.
First off, it is strange that Peter Jackson's name is associated so strongly with this. I went in believing he wrote and/or directed it, but it was just produced by him. You can see his influence in the highly produced aspects, actually- the cohesive creativity in the world building is astounding. Perhaps it is a good thing that he didn't direct this, because it honestly is mostly a piece of shit. There is not a single stand out performance, character, or character design other than Shrike who is god-tier. Shrike is a Davy Jones android man who walks the Earth screaming in vengeance for most of the film and he kind of has nothing to do with any of the main plot, but this is part of what makes him great. At any given point, the plot is scattered in to at least 2 or 3 too many places, pieces, and people. Shrike's motivation and direction is clear, though. He is after the redhead, his backstory is emotive and interesting, and his character design is DOPE. Shrike is sadly the exception, though. Every other character has extremely boring and cliche'd dialogue and involvements in the story, and there is far too many scenes of people exchanging boring dialogue than there is exploration of the world and vehicles. I imagine the director was hoping to establish some kind of theme in these characters and their dialogue, but these themes are established much better visually. The plot becomes much more convoluted than it needs to be, as if they figured that every character needs to have at least two motivations and ties to each other. In a well written story, this would be great. However, here it is just wasted time. Give me more gigantic moving cities, dammit! GIVE ME MORE OCEAN CRAB PRISON ISLAND!
The strengths of this film are more gigantic and interesting on a conceptual level. This film is boring in a way many films are, but it is awesome in a way few others have been. The city designs are really cool and utilize every moving piece in interesting ways. For instance, in the main big city, (London, who are explicitly the bad guys, which is very based) we see that the famous London Eye ferris wheel is being used as a transportation system for people to reach the many vertical levels of the city. The way these cities operate, consume fuel, and distribute labour is explored in a similar way as the film "Snowpiercer", and to much of the same effect. You feel a sense of awe and curiosity to learn more about these elaborate buildings, cultures, and systems. The film doesn't cheap out on these, either- there are at least 5 cities explored and they are all uniquely wonderful. The special effects are astounding and the "fight sequences" of various cities warring each other is shameless fun. There are even a couple fun ideas and jokes about the modern-day rewritten history this film portrays- I unironically love minions as supposed "American Deities" and the museum of the "Screen Era".
This film would've been better with a simple plot, fewer characters, and a camera pointed almost exclusively at the city structures and action. You can't have it all though, and I gotta say this was a fun film to end the year with. You can always talk over the boring bits and just stick around for Shrike and London getting absolutely bodied by fighter jets.
Videogames
Created by: Asymmetric
7.5/10
Is RDR2 the best immersive story-heavy western RPG I've seen all year? Try again sweaty. It's "West of Loathing".
I'm kidding, sort of. RDR2 is great, but we were blown away by the quality of this game that looks like absolute dogshit. You see this image I've used? The whole game looks like that. All of it. This game is dedicated to it's aesthetic and I can't believe it, you won't believe it, but it totally pulls it off! The look and soundtrack of this thing are memorable and comfy af and I love that it's take on the western RPG is to emphasize how redneck-y the whole thing really is. There is not one ounce of power fantasy or glamour in this, it's all just hilarious backwoods nonsense.
This is probably the funniest game of the year for me- some bits and characters are genuinely hysterical and considering that over half of this game is just reading conversations, this is a really really good thing. If they couldn't stick their landing on the comedy bit here, this could be a boring game. The combat does end up getting a little boring and too easy, but that could also be because my husband and I min-maxed our character to shit and basically broke the game. "West of Loathing" encourages you to be as silly as possible and offers a staggering variety of options and builds for your character, considering the size and price of the game. It's intention is that you do not take it seriously for even a moment, and by golly they succeed in this. There is so much more content than you'd think in this, too. Easily 100 side quests, each uniquely funny. There is some obtuse adventure game logic to some bits of this, but it's self-aware about it and uses it more as a comedy bit than a genuine mechanic in gameplay, which is a good move.
This may be the game I least expected to be good. I honestly still can't believe how enjoyable it was!
Created by: Jason Roberts
8.5/10
This is a short but really tight puzzle game. It is genuinely unique and the conceit is something I've never seen done before even remotely. It implies a kind of fractal-pattern recognition in its solutions and its really a mind-blowing experience to see pictures fit together and zoom out to match up with something tiny in another frame. It's hard to explain how this puzzle game works partly because it is so visual, like there isn't an ounce of physics based logic or anything like that involved, and partly because it feels kind of like magic when it works out.
You don't move at all in this game. What "Gorogoa" asks of you, instead, is to continue to think further and further out of the box. You aren't even seeing patterns, exactly, but you eventually learn how to see the images and world in a completely new way. The key to figuring this game out is not really to solve anything but to see how various images, shapes, and movements compliment each other to create something new and completely different- to aid in the evolution of small pictures in to a bigger one. This thought process actually reminded me quite a bit of "The Witness", but on a much smaller scale of course.
This game is 2-3 hours long at most and the story is very minimalist, but I still got a lot from working through this enchanting puzzle. There is really nothing else like it in style and function. "Gorogoa" is a ground-breaker for sure!
Created by: Terry Cavanaugh
9/10
"Dicey Dungeons" fucking rules. This is a dice-based rogue-like dungeon crawler with a shocking amount of gameplay complexity. It is absolutely bonkers how much brain you end up using to play this game. Though rolling a dice is technically a gamble, the way items, abilities, and status effects work in this game, it removes all feeling of being fucked over by RNG. The game is challenging, no doubt, but whenever you end up losing or things start to fall apart, you have that satisfying feeling where you know it's because you didn't optimize your layout well enough, or you should've taken a risk or stepped back at a critical moment. There are so many things you end up learning along the way just through experimentation that end up completely changing your strategic approaches and it is so much fun discovering them. My husband and I play this together where we switch back and forth each run and it's fascinating how entertaining it is for hours on end, despite seeming repetitive on paper. Losing is fun in this game. The enemies have huge variation in fight styles, abilities, and combat encourages you to carefully consider how to exploit their weaknesses. Combat is really fun and the soundtrack for this bitch absolutely BOPS. I appreciate the art style too. All around an amazing game!
Created by: Cardboard Computer
7.5/10
This slightly interactive video game feels like the backseat lovechild of Charlie Kaufman and David Lynch. Much of the game engages in a kind of Lynchian magical realism and the hazily depressive retrospectives of Charlie Kaufman, with a little of the mystery just on the edge of all fitting together which I loved in "The Crying of Lot 49". I left this game not totally understanding how each of the narratives, places, and moments fit together, but this doesn't necessarily detract from my overall respect and appreciation of the game. For every question I may have about things I couldn't quite puzzle out, there are emotional beats and ideas which link things together in ways more satisfying than a linear answer anyways.
I've scowered the internet for video essays and analysises on this game which may broaden my understanding of it, and I've been hard pressed to find what I'm looking for. I think most people who play this would be left with either a jumbled mess of notes, or a nirvanic peace in merely accepting the journey through the whole thing. I myself lie someplace in the middle, leaning more towards acceptance. I can tell there is a really intelligent (if obtuse) history and story plotted out here, and to its credit it isn't very demanding on you to puzzle it all out so long as you can follow the ephemeral consciousness of the themes and emotion. It's less a point-and-click adventure game than it is a platform for a participant to observe the widening scope of a thematic puzzle. It's fun to think about and untangle even if all you get is a kind of melancholy at the end of things. Whether you've "solved" it or not, you're bound to get the idea.
Essentially, "Kentucky Route Zero" is a story about the American tradition of debt and the misconception on the so-called "freedom" that Capitalism claims to offer to people. The freedom to re-invent yourself may exist, but only in the ashes of economical despair with no other choice but to constantly change and adapt to the ruins big corporations leave. In your travels with a handful of characters, you explore a sentimental Americana landscape and uncover the abandoned, buried, and forgotten histories, spaces, and experiments. Everywhere you go, people are there to present you with a small porthole in to the bizarre and at times un-nerving sociological landscape of "the Zero". We encounter themes of entropy, simulacrum, generational trauma, mental health, and addictions. People sell their debt to companies who will have them work and charge interest on their debts until long after death until they are eery ghosts of their past selves, endlessly toiling away. Ghosts and what qualifies as a ghost is a significant discussion in this game, too. There's some interesting examinations on the intersect of mathematics, technology, and the existence of a human soul which was pretty engaging to chew on.
At first, I was loving it. I was enthralled for every moment, haunted by its oppressive atmosphere and beautiful aesthetic in my dreams. However, for some reason in act 4 and 5 we are introduced to at least 15 characters all at once and expected to remember all of their individual motivations and place in this complex narratives, and after all that it ends on a note that is confusing but with none of the potent philosophical beats or emotion that the earlier half of the game boasts. I was moved simply due to the soundtrack and visuals, but the ending felt very much like it was about people I hardly knew, touching on a history and idea I could barely piece together. The one thing which threads everything together is a melancholic resentment for the greed and carelessness of Capitalism and corporations exploiting communities. Naturally, I'm always a sucker for this. My family jokes that "workers rights" is my buzzword and shit, yeah, they aint wrong. I will praise anything with some sort of awareness on the scourge of Capitalism. Full stop.
Comments
Post a Comment