Disrupted - Dark & Disturbing

Stream it on Vudu and Tubi. 

Rent it on Amazon, Apple TV, Google Play, and YouTube. 

    One of the harsh truths about the human condition is that, despite what we might prefer to believe, people can't actually change. The idea that people can change their general selves to better fit expectations (be they societies, families, or ones' own) is optimistic at best and naive at worst. That's not to say that people can't make adjustments to their judgment for the right reasons and with proper motivations; look to Robin Williams overcoming his drug abuse when faced with fatherhood for proof of concept. However, when people figure out who they believe themselves to be, there's little that can be done to sway them into any other direction, regardless of whatever benefits may be in line for doing so. People aren't generally terrible; they just have too much of a hard time seeing past whatever their brains have been hardwired to want. Also, while it's unreasonable to demand that people change their inner nature for whatever reason, it is not unreasonable to remind them that we can, at the very least, change our perspective and sense of justice for the better. 

    This understanding is almost perfectly embodied in today's film, Disrupted, a dark and mostly cynical observation of modern society and the difficulties that can have dangerous effects on all people. It is everything that Joker tried and failed to be, minus a few questionable creative decisions. 

    Taking place in my home turf (the Bay Area), the story follows a man named Pete (Ron Kaell), a recovering alcoholic struggling to overcome his condition and make amends to those he wronged in the past, specifically his daughter. His addiction spawned after his wife's tragic and brutal murder for reasons that Pete believes were his own fault. It turns out that the killer has resurfaced after a long hiatus and is revealed to be a guy named Harold Price (Geoffrey Lower), a super-wealthy business tycoon who also happens to be a total psychopath with a penchant for inflicting brutal "punishment" onto those who he deems rude or uncivilized. Despite struggling to maintain his job and facing the prospect of becoming homeless due to the impossible cost-of-living situation in the Bay Area, Pete is determined to find the guy who killed his wife and take him down, whatever the cost. 

    Visually, the film boasts some of the most gorgeous cinematography I've seen this year so far. The use of lighting and color is striking and stylized while retaining a more "realistic" feel. It's a fine example of neo-noir. 

    Narratively, it's a different story. On the one hand, I absolutely understand and appreciate where this story is coming from. The film has a series of valid points about people, society, and the many issues we face today. Not the least of which is the utter ridiculousness of today's housing market and cost-of-living imbalance plaguing the Bay Area. Not to mention the lack of incentives for making a genuine effort to better oneself. However, on the other hand, the film seems to offer little in the way of constructive criticism. It points out the flaws in society and the issues with people without offering any ideas for how it can still be improved. 

    The writer seems to be under the impression that modern society is so far gone that the only way to make any kind of decent living, let alone survive, is to simply give up trying to be better and rely upon aggression and criminal-like behavior. This kind of "screw the world" mentality has always bothered me, not because it isn't valid, but because it's too easy. While I appreciate and understand where the writer seems to be coming from, I don't wholeheartedly agree with his conclusions. 

    Even though the film is well made and offers a genuinely much-needed spotlight on the issues with modern society, I can't help but feel as if it's ignoring another essential aspect of the human condition; the ability to recognize our own flaws and persevere through them to better ourselves and those around us. While modern society makes this truth overly difficult to remember, let alone achieve, it is still a part of humanity that deserves to be recognized and encouraged. Maybe that is the ultimate takeaway from this film; choosing to believe that we can still do better than before. 

    I can't say that Disrupted is a great film, but I also can't say that it fails as a relevant commentary. Had the script been polished just a little bit more and the philosophical debate therein been ironed out better, it might have been close to perfect. As it stands, it's a worthy curiosity that could have been better. 

    By all means, check it out. 

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

The Dry - A Fresh Classic Mystery

 

Rent it on Apple TV, Amazon, YouTube, and Google Play. 

    We people can tell three kinds of lies: the kind we bear to protect those we love, the kind we spread to hurt those we hate and the kind we tell ourselves to justify our own unjustified actions. One of the biggest dangers of lying, in general, is that people may begin to think it's true if you tell one often and loud enough. Case in point: there was no election fraud; Biden won! When watching The Dry, a gripping and textured murder mystery from the wonderful land of Australia, it is impossible not to be confronted with all three. The whole story is layered with mysteries that will keep you hooked all throughout. It will also show you just how terrifying and dangerous it can be to maintain a lie, however great or small, for far too long. 

    Based on the book of the same title by Jane Harper, the story follows a Federal Police Officer named Aaron Falk (Eric Bana), who returns to his hometown after a twenty-year absence to attend the funeral of his old best friend, Luke. Apparently, he committed suicide after murdering most of his family. The town is quick to accept that possibility, given his history with Aaron, who were both caught in a lie regarding the mysterious death of a young girl when they were kids. After meeting up with the responding officer on the case, Greg Roco (Keir O'Donnell), Aaron decides to stick around and help solve the case, despite being ostracized by pretty much the whole town. Regardless of the obstacles, Aaron sets out to solve the case and, maybe, seek out some redemption in the process. 

    The film features a dark and, at times, disturbing observation of the human condition that, while challenging to take in, manages to feel relevant without coming off as overbearing. At times, the story reminded me of Wind River: another dark and disturbing commentary on the human condition framed within a murder mystery. They both even feature musical ques that come off as appropriately haunting. While Wind River was a commentary on the injustices upon the indigenous American population, The Dry is strictly about the consequences of dishonesty. Not to mention the dangers of closed-mindedness. 

    The cast is remarkable all around. Eric Bana especially delivers a memorable performance that makes you wonder where he's been for the past few years. The stand-out award goes to Keir O'Donnell for playing the most likable rookie cop who's not played like an idiot for the sake of making the protagonist look smarter. He's just a new cop doing his best and learning from the experience. 

    While parts of the movie can come off as repetitive or a little dull from time to time, the story never flatlines in its pace. It's a solid thriller with excellent performances and clever writing that will keep you guessing all throughout. Just be sure to watch something short and funny afterward, as it does end on a somewhat bittersweet note (understandably so). This is one mystery worth solving. 

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

The Woman in the Window - Hitchcock Says What?

 

Stream it on Netflix. 

    In 1954, legendary film director Alfred Hitchcock released one of his most famous thrillers, Rear Window. Starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly, it was the story of a man trapped in his apartment from a broken leg who passes the time by spying on his neighbors only to witness what appears to be a murder. It inspired many similar mystery/psychological thrillers and was also treated to a made-for-TV remake starring the late Christopher Reeve and Daryl Hannah. Today's film, The Woman in the Window, isn't really a remake of Rear Window per se, but it is close enough to show its influence on its sleeve. Plus, it has enough of its own identity to be a different story utilizing a familiar framework. It is the equivalent of baking a new kind of cake in the same pan you've used for years; it still works, so why not have some fun with it? 

    Based on the novel of the same title by A.J. Finn, the story follows a woman named Anna Fox (Amy Adams), a child psychologist suffering from a severe case of agoraphobia (fear of the outside). She remains shut inside her New York house with limited contact with the outside world. One night, she has a brief but memorable encounter with a strange woman named Jane (Julianne Moore), who just moved into the house across the street with her husband and teenaged son. Sometime later, as Anna continues her nosiness, she witnesses what she's sure was the murder of Jane. After calling the police, the detective dismisses her claims as fits of hysteria and delusions due to high anxiety caused by her unstable condition. From there, the story dives headfirst into a full psychological trip where reality is constantly questioned, and certainty is rarely on the table. 

    As I alluded to before, this movie is basically an unofficial remake of Rear Window. It follows the same general idea of witnessing a murder from afar only to be dismissed by the authorities. However, what sets this iteration of the concept apart from the Hitchcock classic is the uncertain reliability of the protagonist. It's immediately obvious that this woman is not entirely stable due to some yet unknown past trauma. The film gives plenty of hints early on that something is not quite right with this character, creating an intriguing mystery to hook you in. 

    Amy Adams has always been a talented actress, and this movie is a fantastic reminder of that notion. She brings a level of humanity to the role that only she can deliver and showcase her wide emotional range. If nothing else, her performance makes the whole film worth watching. 

    The cinematography also deserves special mention. Photographed by Bruno Diebonnel (late of Amélie and Inside Liewyn Davis), the film boasts a tremendous use of color and shadow. The lighting is striking, the seemingly random color palette adds to the sense of disorientation without being overwhelming, and the predominant use of practical lighting (as in lights that are visible within the frame) easily distracts the viewer from the more stylized moments, creating a genuine distorted sense of reality. It's a visual wonder to behold! 

    While the film does lose a few points for being yet another "homage" to Rear Window, it maintains a sense of individuality that makes it memorable on its own merits. It's a solid piece of work that deserves a curious look. 

    Check this one out. 

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

What makes a cinema camera?

 

    Regular readers of my blog may recall a few articles of mine wherein I discuss the history and merits of various kinds of filmmaking technology: like my article about color-correction, the issues of under-exposed cinematography, and the debate of film vs. digital. While most of these articles were camera-related, I hardly discussed the camera itself. Modern digital video cameras, including video-enabled mobile phones, have reached a kind of quality few believed possible. Even so, there is still a debate going on about what constitutes a "cinema" camera. Popular conjecture will claim to have the answer, but if there's one thing I've learned so far in life, popular does not always equal right. 

    I will never grow tired of saying this so long as it bears repeating; technology does not define artistic merit. 

    

    There are many technical specs that most people claim constitute a "proper cinematic" camera (data rate, LOG recording, and so on). However, probably the biggest aspect that most folks tend to believe is the determining factor is the size of the camera's sensor.  

    As you can tell from the chart above, different cameras have unique sensors based on their needs and expectations, not to mention their manufacturer. While some sensors can offer better images than others regardless of size, most people tend to believe that larger sensors are required to qualify as "cinematic." 

Arri Alexa sensor

    There are many reasons most folks would want a larger sensor for their cinematic projects: they provide excellent depth-of-field (blurry backgrounds), they excel in low light, and they offer tons of clarity and sharpness. Most cameras built for cinema, such as the Arri Alexa or the Sony Fs5, feature sensors that are roughly the size of traditional 35mm celluloid film. However, not all cameras built for cinema (or "non-cinematic" cameras, for that matter) are created equal. 

Michael Mann shooting Public Enemies (2009) on the Sony F23

    Many of the earlier digital cinematic cameras, such as the Sony F23 (shown above), did not feature larger or even single sensors. Some of them had up to three sensors that were all less than an inch in diameter. To put it in better context, if the Arri Alexa's sensor was about the size of a postage stamp, then the Sony F23's sensors were roughly the size of a Micro SD memory card. It was also partially shot on a Sony EX1, which had even smaller sensors. 

    Public Enemies was not the first or the only movie captured in such a tiny format. Danny Boyle's apocalyptic zombie thriller, 28 Days Later, was mostly shot on a Canon XL-1, which featured a 1/3 inch size sensor and shot on a Mini DV cassette. 

Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle shooting 28 Days Later (2002) 

    Some of you might be wondering what the benefits of shooting your movie on smaller sensors are. Well, for one thing, most of the cameras with small sensors tend to be lightweight and easier to handle, making them more ideal for quick shooting and interesting shot compositions. Also, smaller sensors tend to put more of the image in focus, reducing the need to constantly change focus while moving the camera around and creating more liberating movement within a scene. Basically, it boils down to fewer hands required on deck. 

    Now, I have shot several films on all kinds of cameras over the years. I've used larger sensors, LOG images, and even excessive data rates. All of them have proven to be absolutely wonderful and produce gorgeous images. Even so, I often found myself struggling to make the cameras conform to the style of filming I've come to prefer. I like deep focus (no blurry backgrounds), decent in-camera color, and lightweight enough to move around without worrying about losing focus or proper exposure. Some of the cameras I've used before, such as the Panasonic GH5, were convenient enough to allow me these freedoms, but not as much as I would have preferred. So, as of late, this has become my favorite camera: 

    This little guy shoots high-quality video & audio, provides full manual controls, decent performance in low light, gorgeous in-camera color, and a 1/2.5 size sensor. Is this a cinema camera? Technically no, but it is the right camera for the kind of cinema (and other assorted video projects) that I like to make. And that's ultimately what it all comes down to; personal artistic preference. 

    Even though digital cameras will continue to evolve in quality and affordability, just because a camera is labeled for cinema doesn't mean that it's the right kind of camera for the style of cinema you may prefer. Know what you like out of your images and choose the camera that best delivers it. Don't fall into the trap of blindly following popular conjecture. That road can lead to madness, believe me! 

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

Those Who Wish Me Dead - Smart and BadAss

 

Stream it on HBO Max. 

    One of the things that can become increasingly noticeable as a film critic is when specific directors & writers become synonymous with quality and effort. People who seem incapable of delivering a terrible product even if they want to. In recent years, names like Leigh Whannell and Mike Flannigan have become the golden standard for proper horror cinema and gripping ghost stories. Today's film, Those Who Wish Me Dead, once again showcases the incredible and indistinguishable talent of one Taylor Sheridan, who is, in this critic's opinion, the golden standard for what can best be described as gruff & gritty stories with smarts and lots of heart. 

    Based on the book of the same title by Michael Koryta, the story follows a firefighter named Hannah (Angelina Jolie), who has been reassigned to a fire tower watch person after a traumatic event with a previous forest fire incident. Things seem rather stale and dull until she comes across a twelve-year-old boy named Connor (Finn Little), who is on the run from some dangerous and incredibly evil people. It turns out that Connor's father was a witness of sorts to some shady business and was killed before he could say anything about it. The bad guys are under the assumption that the boy knows enough to send them and their boss to jail, so they set about finding the boy to silence him. To keep the authorities off their trail, the bad guys start a fresh forest fire which heads towards the tower. Now, Hannah must find a way to take Connor to safety while facing her own personal demons in the process. 

    As I alluded to before, this film is loaded with smart writing and competent direction. One can expect nothing less from Taylor Sheridan, whom some of you may recall as the mind behind Hell or High Water and Wind River (my best film of 2017). Mr. Sheridan seems to specialize in movies that are essentially modern westerns: set in the rural country following mostly morally grey characters on an important mission for justice with a few firefights sprinkled here and there for good measure. However, unlike most of the spaghetti westers that Taylor Sheridan seems to draw most of his inspiration from, he has the good sense to keep everything engaging with smart characters and witty dialogue. More often than not, movies like this will have characters make stupid and contrived decisions purely for the sake of progressing the plot regardless of how little sense it makes, but not Taylor Sheridan. He puts in the effort to ensure that every move made by a character makes sense and is smart. If the "why don't they call the cops?" trope was a person, Taylor Sheridan would never invite it to his parties. 

    The cast is remarkable all around. Angelina Jolie delivers her usual professional and badass conviction you would expect. She delivers her character's flaws and strengths perfectly and still looks awesome in the process. Although, the MVP award goes straight to the young boy, Finn Little. He not only has the honor of playing a kid character who is not at all annoying or anger-inducing (like some others I could mention), but his performance is spot-on and deserves to award this kid more work should he want it. This kid showcases his talent and conviction beautifully. 

    While Those Who Wish Me Dead isn't likely going to become my new favorite movie with Taylor Sheridan's name on it, it is a solid piece of work that reminds us why we like this guy. I look forward to whatever his next film may be in the future. In the meantime, absolutely check this film out. It'll provide the right amount of everything needed for a good time at the movies. 

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

The Paper Tigers - Kung-Fu Laughing

Rent it on Apple TV, Google Play, and YouTube. 

    Martial Arts movies have a long and proud tradition of providing thrilling entertainment, valuable life lessons, and stunning examples of the many fighting disciplines of the East. Not to mention a good laugh here and there. Most of these films tend to follow specific formulas which have become so commonly used it's easy to create a parody of pretty much any film in the genre. Although, none will ever be as hilarious or as spot-on as Kung Pow: Enter The Fist (still waiting on that sequel). 

    Today's movie, The Paper Tigers, is a Kung Fu movie that succeeds in maintaining the expectations of martial arts cinema while still delivering something different and a bit unexpected. It may not be my new favorite example of the genre (that distinction remains with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), but it is a welcome and exciting addition to the family. This is one film with a great deal of positive ch'i. 

    The story follows three best friends who are all students of a kung-fu master referred to as Sifu (Roger Yuan). As students of Sifu, they learn not only how to fight but the importance of honor and truth: both to themselves and to others. Cut to thirty years later, the three friends have gone their separate ways and almost lost their kung fu in the process. It is not until they are brought back together again by the tragic and unusual death of their master that they find the courage to face their past demons, reconnect, and regain their honor. That is, of course, after a couple of well-timed jokes about getting old and questioning their fighting ability. 

    The film has an overall unique charm that succeeds in appealing to both long-time fans of the genre and casual observers alike. The way it chooses to present the opening credits is a perfect example of how much fun the film clearly wants to have and perfectly showcasing what we can expect with the story. 

    The strongest point of the film is the chemistry between the three leads. Their comradery and witty exchanges are the heart of the movie and the primary source of comedy. Combined with the convicted performances from some talented actors and these three prove themselves worthy of a series. 

    Writer/director Quoc Bao Tran delivers a film that follows a typical kung fu movie formula while simultaneously and cleverly subverting most of the tropes and clichés associated with the genre. The character arcs are well presented, the dialogue is smart, and the eastern philosophical presentation is delivered gracefully and with poise. Seriously, why hasn't Marvel Studios called this guy yet? 

    The fight scenes are incredible and sometimes hilarious. Unlike most modern movies with fight scenes, The Paper Tigers doesn't rely upon cheap tricks like shaky cam to artificially increase the intensity of the fights. Instead, like many great martial arts films before, it presents the action clearly and coherently, keeping the camera stable and the editing fluid. 

    I enjoyed this film immensely. It has the right amount of everything needed to be entertaining, silly, and memorable. If you need a nice and fun feel-good movie right now, The Paper Tigers might be what you need. 

    Check it out. 

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

    

Who was Hunter S. Thompson?

 

"I was not proud of what I had learned, but I never doubted that it was worth knowing." 

-Hunter S. Thompson 

The Rum Diary 

    Those who know me well enough might remember that I have a soft spot for a particular film known as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It's a movie that I have quoted, recited, drawn inspiration from, and enjoyed watching on several occasions (both sober and safely under the influence). The primary enjoyment of that film emanates from Johnny Depp's portrayal of the protagonist named Raoul Duke: an author-insert analog for Thompson himself. Depp's performance is so memorable and hilarious that I have always enjoyed this character for cosplay for conventions and especially Halloween. 

Johnny Depp from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

We can't stop here! This is Bat country! 

    It wasn't until recently that I took a more thorough examination into the man himself and understood why he was such an influential figure. And it mainly boils down to his unintentional creation and popularization of what become known as "Gonzo Journalism." 

    For those who don't know or haven't watched the attached video link above just yet, "Gonzo Journalism" is a writing style that focuses less on reporting facts and more on presenting factual events through the lens of wild and unhinged storytelling techniques. Rather than stick to the normal five points of journalism (who, what, when, where, and why), the Gonzo approach takes it a step further; offering a distinct first-person account of the events and/or subject matter sprinkled with sarcastic commentary based on the author's feelings and impressions on the events as they unfold. Like many wonderful and unusual things, this insane yet fascinating writing style was born out of Thompson's contempt for traditional and conventional journalism. Not to mention a few drug-induced episodes. 

    "Gonzo Journalism" got its start with Thompson's article, "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved," which he wrote for the magazine Scanlan's Monthly in 1970. An article that was initially intended to report on The Kentucky Derby and the winner, but through a series of unusual events, morphed into a social commentary about alcoholism, ignorance, and the dangers of closed-minded culture. All presented from the perspective of Thompson himself as he unveils the story from a first-person perspective, inserting seemingly cruel yet eerily accurate observations on unhealthy aspects of American society, with bits of well-timed humor thrown in for good measure. 

    Arguably the most famous work of Hunter S. Thompson is his novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream. Much like his article about the Kentucky Derby as mentioned above, it's a story that started as an assignment to cover a sports event (in this case, the Mint 400 desert race of 1971) but instead transitioned into a drug-induced and introspective commentary serving as a "...salute to the fantastic possibilities of life in this country-but only for those with true grit." 

    Are you noticing a pattern here? 

    Many people have written off (no pun intended) Thompson's work as the ravings of a drug-addicted paranoid madman. While that would technically be an apt description of the man, there's more to him and his writing than just wild drug-induced ramblings and fits about huge Bats flying around a moving car in the middle of the Desert. 

    The works of Hunter S. Thompson encompass a highly critical and unusually concerned observation about the ugly and often inhumane aspects of American culture. He was essentially a precursor to The Daily Show: offering humorous observations on American absurdities and satirizing unreasonable societal expectations. Not to mention the tragic and often overlooked demise of the few movements in America that genuinely had the right idea only to be snuffed out and discarded by the establishment. 

    Nowhere else in his works is this mentality more prevalent than in the monologue about San Francisco in the 1060s

    If his works were so serious, some might be wondering why they are still funny (perceivably)? Well, there's a short answer and a long answer. The short answer is because life is inherently funny. The long answer is something else entirely. 

    Laughter is often and wrongfully perceived as a knee-jerk reaction to something that's "funny." While that is the most common observation, it's not the whole truth. A more accurate observation would be to say that laughter results from the brain receiving more information and stimuli than it can realistically handle. Hence, the brain reacts to the sudden impact by causing us to laugh. In other words, laughter is more often a subconscious defense mechanism protecting our minds from impending insanity. Specifically, the dangerous kind causing one to wind up locked inside a padded cell instead of the fun kind that causes one (after a few beers) to profess their affection to their best friend whilst trapped in a headlock. 

    As far back as the Court Gesture, if not further, humor has always been used as a means to both entertain and commentate. Few creative minds understood this better than Hunter S. Thompson. 

    His works and ideologies have become so memorable and influential, they have been adapted into two famous feature films: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Where the Buffalo Roam. So, to further explore and understand their impact on society, and the nature of Gonzo Journalism, for my next review, I shall compare and contrast the two films. 

    However, if anything is worth doing, it's worth doing right. So, to make this a proper critique, I'm going to need some help by channeling the very essence of the man himself. I must immerse myself in the insanity and fully embrace the madness of Gonzo Journalism. This may be a dangerous assignment with overtones of extreme danger, but don't worry...I've got back up. 

Tom Clancy's Without Remorse - Decent

 

Stream it on Amazon Prime 

    The "Tom Clancy" brand has become synonymous with high-quality espionage storytelling and military-oriented plots. Although Mr. Clancy never served in the armed forces, he would write several novels related to cold-war-themed stories and high-steak political warfare until his untimely death in 2013. Many of his books have been adapted to the silver screen before (his most famous takes being the Jack Ryan series starring Harrison Ford in the lead role). His concepts have also been created into many famous video game series like Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six. Today's subject, Without Remorse, is a film that, while competently made and viscerally enjoyable, feels more like a pilot for a series—an excellent pilot for a show that I would wholeheartedly watch, but a pilot nonetheless. Which, given Amazon's track record with series and some movies, shouldn't surprise anyone at this point. 

    Based on the book of the same title, the story follows Navy Seal operative John Kelly (Michael B. Jordon), who, after surviving a nearly failed mission in the middle east, finds himself the victim of a mass killing spree, where mysterious operatives kill members of his squad before attempting to kill him but end up killing his pregnant wife in the process. After recovering from the encounter, John meets up with his C.O. Karen Greer (Jodie Turner-Smith) for intel about the ones who killed his family. After some information is exchanged, John finds himself smack dab in the middle of a mysterious conspiracy involving the C.I.A. and Russia. Now, John must find the truth and determine the true nature of his next mission. The only question being, is he mentally and emotionally stable enough to pick up on what's actually going on? 

    The word "generic" is one I try to avoid using in my reviews. Mostly because it's often used by other critics as a means of instantly declaring a lack of quality. While most of the aspects presented in today's movie are more-or-less generic (for want of a better word), I would not go so far as to label the film as such. Sure, it's loaded with familiar elements and a plot twist that anyone who has seen an espionage thriller at least once in their lives can see coming a mile away, but, at the very least, Without Remorse is aware of its genericness (again, for want of a better word) and decides to provide the best possible experience it can with what it has. 

    Michael B. Jordon, as you might expect, delivers his usual powerhouse performance to the role. I've stated before that I find him a spectacular actor taking Hollywood by storm. He has so far proven himself capable of both the pressure and responsibilities of being a leading man while maintaining the charismatic charm of a supporting character actor. He is slowly but surely becoming one of those actors I could watch reading the phonebook on stage and still be incredibly entertained. Plus, for those who are more inclined to admire his physical attributes, he's still rocking his Black Panther build, minus the strange body art. So...yeah! 

    The writing is surprisingly nuanced. Co-written by Taylor Sheridan, the mind behind Hell or High Water and Wind River, the script has a decent amount of humanity and insightfulness, as one might expect from a Taylor Sheridan script. In fact, I suspect the only reason it is not quite as nuanced or as deep as it otherwise might have been likely due to the other co-writer, Will Staples, who spends most of his time writing video game plots for series like Call of Duty or Need for Speed, which do not match the tangible level or characterization offered by Taylor Sheridan. Not to say that nuanced writing can't exist in video games, look no further than the Mass Effect series for proof of that, but some games, just like movies and TV shows, are better at carrying nuance than others. Just like how some writers are better at presenting tangible stories and characters than others. 

    The MVP award must go to Jodie Turner-Smith. Much like her co-star, Michael B Jordon, she is proving herself a remarkable actor. She stole the show with her breakout role in Queen & Slim, and I am overjoyed to see her getting more roles in movies and television. I hope to see more of her in the future. 

    The only nitpick I have with the film is the cinematography. Photographed by Philippe Rousselot, late of Interview with a Vampire and Tim Burton's Big Fish, the film appears to have fallen victim to the assumption of "underexposure equals seriousness" mentality, where cinematographers will darken their style under the assumption that it will make their work look more prestigious. I've already discussed this phenomenon at length in my Shooting in the Dark article, so I'll just say that there's a difference between shooting a dark scene and shooting a dark scene with proper contrast. While one could argue that given the dark material, it makes sense to shoot the film in a dark style, the point still stands that, no matter how dark a scene is intended to be (either thematically or lighting wise), it's more important that the viewer should still be able to make out specific shapes rather than constantly question what is on screen. 

    Tom Clancy's Without Remorse may not be the most "original" espionage thriller to hit the scene, but it's a pretty decent version of what it sets out to be; a nail-biting action thriller that just so happens to also be a decent character piece with an attractive leading man kicking ass with his shirt off half of the time. I suspect that this is intended as a cinematic pilot for future films featuring this particular character brought to life by Michael B. Jordon. If that's the case, I would not mind seeing more films in this series and seeing how they might further develop this iteration of the character. Only time will tell. 

    Check it out. 

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