Herself - All Heart

 

Stream it on Amazon Prime 

Meitheal [meh-hill] - An Irish term meaning people coming together to help each other, and by doing so, they are helped in return. 

    Female empowerment is something that I enjoy seeing in movies, but I am often disappointed when the filmmakers who attempt to present it don't actually understand what it means. Look no further than Disney's live-action remake of Mulan or Warner Brother's Wonder Woman 1984 for prime examples. These films operate under the false assumption that female empowerment means having women protagonists who are overpowered with no flaws existing in an alternate reality where all women are automatically good regardless of their actions. At the same time, all men are irredeemable and evil, with no exceptions. Speaking as a feminist male who is well aware of the annoying and inhumane consequences of "male privilege" and understands the desire for this kind of female empowerment fantasy, I personally find this perception of female empowerment to be just as toxic as Zack Snyder's perception of "true masculinity," where men are expected to lumber around like overly pumped gorillas and brute force their way through any given problem. Please understand, I am fully aware of where these ideas are coming from; I just don't find them to be as healthy or as enriching as some would like to believe. 

    To me, true empowerment, regardless of sex, comes from the willpower and courage to overcome terrible obstacles despite one's own fears or flaws. Case in point, Ripley from Aliens, who literally enters the bowels of hell to face off against a terrifying monster to save the life of a little girl despite her own fears and mortality. Empowerment does not require superpowers or no flaws; it comes from accepting your flaws and finding the courage to work with or around them to overcome obstacles and achieve your goals. 

    Today's film, Herself, is another shining example of the good kind of female empowerment. The story of resilience, survival, and determination in the face of adversity, abuse, and staggering odds. This is the kind of female empowerment we need more of. 

    Set in Ireland, the story follows a woman named Sandra (Clare Dunne), a mother of two girls in the arduous process of separating from her abusive husband while working two jobs and temporarily residing in an airport hotel. While exploring her options for a better life for herself and her daughters, she stumbles upon an online video of a guy who successfully built his own house for under 35,000 pounds (or 48,000 USD). All she needs is a plot of land, materials, a loan, and a group of willing volunteers to help her build. With the help of some long-time friends and a few kind strangers, Sandra gets to work on building her affordable house for herself and her daughters. 

    This is a beautiful, timely, and emotionally resonating film! It's a stunning character piece loaded with charm and heart. It's a wonderfully constructed story with relevant commentary about the housing crisis in Ireland. Not to mention a brilliant showcase of how helping each other however we can is indeed more human than some may prefer to believe. 

    The cast is remarkable all around, especially Molly McCann and Ruby Rose O'Hara as the young daughters. Both of them are simply adorable and prove themselves as capable performers. Their chemistry with the leading lady Clare Dunne (who also co-wrote the script) is fascinating and solidifies itself as the film's heart. 

    I cannot recommend that you see this film enough. It will make you laugh and cry more times than you can count. 

    Check this one out. 

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

Black Box - Cheesy but Clever

Stream it on Amazon Prime 

    I will never tire of saying this so long as it bears repeating; psychological thrillers are my jam! When I looked at the trailer for this film and saw that it was "from the producers of Get Out and Upgrade," two of my favorite films in the genre, I knew that I was in for a great ride. While the film itself may be a bit clunky and melodramatic in a few areas, for the most part, it still delivers a solid presentation. Black Box is a treat for fans of the genre, from the stellar cast to the (mostly) clever writing. Also, it has Phylicia Rashad, which automatically grants the movie a thousand bonus points. 

    The story follows a professional photographer named Nolan (Mamoudou Athie), who deals with severe memory loss after a tragic car accident made him a widower and single father to his bright and brave little girl named Ava (Amanda Christine). As Nolan struggles to regain his memories and get his life back on track, he decides to try an experimental treatment offered by Dr. Lillian (Phylicia Rashad), who claims that her experimental therapy can help Nolan regain his memories. Through a combination of hypnosis and virtual brain mapping, Nolan can enter and explore key memories that can help rebuild his brain. However, his subconscious mind has other plans and haunts him with a terrifying figure that seems to want something from him, but he can't yet understand what or why. Nolan must solve the mystery of his own subconscious. The question is, will he like what he finds, and will he actually want to remember what his brain might not want him to? 

    The film delivers a solid mystery with a clever outcome that I genuinely didn't see coming, even though I was actively trying to figure out what the twist was likely going to be. One of the fun aspects of enjoying psychological thrillers is, when you've seen enough of them, it becomes equally fun to try and figure out the twist (because there always is a twist) as it is witnessing what the twist becomes. Sometimes it's clever; other times, it's cliche and overdone. While the twist in Black Box may not be perfect, it's still well-delivered enough to make it worthy of your time. 

    My few issues with the film is that it's occasionally a bit melodramatic, as I alluded to before. There are a handful of moments and line reads that I felt didn't match the film's intended tone. Also, while the filmmakers did a decent job separating reality from the virtual subconscious, I would have liked to see them emphasize the two worlds more, like with a different aspect ratio or color style to better visually differentiate the two settings. Mind you, these are merely personal nitpicks. 

    Special mention must go out to the film's MVP, Amanda Christine. This little girl is so adorable, so talented, and so likable; she became the heart of the film. I hope to see her in more movies in the future. 

    Black Box may not be the most "original" psychological thriller out there, but it is a solid piece of work worthy of your time. It has a great deal of heart and genuine effort that deserves to be seen. Also, again, Phylicia Rashad! Enough said! 

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

Shakespeare Month - Coriolanus (2011)

 

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

    Coriolanus is one of Shakespeare's less popular yet easily recognizable plays. It's probably the only play in Shakespeare's entire catalog that addresses not kings or gods but the fragility of democracy and the frustrating balancing act of public opinion. Of all the dramatic history plays Shakespeare wrote, this one is probably my favorite because it showcases how universal Shakespeare genuinely is. 

    History buffs may recall this play as required reading in literature classes during the days of nazi Germany. It was read as a play about military strength and the fall of a great leader shunned by an ungrateful public, causing some readers to interpret the play as protofascist. However, going further back in time, the play was also enjoyed by colonial armies during the revolutionary war as a story about the value of democracy and the importance of individual thought. The play is written so that it can be read in virtually any political spectrum. Unlike most other political stories, especially modern ones, Coriolanus does not favor one side or the other. It shows an actual genuine unbiased perspective.  

    This wonderful film adaptation from 2011 comes to us courtesy of actor and debut director Ralph Fiennes. Whom some you most likely remember as Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter films. 

    Much like Kenneth Branagh, Ralph Fiennes is a Shakspearian trained actor who spent most of his Hollywood career playing villains, ranging from grounded and realistic to over-the-top and fantastical. One of the few times he played a non-villain role was his brief supporting performance in a little film titled The Hurt Locker, the story of Iraq war veterans and PTSD. This, incidentally, is where Ralph Fiennes would take part of his inspiration (and cinematographer Barry Ackroyd) for his directorial debut. 

    Both The Hurt Locker and Coriolanus are political and military dramas that deal with the reality of being a soldier. Most of Ralph Fiennes's inspiration from his former experience was the methods utilized to make the presentation feel more "real": handheld camerawork, basic color palette, and snappy dialogue delivery. Fiennes also drew inspiration from modern political dramas like...pretty much anything written by Aaron Sorkin. 

    However, what makes Fiennes's interpretation of the play so successful, at least to me, is how he expands on Shakespeare's universality by placing the story in a universal setting. By that, I mean Ralph Fiennes had the good sense not to establish any particular setting for the story, but rather choose to present it nowhere in particular. It's never clear exactly where the story is taking place. Still, it's peppered with enough hints and references to modern-day conflicts that it's effortless to see the story taking place just about anywhere you might think. In other words, not only did Ralph Fiennes set a history play out of history, he set it on a stage that is as universal as the bare stage of Shakespeare's time. An achievement worth all the praise possible! 

    Furthermore, Fiennes maintains that universal identity with his portrayal of the main character. In his presentation of the story, Coriolanus is not meant to represent any political spectrum or any particular side of a conflict, but only as a soldier, plain and simple. It's a story that reminds us of the great disconnect between civilians and soldiers and how important it is to be mindful of it. Nowhere else in the play is this notion better showcased than in Coriolanus's monologue, popularly known as "The Cry of Curs" speech.

    Ralph Fiennes's adaptation of Coriolanus is a must-watch for Shakespeare fans and fans of military/political dramas alike. It showcases how relevant Shakespeare remains today and how his works may be applied to any desired interpretation. The movie itself is also a fine piece of work on its own merits, with expert direction, thought-provoking themes, and superb acting on all fronts. 

    Check this one out. 

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

Godzilla Vs. Kong - Bring It On!

 

Stream it on HBO Max 

    There are times when a movie doesn't need to be profound or nuanced, so long as it is enjoyable and provides exactly what it advertises; otherworldly monsters exchanging some fisticuffs. Looking at the insanity presented in the trailers and posters, you might be forgiven in assuming that it's just another Michael Bay-style waste of time. To that, I say no! Unlike anything Michael Bay has made from the first Transformers movie onward, Godzilla Vs. Kong isn't trying too hard to be cool or insert unnecessary human drama into the important stuff. Yes, a human story is tangentially connected to the monster fights, but it's only there to progress the monsters' real story. Under any other circumstances, this might be an issue. But with this movie, you get exactly what you expect, and it doesn't try to do anything else. Best of all, it delivers in spades! 

    The story takes place...oh, who am I kidding? We don't care about the story! Get to the monster fights!!!

    That's more or less the general feel of the movie. While there is a general plot that continues to expand Warner Brothers' new monster universe with recurring characters and references to previous story turns, it's not the main focus of the film's presentation. Fortunately, the movie is smart enough to provide just enough character development and lore for both the human characters and the monsters to feel more engaging. You know why the titans are fighting, you know why the human characters care, and it's enough to make you care as well. 

    The film's MVP award goes to Kaylee Hottie as the little deaf girl who's best friends with Kong. Her character provides a surprising level of depth to the monster fights and a tangible connection to Kong, who is more or less the real protagonist of the film. 

    Godzilla vs. Kong is the cinematic equivalent of a wrestling match between two icons: properly lit, decently choreographed, and with just enough emotional investment to make it feel like the proper epic it sets out to be. Even if you're not a devoted fan of the Kiju series, it provides all the necessary ingredients for a great time. Think of it as organic home-made brain candy as opposed to packaged chemicals. It may not enrich your life, but it will give you an amazing thrill. 

    Check this one out. 

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

    

Shakespeare Month - Much Ado About Nothing (2012)

 

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

    In my first Shakespeare review, I presented you with an adaptation of one of The Bard's most beloved comedies, Much Ado About Nothing. Today, I would like to discuss a different take on the same play. One that may not be as energetic or wild as Kenneth Branagh's version but still has an individual voice that is distinct and appreciative of the text (albeit seemingly surface level in its understanding). This adaptation from 2012 comes from another Hollywood staple, Joss Whedon. 

    Joss Whedon, best known for TV shows like Firefly and the first Avengers film, is one of those Hollywood talents whose works are more enjoyable than the man himself. Starting out in television as a writer and showrunner, mostly famous for his hit series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Joss Whedon made a name for himself with tough women characters, a love for all things nerd related, and writing style so distinct (referred to by some as "Buffy Speak") that it is easily recognizable by virtually anyone. To quote Kyle Kallgren from his web series Brows Held High, Whedon's writing style sounds "...codified by a jumbling of nouniness and adgtiviage language bits that sound like your brain forgets words before spontaneously re-remembering them again." 

    As such, it kind of seems strange that he would choose to take on a simple adaptation of Shakespeare. Considering how comfortable he normally is with his own writing. Not to mention how jarring it is to see him go from making over a billion dollars with the greatest superhero movie ever made only to take a hard left turn with what amounts to a high-budget home movie. This is not a criticism; it's just pleasantly surprising. 

    The idea for creating a Shakespeare film spawned from Joss Whedon hosting regular parties with his actor friends at his house in Santa Monica, where they would lounge in the living room reading one of The Bard's plays aloud to each other. 

    What I like about this take on Shakespeare is how simple it is. Knowing that the film was made with the director's many friends at his house gives a kind of "home movie" vibe to the whole presentation, which I love. I enjoy movies that feel as if they were made by people just having fun. It feels like something I could do with my own friends. As a matter of fact, I am. More on that later on. 

    Another aspect of this film that speaks to me is classical text in a modern setting. As I mentioned before in a previous article on this blog, Shakespeare's plays are written in such a way as to allow nearly limitless interpretation of presentation. The words sound unusual and, for lack of a better word, "aged," but they never sound unfamiliar or foreign. Shakespeare's words can be presented and delivered in so many ways that they can literally sing off the screen, provided they are handled by a cast and director who understand it well enough themselves. 

    Probably the only aspect about Whedon's take on The Bard is that it can at times come off as too simplistic. While I praise the simple home movie vibe of the presentation and continue to do so, Whedon's take on the text itself occasionally feels too flat. Like, he knows what the scene is about (at least I think he does), but it often feels as though he's not providing the punch that it needs. In other words, when comparing Joss Whedon's 2012 version to Kenneth Branagh's film from 1993, Branagh understood the text, whereas Whedon merely presented the text. 

    There are also a few questionable members of the cast. While some of them are excellent in their roles and have the skills and talent to sing their lines (Nathan Fillian and Amy Acker, to name a few), other cast members seem ill-suited to Shakespeare. Some of the cast members range from extras in The Avengers to high school kids who must be seeking extra points for their literature class. None of them are terrible per se; they just come off as inexperienced. 

    What ultimately sells the movie, at least to me, is the production value. Again, I love how the whole affair feels like a home movie given a budget. It's the kind of filmmaking I wish to do for a living, and I want to see more of it from everyone, especially from the big boys at Hollywood. 

    Despite my occasional nitpicks with the film's cast and production choices (like shooting in black & white only because it's easier to light scenes that way), Joss Whedon's take on The Bard is light and breezy. It's a fun little movie to put on during a lazy afternoon. Come for the party, don't stay for the clean-up. 

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

Shakespeare Month - Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

 

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

    Let's kick off Shakespeare Month with one of my favorites! A film that is so energetic that you cannot help but join the fun. It is a nuanced presentation of one of The Bard's signature comedies that can only arise from a deep appreciation and profound understanding of how much fun it can be to perform Shakespeare. 

    Before discussing the film itself, allow me to provide a brief history of the man behind the film, along with many of the Shakespeare adaptations we'll be discussing here; Kenneth Branagh. 

    Born in Belfast, Mr. Brahagh joined the Royal Shakespeare Company at age twenty-three. Six years later, he would star in and direct a feature-film adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry V, which earned him an Oscar nomination for both categories. In addition to performing and directing a few more Shakespeare films (which we will cover in due time), he's also made some of the most classic cinema works of the 90s. Including the time-related thriller Dead Again and arguably the most faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. His latest works as the director included Marvel Studios' first Thor movie, Murder on the Orient Express, and, unfortunately, Disney's Artemis Fowl. But let's not hold that against him.

    One of the things that makes Kenneth Branagh such an engaging director (most of the time) is his ability to insert a kind of shared silliness into his projects. Not so much the kind that makes fun of itself, but rather the kind that encourages you to relax and have fun with the proceedings. Because contrary to popular conjecture, Shakespeare's works are not exclusive high-class art but rather a universal voice that anyone can understand and appreciate. Few people working in Hollywood understand this better than Mr. Brahagh, and as a result, his takes on The Bard's plays are treated with an air of high energy and enthusiasm that makes you want to pay attention. He has a talent for presenting the text so that, even though you may not completely understand the words themselves, you understand what is being said, purely by the performances and visual language of his direction. 

    This is why his adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing is so damn fun to watch! Branagh brings such intoxicating, passionate energy to his films that they can be enjoyed by anyone. Even those who may not like Shakespeare. Branagh's top priority seems to be entertaining and engaging at all times. A quality often overlooked by many other great directors. 

    Well, now that I've gushed about Kenneth Branagh for a few paragraphs, I suppose it's high time I talked about the actual movie. 

    In all honesty, this is one of those cases where I feel that the less you know of the story before going into it, assuming you haven't already read the original play or seen it on stage, the more enjoyable it will likely be. This will become an occurring theme for all future Shakespeare reviews this month. Less focus on the story and more on how well it is presented. 

    What I will say is that this is a perfect film for Shakespearian beginners and veterans alike. It is a film that spreads joy and enthusiasm in all the right ways. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly encourage you to check it out. It will speak to you in one way or another. I promise. 

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

Hunter Hunter - Unjustifiably Bleak (CAUTION: SPOILERS AND GRAPHIC CONTENT)

 

Don't...just don't! 

    Some of my readers may be under the impression that I dislike bleak stories. This could not be farther from the truth. While they are not my preferred kinds of stories, I appreciate some of the darker observations on humanity, provided they have a good reason to be so. Rather we choose to accept it or not, some aspects of human existence are too difficult to accept and cannot be ignored. Sometimes, it falls upon cinema to remind us of the sadder parts of life and inform us how we may find something better down the line and how there is still a chance at hope, both for society and humanity—case in point; Schindler's List. 

    On the other hand, I cannot stand stories that are bleak for no discernable reason outside of lazy shock value and pale imitations of better movies-case in point; Joker. Today, I add a new movie to the list of films that have shocked me for all the wrong reasons and with no justifiable cause. Hunter Hunter may be the most insulting and disgusting film I have seen this year so far!

    Spoilers from here on out. 

    The story follows a family of three living in the woods and off the grid. They survive by hunting and scavaging, selling animal pelts to the local general store. No, the movie does not take place in the wild west, but it clearly wants to. Anyway, the family is set upon by a rogue Wolf who keeps eating their catches, threatening their survival. The father wants to hunt it down, while the mother just wants to move back to the city and give their thirteen-year-old daughter a chance at real life. 

    As the father goes out to hunt down the wolf, he discovers something more dangerous. A psychopathic rapist/killer has been committing his murders at a remote spot in the woods close to his home. The father, being the uber macho idiotic embodiment of toxic masculinity that he is, decides to hunt down the killer himself rather than, you know, call the authorities. This results in his wife and daughter left alone to fend for themselves on the brink of starvation. 

    Things take a turn for the worst when the mother discovers an injured stranger in the woods close to their cabin. Instinctually, the mother brings the stranger into their home and nurses him back to health. After a few unsuccessful efforts to carry the injured stranger to their truck down the path, the mother and daughter stay at the cabin and try to formulate a different plan. 

    Sometime later, the mother is out hunting and finds her husband dead. She then realizes that he was murdered, and the only likely suspect is the stranger she brought into their home. Upon returning to the cabin, she is assaulted by the stranger who, shocker, turns out to be the killer. After a quick scuffle, the mother discovers that the killer murdered her daughter (at least it's heavily implied he killed her) and, in a fit of motherly rage, exacts her bloody revenge on the killer. 

    CAUTION: Trigger Warning for bodily mutilation and gore. Please skip sections written in RED if you do not wish to learn further details. 

    The mother takes the killer to the shed, where they skin the animals for their hides and proceeds to skin the killer alive. Slowly removing the skin from his arms and torso before violently and deliberately ripping off the guy's face while he's still conscious. Afterward, not only does the camera linger on the mother carrying the guy's severed face in her hand as she exits the shed, but we are also treated to not one but two shots of the very-much-still-alive faceless killer, all in explicit gory detail. 

     As I said before, a film can be bleak so long as there is a good justification for said bleakness and it provides something more outside of general shock value. Hunter Hunter is deliberately and unjustifiably bleak. Why? Because it had the opportunity for a more appropriate ending which might have better suited the narrative. 

    From the beginning, the film utilizes the Wolf as the likely antagonist to the family. Throughout the whole runtime, the story implies that the Wolf will play a significant role in the conclusion of the narrative and provide a more satisfying ending. Halfway through the film, the mother encounters the Wolf and instinctually protects her daughter. The Wolf seemed to pick up on the motherly instincts and backs off. 

    By the time the third act started, I was waiting for the Wolf to come busting into the cabin and attack the killer, thereby saving the mother and daughter. Not only would this have made sense within the narrative as presented, but it also would have tied perfectly into the general idea of nature's power and response to acceptance rather than forced control. Which is something that the film spent the better part of an hour building up to. 

    Instead, the writer/director of the film chose to ignore the fantastic opportunity he had right at his fingertips in favor of a cheap and inhumane crybaby hissy fit about how much he thinks people suck! And, to add insult to injury, the Wolf is never seen again. 

    Now, I will admit that the mother's punishment performed on the rapist/murderer was understandable and justifiable in its own right. Personally, I think all rapists deserve to be punished in the most extreme manner possible. Maybe not to the extremes presented in this film, but still. However, when you intentionally choose that route over the more sensible and narratively satisfying option, you are deliberately and unjustifiably manipulating your audience into watching what amounts to a snuff film. That is the most egregious and insulting thing that any filmmaker could ever do to an audience. 

    This movie is a horrendous steaming pile of garbage, and I regret giving it money for a rental. Please, do not make my mistake. Avoid this movie entirely! 

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