The Roses - Stop and Smell The Delicious Chaos

 

Streaming on Hulu 

Rent on Apple TV and Amazon

    In 1981, American author and playwright Warren Adler published a novel titled The War of the Roses: a dark comedy about an unhappy married couple who find themselves in a massive tangle, trying to drive each other insane to win their house in a rather nasty divorce settlement. In 1989, the novel was adapted for the silver screen, starring Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner, and Danny DeVito (also the director). While that particular film featured Danny DeVito's iconic, entertaining touch of mischievous mayhem, the lack of any redeeming qualities in the main characters (though understandable) made it less than enjoyable, at least for me. While I cannot speak to the accuracy of the source material (or lack thereof), I can speak to the film on its own merits, and can happily say that, while I am glad I saw it, I can live a long and fulfilled life never needing to see it again. 

    The brand-new adaptation of the same story, released this year, starring two of Britain's best talents and directed by Jay Roach (late of Meet the Parents and Trumbo), is a film I can happily watch over and over again for the rest of my life. This film not only surpasses the original adaptation (at least for me), but it is also a bundle of endless entertainment, with wit, charm, and just enough crassness to make you wonder how far they might go. Topped off with characters who actually have some redeeming qualities that make you want to see them overcome their own obstacles. Love never hurt so much!

    The story follows a married couple, Theo (Benedict Cumberbatch), an aspiring architect, and Ivy (Olivia Colman), a professional chef. While they enjoy a happy marriage with two kids, their worlds turn upside down when, on one stormy night, Theo's dreams of becoming a success are savagely dashed, while Ivy's dreams and aspirations are thriving. As they navigate their new situations, they slowly begin to resent each other, only to find themselves getting closer at the same time. As their lives take unexpected turns and their feelings for each other go through some massive growing pains, you can't help but hope for the best for them both. Even when you think you probably shouldn't, which only makes the whole situation funnier than you might have expected. 

    According to IMDB (Internet Movie Database), this iteration of the story is a "reimagining," meaning it takes the general idea presented in the source material and deliberately changes some things and adjusts specific elements to tell the story differently. Some films have done this to horrendous effect, e.g., Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes and Zach Snyder's Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. In contrast, others have used the method to extraordinary and memorable effect, such as Ridley Scott's Blade Runner and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. 

    The Roses presents a relationship that feels tangible, believable, and enjoyably silly. These are two people who have a genuine connection and a mutual understanding of each other's strangeness, making them a better fit for each other than anyone might have thought possible. This makes their eventual struggle against each other feel more like the antagonistic conflict it should be. Again, while the filmmakers have made it clear that The Roses isn't a straight-up remake of the previous adaptation, my comparisons are to the previous film, not to the original novel directly. 

    This relatable relationship is brought to life exceptionally well by the talented cast and their remarkable chemistry. Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman are like constant fireworks together; every moment they're on screen (either together or separate) oozes amazing energy that you cannot stop watching, nor do you want to. 

    Their chemistry is also helped exponentially by the script, which is beautifully structured and loaded with clever dialogue that just sings in this film! 

    The Roses is a delightful take on a classic idea that delivers much more than one might expect. It's funny, dramatic, unexpected, a little weird, and entirely delightful. My only regret is that I did not see this when it was playing in theaters. 

    Absolutely give this one a watch! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Retro Review - Safe House (1998)

 

Rent (but please BUY) on Amazon

    Not too long ago, I reviewed (and ridiculed) a terrible excuse of an action film titled Safe House, released this year. It was a horrendous, dull, and downright insulting waste of time that should not grace anyone's television screens, except for white noise while folding laundry or for ironic, drunkenly induced, silly viewings for a good laugh at "so-bad-it's-funny" viewings. At the end of that review, I mentioned and recommended that you watch the other film, also titled Safe House (1998), starring Sir Patrick Stewart. Not only is it a superior film when compared to the lame duck offering from this year, but it is also a vastly superior use of the concept (paranoid actions within a heavily confined and fortified location), revolving around themes of national security, uncertainty, and the critical need to constantly reevaluate "American" values. 

    It has been one of my favorite films of this particular sub-genre, and it remains the golden example of its kind. And, if you have a little while, I will gladly explain why. 

    Originally airing on the premium cable channel Showtime in January 1999 (first airing in the UK in 1998), the story follows an old, retired man named Mace (Patrick Stewart) living out his golden years in his private home at a seemingly undisclosed location. He spends his days keeping his mind sharp with reading, making video logs of his day, and regular drills to test his marksmanship and tactical response. Oh, I forgot to mention, Mace may or may not be a retired deep-cover agent for the D.I.A (Defence Intelligence Agency), and may have been part of an elite team that specialized in dark assignments like assassinations and regime changes. Mace's past exploits have led him to adopt a strict, rigorous pattern to ensure his own safety and security, that is, assuming his claims are genuine. 

    You see, the problem is that Mace's daughter doesn't quite believe his claims of a post-secret-agent life, and is convinced that he must be suffering from some kind of age-induced illness, likely Alzheimer's, and is doing her best to provide her father with what he really needs to function in his own home. This takes the form of a housekeeper/personal assistant named Andi (Kimberly Williams-Paisley), who provides a healthier and clearer path for Mace, at least that's what she means to do. 

    However, as Mace begins to question his own mental stability, his past is seriously called into question, and his future may depend on distinguishing what is real from what may be self-soothing fiction. 

    Make no mistake: Safe House (1998) may be a made-for-TV movie, but it is arguably the most highly elevated version of the concept! The film is loaded with narrative depth, profound character development, good humor, and striking performances, the likes of which would be deemed too incredible for television, and not just from Patrick Stewart! Unlike most other films that share its title and general plot, this criminally underappreciated gem outperforms all of its contemporaries in every way! 

    For starters, the performances. 

    While it goes without saying that Patrick Stewart elevates any project he's involved in by sheer presence, the rest of the cast delivers remarkable chemistry and memorable performances in their own right. Kimberly Williams-Paisley holds her own with a performance that is so delightful and on point that you can't help but find yourself drawn to her. She also has fantastic chemistry with Sir Patrick Stewart. I couldn't find any evidence to back this up, but I strongly suspect they all had a great time making this movie together.

    Next, the writing. 

    Written by Sean McLain, John Schalter, and Eric Steven Stahl (also the director), the script is a well-polished work of wit, character development, and narrative intrigue. The jokes land as well as they should; the dramatic moments are treated with the poise and weight they deserve; and the ending (without spoilers) is appropriately bittersweet. The script succeeds in taking the most advantage of working within a confined space, offering a surprising sense of variety that feels realistic. 

    Final conclusion. 

    If I haven't made it abundantly clear yet, Safe House (1998) is an absolute gem! It's a criminally underrated film that deserves to be seen and remembered by as many people as possible. While it is available for digital rental and purchase on Amazon, please pick up a physical copy of the film. Last I checked, it is not yet on any HD format, but it is on DVD. With luck, a distributor like Arrow Video will pick up this film for a brand-new HD release. In fact, I may write to them about that myself. 

    Get this movie in front of your eyeballs post-haste! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Bugonia - Down to Earth

 

Rent on Amazon

    Back in 2012, then-up-and-coming director Colin Trevorrow released his first feature film, Safety Not Guaranteed: a quirky sci-fi comedy about a guy who placed an ad in the paper seeking a companion for a time-travel adventure. It was a clever, witty, and incredibly human film that tackled some challenging concepts with a layer of good humor and just enough believability to keep you invested. It is a fun piece of work that I wouldn't mind revisiting. 

    I mention that film because today's subject, Bugonia, is incredibly similar. Like the other film mentioned above, Bugonia is a down-to-earth (no pun intended) story about a fantastical concept delivered in a tangible package. It's a film that not only makes you consider the possibility of something out of this world, but you almost want it to be true. The on-point commentary about humanity and the direction we're heading as a species, while not entirely pleasant, is a reasonable representation (albeit entirely symbolic) of what might happen to us. Not to mention a superb vehicle for the cast to deliver some of their best performances. 

    The story follows Teddy (Jesse Plemons) and his disabled cousin Don (Aiden Delbis) and their plan to kidnap and interrogate the CEO of a massive corporation, Michelle (Emma Stone). For reasons I won't go into here due to spoilers, the two men are under the impression that Michelle is, in fact, an undercover Alien sent to Earth to sabotage and destroy the human race. In an effort to give humanity a fighting chance, Teddy and Don plan to abduct Michelle and demand that she grant them safe passage and an audience with her Alien overlord, so they may speak on behalf of humanity and make the Aliens leave. A good plan, if there's any validity to his claims, which, maybe? 

    The greatest strength of the film, aside from the well-delivered performances (more on that later), is the way the narrative successfully presents itself with just enough grit and tangibility to make you think that this seemingly insane person might actually be on to something, blurring the line between tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory and unexpected discovery. It's the perfect depiction and exploration of the kind of "insanity" that raises questions. 

    Here's a better example of what I mean. Suppose you're on the bus, and there's a homeless person in the back proclaiming that he needs two hundred Lincoln hats. Your immediate thought might be to brush this off as inexplicable nonsense, but another part of you is suddenly asking questions: what does he need two hundred Lincoln hats for, and why? As insane as it sounds, there is enough real-world stuff there to make you curious about the motivation behind the needs of this seemingly mentally ill person. Because sometimes, even the most outlandish of ideas can have some kind of practical application. Granted, nine times out of ten, it's just the rantings of a lunatic, but there's always that one time when it just might be something more. 

    Bugonia is, in essence, the movie version of that ranting homeless person: as outlandish as the claims made therein are, it is presented with enough conviction and verisimilitude to make you curious. Even when things take a turn for the worse, as they do in the film, you still find yourself wondering if there's still any possible truth to the reasons behind it all; a truly psychologically thrilling experience in every way. 

    The cast is remarkable all across the board. Emma Stone has become one of those actors who can command the room with her presence, putting her on par with the likes of Meryl Streep. While Jesse Plemons delivers his usual creepy factor to a "T," the MVP award goes to Aiden Delbis as the best supporting character of the film, delivering the most sympathetic character of the story. This is his first feature film role, and I hope he gets many more in the future. 

    Bugonia is not a film for everyone, nor is it likely to warrant multiple views. While the performances, writing, cinematography, music, and overall themes are worth exploring and appreciating, the films' more graphic moments and unsettling undertones might be a dealbreaker for some audiences. Not to mention the occasional scene that repeats itself too much or drags on for a bit longer than necessary. But those aspects of the film do not permeate much of the runtime and are merely roadblocks toward a worthy conclusion. 

    Worth checking out at least once. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

If I Had Legs I'd Kick You - So Would I

 

Rent on Apple TV and Amazon

    A24 Studios has earned a well-deserved reputation for putting effort into its films and taking risks. While their output has primarily been psychological thrillers and horror films, they are also among the few studios not afraid to step into the world of the enigmatic and unusual. For the most part, their releases have been more interesting and engaging than those of many other independent studios. Having said that, I wish their latest offering, an unusual psychological thriller/dark comedy, If I Had Legs I'd Kick You, were way better than it is. While I can recognize and appreciate what I assume is an earnest effort to depict the frustrations and unspoken horrors of parenthood, the film itself is too overwhelming and too far up its own mysterious black hole to leave any kind of impression, other than a fresh desire to punch a wall. 

    The story follows an overworked and underappreciated mother named Linda (Rose Byrne), who is caring for her young daughter with a mysterious illness, requiring a feeding tube in her stomach, along with regular observation and constant maintenance. When her apartment is hit by what appears to be a broken water pipe, resulting in a massive flood that bursts through the master bedroom ceiling, leaving a giant hole, Linda and her little girl are forced to stay in a shady hotel while repairs are underway. Made all the more frustrating by her absent husband, apathetic co-workers, and indifferent hotel staff, who all add to the madness of her demanding daughter. Throughout the film, Linda seeks some sort of refuge from her situation, at least temporarily, while uncomfortable thoughts and possibilities hover over her; a snap may be inevitable. 

    The most significant issue with this film is the frustrating misuse of misdirection. Those familiar with these kinds of films typically await, nay, expect a profound twist that makes the unusual proceedings worth sitting through, regardless of how frustrating and overwhelming they may choose to be. If I Had Legs I'd Kick You is loaded with hints and suggestive moments that give the impression of a massive build-up to an unexpected twist that could speak volumes more than anything else. Sadly, without spoiling anything, this film is more interested in misdirection for misdirection's sake, without any kind of worthy delivery of an intense twist. What it ultimately delivers falls flat, leaving me feeling as though my time was utterly wasted. 

    This frustration is further exacerbated by the lack of a sympathetic protagonist. While Rose Byrne delivers a committed and energetic performance, and her character is at least partially empathetic, there isn't enough there to warrant audience investment. What is there is what I can only assume was an effort to explore and depict an aspect of the human condition that is, more often than not, repressed and never said out loud in polite society, and had the script been better polished, might have had greater impact than what was ultimately delivered. Instead, it only came across as whining, immature, and unsympathetic.

    While I am always willing to be proven wrong about my perception and experiences (or lack thereof), this film fails to justify its creative and narrative choices, at least to me. Rose Byrne's performance saves this film from a single-star rating, but otherwise, it may be A24's weakest offering, leaving too much to be desired. I may be proven wrong about some elements of the film in the future, and I will gladly listen to what others have to say, but until then, I thoroughly disliked this film and do not recommend it to anyone! 

    Skip it! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Safe House (2025) - FUBAR

 

Rent on Apple TV and Plex

    One of the more challenging things to do these days is giving a movie the benefit of the doubt. Back in the days of video rental stores, you could discuss your possible choice of flick with a clerk who likely watched it and could give you their assessment of the film, thereby better informing your decision on whether to rent it. However, in the age of digital rentals and streaming services, that option cannot be replicated. Not to mention all of the other benefits of going to the video rental store, but that's a discussion for another time. 

    Safe House (2025) sounds like a good bet on paper: an action thriller with a handful of discerning characters, set in a single location. In the right hands, this can be a workable, engaging, and fantastic setup for an excellent film. Instead, it is the cinematic equivalent of ordering a handmade cheeseburger but receiving a week-old Big Mac. 

    The story follows a group of agents from various federal and military agencies who find themselves in lockdown during a terrorist attack. They make their way to a designated safe location with instructions to remain in hiding and await further orders. Which might be easier said than done, as they are regularly attacked by armed forces hell bent on taking their lives. Not only that, but one of the unlucky people inside the Safe House seems to be hiding something that the bad guys want. How long can they stand their ground before something gives way? 

    As I said, this could work as an engaging thriller with interesting character development, sprinkled with the occasional action scene to vary the pacing. Storytellers with enough talent and willpower can make something memorable out of what little budget or resources they have. Unfortunately, no one involved in this project appears to have any of the skills or talents necessary to deliver a promising product. 

    The action scenes are repetitive with little in the way of variety or creativity; the performances are one-note and lack any kind of interesting texture (not helped by the lack of texture in the characters themselves); the direction is bland with no sense of style or personal voice outside of a poor emulation of better directors (like Joe Carnahan); and the writing is depressingly ameture with stock tough-guy dialouge, one-dimentional characters, an overarching theme that sounds good on paper but ultimatly isn't worth investing, and one of the laziest attempts at sequal bating I have ever seen!

    This movie feels like it was either made because someone lost a bet or the studio was looking for a quick tax write-off. It offers nothing substantial and only emphasizes its wasted potential with every subsequent, repetitive explosion that permeates the film every ten minutes. 

    If you must watch a movie titled Safe House, track down and watch the 1998 Patrick Stewart film. It's a vastly superior movie with an engaging story and memorable performances, well worth the rental price on Amazon. Highly recommended! 

    Avoid the 2025 Safe House at all costs! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Karate Kid: Legends - Wax On, Wax Off... AGAIN

 

Streaming on Netflix

    It is challenging to write about this movie without complaining about Hollywood's insulting lack of effort, especially when it comes to nostalgia. With a few notable exceptions like Spider-Man: No Way Home or Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning, nostalgia has officially become a genre within the mainstream Hollywood system, and, like a dead horse, Hollywood will continue to beat it well into its own demise. If you think I'm overexaggerating, look no further than the existence of the upcoming sequel to The Devil Wears Prada that no one asked for, nor is narratively sensible. But it's been made and will be released for no sound or adequate reason other than name and brand recognition. I mean, goodness forbid that the talent being dragged back into this fray be used for anything else. 

    This is supposed to be a movie review, isn't it? 

    Anyway, one of the more recent blows to our collective nostalgia is a legacy sequel to one of the best '80s martial-arts franchises, The Karate Kid. A story about balance, standing up to bullies, and finding purpose in a new beginning. The first film from 1984 is a monument to lovable cheesiness and a perfect template for stories about profound friendships. All of the sequels that followed, except for the second one, couldn't live up to the same kind of charm and effort delivered in the first film. Then there was the soft remake, set in China, which renders the use of the Karate Kid title completely nonsensical. But, Jackie Chan as the obligatory Mr. Miyagi stand-in was pretty clever. 

    Now, we have a brand-new movie that tries to connect the original films' characters and storylines with the new ones introduced in the soft remake, resulting in a film that feels like a poor attempt to combine two completely different screenplays into a single narrative. While parts of the film are still charming in their own way, the overall experience leaves a lot (and I mean a LOT) to be desired. 

    The story follows a young boy named Li (Ben Wang), a promising student of Jackie Chan's martial arts school in China, whose mother gets a new job in New York and moves them there (gee, where have I heard this before? 🤔). Once arriving in the Big Apple, Li makes a new friend and finds himself at odds with the local bully, who happens to be an aggressive martial arts student who uses his skills explicitly to hurt others and establish dominance (again, this is all sounding so familiar 🤔). When circumstances force Li into a fight, he is visited by his master, Jackie Chan, who offers to help him prepare for an upcoming tournament (getting clearer now 🤔). To further help, Jackie Chan seeks additional assistance from someone who was trained under his old friend, Mr. Miyagi, his good friend and best student, Daniel (Ralph Macchio). 

    And there it is! 

    Yes, the main plot of the film is yet another retelling of the general plot from the first movie. This, in and of itself, isn't inherently bad. Still, it only adds to the overuse of nostalgia, rendering the rest of the proceedings dull and unengaging, because nothing new or different is being accomplished, despite featuring a handful of new elements. There are only so many times the same general plot can be reused before it becomes stale. 

    Now, I could have easily forgiven or overlooked the lazy retelling of the exact same plot if the execution was at least engaging and emotionally resonating; there is a ton of potential for high-quality storytelling with these characters and situations, not to mention the nostalgia, that could have made for a surprising wonder of a film in the same vain as Spider-Man: No Way Home, wherein the nostalgia factor was used to enhance a narrativly satisfying arc and profound character development. Sadly, this film doesn't take advantage of that possibility; instead, it roundhouse-kicks it all in the face, repeatedly, with a steel-toe boot! 

    Rather than creativly utilizing any of the emotionally resonating possibilities presented with this story, the film rushes every single opportunity for profound character development in favor of flashy Adobe-style graphics, repetitive montages, excessive needle drops, sporadic editing, and jokes that, while at least a few did get a chuckle from me, ultimatly don't accomplish anything, other than distracting the viewer from a lack of any genuine effort toward actual storytelling. 

    Karate Kid: Legends is ultimately a harmless, cute movie that is little more than yet another piece of streaming filler to play in the background while folding your laundry. It brings nothing substantial, memorable, or emotionally resonant to the table; only frustration at the abundance of wasted potential. While some of the fight scenes, the cinematography, and Jackie Chan's ever-reliable presence save this film from a single-star rating, it is little more than yet another hollow, dull, and apathetic milking of a franchise. 

    If you're feeling nostalgic for The Karate Kid, go watch the first and/or second movie. If you're in the mood for any kind of classic cheesy martial-arts fun outside of this franchise, go watch any of Jackie Chan's earlier movies. If you want something more recent with equally impressive martial arts action and stronger emotional resonance, go watch Marvel's Shang-Chi. At least that movie ends with an awesome Dragon! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

"For a man who shows no mercy in his heart, living is a greater punishment than death." 

-Mr. Miyagi

One Battle After Another - A Very, VERY Mixed Bag

 

Rent on Apple TV

     This film is a perfect case study to test my critical thinking. On the one hand, this film is loaded with elements (both technical and narrative) that I would usually and unquestionably admire and appreciate; on the other hand, there's no denying it's also rife with flaws that are too obvious and loud to overlook. Not the least among them is an air of pretentiousness and self-indulgence that, while seemingly satisfactory on the surface, doesn't quite hit the intended mark as well as it probably should have, at least not with me. While part of me did enjoy some of the craftsmanship and artistry that went into the production, there's enough there to make me question the integrity of the themes and ideologies presented, ones I technically agree with (to a point). 

    Inspired by Thomas Pynchon's novel Vineland, the story follows Bob (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his teenage daughter, Willa (Chase Infiniti), who live a reasonably decent life together. Bob manages to succeed well enough as a father, despite substance issues and a troubled past, including involvement with a left-wing revolutionary movement called The French 75 and a relationship with a spastic livewire (to put it mildly) named Perfidia (Teyana Taylor), the mother of his child. At least, he's pretty sure he's her father. It turns out Bob's past has caught up to him when a military colonel named Lockjaw (Sean Penn), who may or may not have been intimate enough with Perfidia to have fathered a child with her, is about to join a super-secret white supremacist movement, and can't have any evidence of his previous indiscretions coming to light, so he's now orchistrating military invasions of American cities to find and dispose of his past choices, causing Bob to jump back into the frey to save the young girl he considers his daughter. 

    This movie has enough aspects in its creation to warrant a complete pass from me, but I cannot, in good conscience, give it one, because the good graces it earns from me as a viewer either outweigh or perfectly balance the issues I have with it, both narratively and politically. 

    First, what I liked about the film. 

    The cast and performances are astonishing and committed, with Leonardo DiCaprio delivering his typical 1,000% amount of energy to his character and performance. A few of my friends and I have declared him the Sir Alec Guinnis of our time, and I stand by that statement. Although the MVP award goes to Benicio Del Toro for being the best supporting character in the film, and someone who you hope to have in your corner in your hour of need. 

    Also, it would be a disservice for me not to mention and gush about the film's incredible, absolutely gorgeous cinematography. Photographed by Michael Bauman, the film utilizes a lighting style that relies heavily upon natural and practical lighting, as in lighting that comes from the sun or from things you see in the frame (such as lamps) and nothing else. As such, the images can sometimes come across as overexposed (too bright) or lacking proper filler (lights that fill in the shadows), but that is part of the character and personality offered by the artistic choices. 

    This is the lighting style I use in most of my own projects, and it makes my heart soar when I see it used in Hollywood. It's a lighting style that not only harkens back to the era of some of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century, like Stanley Kubrick, but also adds a sense of depth and believable texture that is sadly lacking in many modern movies. Yes, part of that beautiful aesthetic was achieved through the movie's choice of capture format (filming on a classic celluloid film format known as VistaVision), but that does and should not give the false impression that the images produced in this film cannot be replicated as well in any given digital format. 

    I will never tire of saying this, so long as it bears repeating: your story is only as good as how you tell it, not on the format you're using, regardless of what popular conjecture wants you to believe. 

    Having said all that, I only wish the characters, general plot, and ideologies presented therein were as worthy of the praise and agulation they clearly beg for! 

    While the overall thematic elements and intended commentary regarding the present sociological and political situations are more or less on point and tuned into an understandable frequency, I can't help but feel that most of the main characters, including Leonardo DiCaprio's (lovable dork that his character is), don't quite align with what most might consider a tangible protagonist, let alone supporting characters. Yes, they're human, they make strange choices, and they're trying to fight against and raise awareness of the many unfortunate injustices and hypocracies that sadly plague our nation as a whole. But, by all that is good in this world, do they (and by extension the filmmakers) have to present it all in such an unlikable, pretentious, and arrogant manner? 

    Yes, the present state of our social and political climate is frustrating; the lack of effort toward something better is annoying, and the seemingly apathetic powers that be cause much anxiety and a desire for greater action than what is seen. But, for goodness' sake, can we please stop pretending that descending into the same kind of violent and hateful rhetoric as our "enemies" is somehow going to make any difference? Because it's not! 

    Also, this is a minor nitpick, but the film could have been about a half hour shorter. 

    One Battle After Another is a film with good intentions and mostly well-crafted execution, but it ultimately proves challenging to endorse in its entirety. While its political and sociological commentary is spot-on in many ways, the intended message gets muddled by a few questionable creative choices. I do still recommend giving it a watch for its stunning visual style and electric performances, but please take what it has to say with a grain of salt, as we should with pretty much everything in this modern world.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." 

-Issac Asimov 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.