Allow me to preface this by saying, first off, I am fully aware of the controversy and concerns about this film, and I am not here to challenge anyone's opinion. I loved this movie, but I have to say that I completely understand the concerns people are having. All I can really do for a review is offer my perspective. While I do get where people are coming from with varying degrees of concern, I viewed it in a different way. I saw this more as a sort of cautionary tale than anything else. When I say cautionary tale, my example comes from Gotham pulling funding from Arthur Fleck's (Joaquin Phoenix) therapy sessions. That's also the basic plot to the movie, and the rest is "Joker origin story". Anyway, the lack of funding gives way to a very real concept in society, in that there are still places in the world where mental health has that stigma, and people still just shrug it off. It's important to recognize that if you suffer from the wrong set of mental health problems, and you can't get the help you need, shit can happen. It's scary, yes, but it's something we've only just recently begun to start taking seriously. It's my opinion that this was a daring way to get it all out into the open, using the character of the Joker for familiarity. We ALL know who he is, and we're fully aware that he's gonna end up the most disastrous villain of Gotham City. I find that audiences seem to be looking to empathize with the character, but I kinda feel like we're not fully supposed to. It's enough that we can put ourselves in his shoes, but at some point, you'll wanna take those shoes off 'cause it's a bit too intense, and even pretty scary. Try to imagine this as a film idea paralleling something more like Rob Zombie's 'Halloween', in that we're watching the slow development of a well-known fictional serial killer. Was it necessary? Not particularly. But one's curiosity does kinda make one wanna peek behind the curtain to see how the monster was created. To be honest, I wasn't really into this upon the first trailer, but curiosity on my all-time favourite villain's possible origin did eventually get the best of me, and I'm not sorry that it did. The highlight here, as one probably expects, is Phoenix's performance. Heath Ledger hasn't been dethroned for me, but stiff competition is seen here. Phoenix's Joker is very "Ledgeresque", but he plays the much creepier side of things here, making it an unnerving thriller. Ledger still made you laugh over violent moments (the pencil trick is still awesome), but Phoenix plays things more like some sort of twisted performer, and by the end you're gonna end up questioning who the scarier clown was you saw this year - Joker or Pennywise. It's an extremely polarizing movie, which I absolutely love, because that gives me an opportunity to voice an opinion without being accused of "bandwagoning" one way or another. My final thoughts on this are that people have every right to be concerned about it, and I understand why they may be. But I'd urge you to go into this with the right mind set. If you're gonna be looking for harmful stuff, you're gonna manage to see more than what's there. It's violent, but I've definitely seen worse in the past. For myself, as a strong message, and an interesting take on a favourite character's origin, it works extremely well. For others, your thoughts are your own, and I'm not gonna try debating them. I kinda hope this movie manages to open up more discussion about mental health, and those in need manage to get the necessary help. 5/5
0 Comments
I'll start this one off by openly admitting that I have not yet seen any 'Shaft' films, so my homework wasn't exactly at its peak going into this. But at the same time, I'm talkin' 'bout Shaft. If you're familiar with the title, even slightly, you pretty much understand what you're walking into. Shaft is kinda like the James Bond of a little subgenre of movies known as "Blaxploitation"; the exploitation of black people, especially with regard to stereotyped roles in movies (here's a Wiki article on the subject). Anyway, long story short, much like with 'Godzilla' where I paid to see monsters beat the crap out of each other, with 'Shaft', I know I'm paying to watch Samuel L. Jackson at his Samuel L. Jacksonest (which is still 'Pulp Fiction', by the way, don't be fooled). I wasn't exactly disappointed, but I have to admit that the film left a little to be desired. With that said, again, I hadn't seen anything 'Shaft' related before this, so I only very slightly knew the character. Top be perfectly fair, I went into this with my own expectations, didn't get them, and it's an "oh well, maybe next time" situation... not a "please rewrite this whole thing" situation - I'm looking at you, 'Game of Thrones' fans. Anyway, getting back on track, this chapter starts in the late 80's where we see John Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) and Maya Babanikos (Regina Hall), one can only assume one of his many flings, get caught in the middle of a shootout. The catch, they have a kid together in the back seat, so John takes off in order to keep them protected. Fast-forward to present day, where we meet J.J. Shaft (Jessie T. Usher), the kid from the back seat. He's now a data analyst, working for the FBI, and was, shall we say, brought up very far away from the mean streets? Anyway, after his friend dies by what looks like a heroin overdose, J.J. discovers that the overdose quantity would have been impossible to self-inflict. He then calls on the help of his Dad, the legendary John Shaft, to help him get to the bottom of things. I ended up finding the film enjoyable, overall, but it wasn't exactly anything new or different. It was pretty much your standard buddy cop film, featuring non-cops John and J.J. Shaft - the reckless one and the straight and narrow one. We also get a cameo here from Richard Roundtree as John Shaft Sr., and that's surely a treat for people who are more familiar with the material, as he was the original Shaft from '71. But I guess he also showed up in the 2000 film, so again, not entirely new or special. It seems perfectly clear that you'd be going into this to be entertained, only if you know what to expect. The film wasn't without its charm, and I can't deny that I pretty much did get what I paid for. But really, one could wait for this to come along on home video or even TV, and you'd be fine. It's not a big-screen-must-see or anything. Just a fun, mindless action movie, maybe for a Sunday afternoon/evening. It's passable, but nothing special. 3/5 It's interesting to reminisce on this whole 'John Wick' thing getting started, when people so often suggested that Keanu Reeves was the action hero that the world needed. This was largely due to his "gun-fu" skills (that's a combination of exactly what you think), and we had already seen him as a good action hero in the 'Matrix' films. 'John Wick' kinda resurrected him in a way, and it's nice to see that he isn't just that go-to action guy because of it. He's kinda just John Wick now, and that's more than enough. Excluding things like Marvel films, I'd say these films probably are the biggest action titles from the past decade... Yeah, I know it started in 2014, but show me a better mainstream non-fantasy action series between 2009 and now. These are kinda the new 'Die Hard' films, in my opinion. 'Chapter 3' has John Wick (Keanu Reeves) on the run after the events of the previous film sent him over the edge. Now, he has a massive amount of hit men and hit women after him, with a $14 million bounty on his head. This turns the tables for John, making this a survival action film as opposed to the revenge action films we're more familiar with. For as much as I love these movies, the second one really is just an extension on the first (I know, duh, but hear me out), offering more of the same, but with deeper dips into the whole International Assassins Guild. It's still ultimately a revenge film though, just like the first. Offering up a survival story here helps make John feel more vulnerable and fallible... I almost said that with a straight face... anyway, it's a nice change. You can still find everything you want in a 'Wick' movie here though. In fact, I highly compliment the action sequences in this one. I loved how John used his environment to his advantage. My favourite was probably the use of a horse's back legs. I know that sounds weird, but just check it out. I actually laughed out loud when I saw it. Beyond that though, we also get into some really neat fight sequences that don't just stop at a shoot-off. There's also a great knife fight in this, a fight involving dogs and Halle Berry (as Sofia - someone who helps John out once he's declared excommunicado) in her best role in a very long time, and a fight where we get to see just how durable John Wick actually is. You'll know the scene when you see it. That's just to name some of the action through this though. What you want from John Wick movie, you'll get here, and probably even more. For my money, this is the most solid action trilogy I've seen in quite a while. 5/5 To start this one off, I should probably say that I didn't bother with 'Ocean's Thirteen' due to not liking 'Twelve' at all, so there may be a couple of things that caught me off guard with this one - not the least of which being what happened with Danny Ocean in the end. This one follows Danny's sister, Debbie (Sandra Bullock), who has just been released from prison. She immediately goes to work on gathering an all female crew to attempt a difficult heist involving a necklace known as the Toussaint, worth approximately $150 million. Joining this all female crew is a great cast of women, including Cate Blanchett, Helena Bonham Carter, Mindy Kaling, Rihanna, Awkwafina, and Sarah Paulson. So what about Anne Hathaway? Well, her overall role in this is kinda best left a secret until you see it. But she's still a big part of things, albeit probably the most irritating character in the movie. It very much seems to follow the overall style and substance I remember from 'Oceans Eleven', which I loved, and boasts a good cast of strong female characters, all of whom have their special talents for the job, as is tradition. There's a tiny romantic bump in the road along the way, but its not enough to take you out of the movie. In fact, it helps move the plot along nicely, and helps you route for these ladies a bit more. In the end, its pretty much what you'd expect it to be - an all female version of 'Ocean's Eleven'. However, unlike something like 2016's 'Ghostbusters', this one takes place in the same world as the previous three films. You might even see a cameo or two (one that I counted) from said films, which just adds to the fun of it all. I'm gonna go ahead and say that I actually enjoyed this one more than I enjoyed 'Twelve', but a bit less than 'Eleven', which leads me to imagine it's probably somewhat on par with 'Thirteen'. But again, I never did give that one a chance, so who knows? It wasn't an all-out blast of a movie, but I admit that I had fun here. Consider it living proof that in the right hands, an all-female cast movie is perfectly fine, even if it's picking up from the all-male classics we know and love. 3/5 So, this is a bit of a weird review on my part. I can't honestly say that I hated, or even truly disliked this movie. But at the same time, there just wasn't enough here to keep me engaged throughout. There were moments of yawns, and checking my watch as I sat through this, and if any laughs were had at all, they could be seen in the trailer. For the rest of this, there's not a whole hell of a lot of comedy. Just a handfull of characters that you either end up hating or being level with, but not necessarily loving. The basic plot is set around an average, law-abiding citizen named Harold (David Oyelowo). When he learns of his coworkers' (Joel Edgarton, Charlize Theron) backstabbing ways, he decides to stage a kidnapping in order to reap the reward of ransom money. However, as wires get crossed, Harold finds himself caught in the middle of a far more serious situation involving drug lords, and a morally confused black ops mercenary (Sharlto Copley) who is probably the best part of the film.. Speaking for myself, I found the movie to be a bit jumbled and hard to follow, and it definitely looked a lot funnier than it ended up being in the end. On top of that, this is just the average plot of the average guy getting mixed up in a crazy situation and finds himself over his head. It's nothing new or different this time around, really. It's moderately predictable the whole way through. You get who's gonna come out on top, you get who's gonna get their comeuppance, etc. That's not to say the movie is really terrible, but it's just kinda there. It's a bit slow moving, considering it's subject matter, and nothing about it sticks out enough to make me wanna check it out a second time around. It's a shame, they had a solid cast, and everyone does pretty good here with what they have to work with, but it just lacks of interest. One might consider this somewhat of a stoner film by looking at the trailer, but the truth of the matter is, it's closer to a drug cartel crime film mixed with a fish out of water story. Some may enjoy it more that I did, but I think the trailer mislead me to believe it was something much more different than what I got. By the end of 2018, this title probably won't end up making any kind of "worst-of" list, but it certainly isn't gonna make it's way onto a "best-of" either. It's kinda bad, but I can believe other people might get more out of it than I did, personally. Check it out for yourself and see, but I'd recommend skipping the theater for it. 2/5 I was about to allow this one to slip by, because frankly, it didn't look that great. It seemed to be one of those standard goofy comedies with probable bad writing, and jokes that fell flat. However, reviews came out for this, and to my surprise, they have mostly been positive, so I decided to check it out. While it's not the perfect comedy by any means, it's still a bit of a hidden gem right now, sitting among a bunch of serious dramatic thinkers. The opening credits tell about how couple Max (Jason Bateman) and Annie (Rachel McAdams) meet and get married. From this, we learn that they're both kind of amazing at games, and they host a game night every now and then, involving their close friends. When Max's rich and successful brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler) comes to one, he decides to host one of his own to show them a "real game" - a kidnapping mystery game, staged by professional actors. The lines of reality are blurred, however, when a group of real kidnappers come for Brooks, and the comedy ensues as Max, Annie, and the rest of the group continue trying to solve the "game's" mystery. The whole idea behind it is somewhat obvious, but it's kinda fun to watch how oblivious these guys are with things. Truth be told, the highlights of the film are in the side characters. For example, one of the friends, Ryan (Billy Magnussen) plays the over-eager dummy, and often gets a laugh. But surprisingly enough perhaps the best character here is the creepy neighbor, Gary (Jesse Plemons). I generally don't have anything nice to say about Plemons, as he's ALWAYS playing a character I love to hate whenever I see him. In this, however, there's something about his overall creepiness that's actually kinda hilariously off-putting. He represents that one guy you just don't wanna ever invite to anything, but he knows full well how it is, and he keeps dropping hints about it. You almost feel bad for him, until you take a look at yourself and realize you probably wouldn't invite him out either. The comedy in this is kinda hit or miss. It mostly comes from the basic stupidity of these otherwise quite smart characters. There are some gags that don't work altogether well, but I feel like most of the jokes landed pretty well, given the whole situation. Bateman's actually pretty great at sneaking in those random one-liners, and McAdams makes for a good partner going along for the ride. Both are fiercely competitive, and things get pretty funny when they find themselves in more-dire-than-they-realize situations. Again, this isn't the perfect comedy or anything, and it is pretty over-the-top silly for a lot of the climactic stuff. But it's a fun time, if nothing else. It's definitely a dark comedy, which is something I tend to be very appreciative of as well, so there may be a slight bias here on my part. But to be honest, for a movie that looked like it wasn't gonna be that good, it was actually a pleasant surprise. 3/5 With Oscar season here, and this title being the "talk of the town" when it came to this year's Golden Globe nominees, I had to check it out. Lo and behold, I enjoyed the movie enough to completely shift my end-of-the-year Top 10 favorites list, placing this in the #3 spot, only behind two personal favorites that spoke to me in their own way. I even state that this may be the best movie of the year for general audiences. Er, general audience over the age of 18, anyway. Our story here has to do with a woman named Mildred (Frances McDormand) who, after the rape and murder of her daughter, pays to have three billboards displayed on a stretch of road not far from her house. The three billboards in question manage to call out the chief of police in town, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) when no arrests have been made, and the town's police force are allegedly sitting on their asses. This of course upsets not only the police department, but various citizens in town as well, including her own son, Robbie (Lucas Hedges). But she manages to stand her ground on all accounts, refusing to take these billboards down until something is done. Getting into award territory here, at this point, it has been nominated for six Golden Globes, winning four of them including Best Actress (Frances McDormand), Best Supporting Actor (Sam Rockwell, who, by the way, is a thoroughly well-done character in this), Best Screenplay and Best Dramatic Picture. It was also nominated for Best Director (Martin McDonagh) and Best Original Score. All of this will lead to this title being a potential front-runner for the Oscars this year, and it's all very well-deserved. This was excellently done! I urge my readers to check this title out while it's still around, or at least catch it when it gets a home video release. It's very well-worth it, being a rather hilarious comedy, but at the same time balancing some rather dark issues, and being as dramatic and dark as it needs to be. The film is based on a true story as well, leaving one to ponder how much of what unfolded was real and how much of it was done for dramatic effect - which the film happily reveals in the end, just in case some of the more critical out there have the dire need to point out differences in the story vs the reality. So check it out with an open mind when it comes to that. Otherwise, I really have nothing bad to say about it. It's funny, it's clever, it's dark, it's dramatic, it's even kinda silly at times. What more can I say? This is well worth the viewing! 5/5 So here we have one of the bigger Golden Globe nominees for this year. But exactly how does it hold up in it's given categories? For that matter, just how IS this movie, anyway? Well, this is gonna end up being one of those titles that I'm gonna be separated on with some of the bigger critics out there. Not that the movie was bad, it's just that there wasn't a whole hell of a lot to it. But I guess I can't be too critical about that when it comes to a movie based on real events. Here we have the story of the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer), the greedy grandfather who won't send the ransom, J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), and the single mother who would do whatever she could to get her son back, Gail Harris (Michelle Williams) with the help of J. Paul Getty's... personal detective?... Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg). That's pretty much it. Now, that's not to be a critical asshat and say that the movie needs more or anything. I guess I just found it to be very heavy on the talking and exposition, and the truly interesting scenes were few and far between. Now, this is the same thing that makes me dislike the otherwise very popular 'American Psycho', so perhaps this just wasn't quite for me. But what about those award categories? Well, despite how bored I got (sorry), the performances of Michelle Williams and Christopher Plummer were really well executed, and I'm glad they went with Plummer as opposed to Spacey. It's also up for Best Director, Ridley Scott, and given the performances over all through this, I can understand why. In fact, these performances are what really holds the movie together, I'd say. The whole story is intriguing enough, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't drag. The film is clocked at 2h:12m, but it somehow felt a bit more like 3h to me. Every time award season comes along, it seems to be the best time to separate my opinions from that of other critics. I didn't quite get the intrigue here that I got from it's trailer. You watch the trailer, and it looks like a suspenseful, gripping thriller. You watch the movie, and you realize it's really just more of a biopic with a bit of an edge. Anyway, it's not one I can really recommend one way or another. It's something to see for yourself based on your particular tastes. If you like a lot of talking and a bit of suspense, go for it. But if you're like me, you might just find this one dry enough to leave the theater half-way through for a drink. It's not bad at all, it's just not that great. 3/5 Let me start this off by saying that I have yet to see the original 1974 film, and therefore have no basis for comparison between the two. Nor have I read the book by Agatha Christie. So I'm pretty much going into this blind, which may be good or bad. Is it good because I don't know what's going to happen? Or is it bad because I can't see whether or not this is a faithful adaptation? Basically this review is more directed to those like me, who may be totally unfamiliar with the story. Anyway, I guess I know what next week's "Catching Up" review will be. Taking place in 1934, here we follow the world-famous Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh). After just solving a case of theft in Jerusalem, he looks forward to some much needed down time. However, he receives a telegram from London about a case, and now he must travel back home to take it on. He runs into a friend, Bouc (Tom Bateman), who gets him a spot on the Orient Express, being the train's director. As the train barrels trough a rather nasty storm, an avalanche ends up stranding them until a rescue team can get to them. Overnight, a murder takes place on the train, and as one can guess, it's up to Poirot to determine who the killer is. There is quite a list of suspects here, too. And, not unlike the original film, it's mostly consistent with some pretty big names. Daisy Ridley, William Dafoe, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Judi Dench, Leslie Odom Jr, Penélope Cruz, and Josh Gad are the main cast of characters here, all of whom do a pretty damn good job here with what they have. However, that unfortunately brings me to my biggest criticism about the movie. This is quite an all-star cast they have here, but there are several characters who I didn't feel they did a hell of a lot with. Being that they come from the original story, however, it's understandable that they're all needed. But I would say, on the whole, Dafoe, Odom Jr. and Cruz take a particular back seat to Ridley, Dafoe, Depp, Gad and Pfeiffer. I would say Dench meets a sort of happy medium. It really just ends up making me wonder how much they were used in the original book, because none of them felt overly important to all of this, despite them being connected. What really balances it all out, however, is our director/actor, Kenneth Branagh. Visually speaking, he hired the right team here. I found it fairly remarkable that so many angles could be done with such a tight space as a train. It's the first time I've been impressed with something like that since 'Buried'. On top of it all though, it was just his performance as Poirot that completely sold it. I'm not overly familiar with Poirot, so I don't pretend to understand how accurate his performance really is. But here, he adds just enough humor to his role that one can laugh at what he says and does, but you still enjoy and respect him as this genius character. This movie sort of met me somewhere in the middle. At points, I found things pretty confusing, and again, I had the lack of interest in some of these characters. But Poirot, himself, the cinematography and the actors' performances (NOT the same thing as having a small and uninteresting role!) were all really great. In the end, the good definitely outweighs the bad, and I would say that if you're already a fan of these Agatha Christie mysteries, give it a shot. It's a 3 for me, but it's an enthusiastic 3. 3/5 Jimmy Logan, a blue collar laborer whose once promising football career was ruined by an injury, is laid off from his construction job at the Charlotte Motor Speedway. Due to liability issues, Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum) is laid off from his construction job at Charlotte Motor Speedway. On top of that, he discovers that his ex wife Bobbie Jo (Katie Holmes) is about to leave with her new husband. This will make it extra hard for him to visit their daughter, Sadie (Farrah Mackenzie). After life knocks him down significantly enough, Jimmy explains a plan to his Iraq War vet brother, Clyde (Adam Driver). Having worked construction underneath the Charlotte Motor Speedway, Jimmy knows about pneumatic tubes that move the money within it. A heist is proposed with the help of an explosives expert named Joe Bang (Daniel Craig), and his two redneck brothers, Sam (Brian Gleeson) and Fish (Jack Quaid). I would almost say that this is what you'd get if you cast 'Ocean's Eleven' with the cast of something like 'Letterkenny'. It's often pretty funny when it comes to the whole redneck persona, but I'm glad to say that it's not an unintelligent movie. It actually looks a lot goofier than it turned out to be. I think the last half of the movie was strangely confusing, but in the end it kinda pays off. Without saying too much here, the overall ending of the movie was actually pretty sweet and untypical of a heist movie. I'd have to say the real stealer of the show has to be Daniel Craig. Everyone does a good job here, but you can tell that Craig is having a pretty wild-good time with the character of Joe Bang. He's a far cry from any sort of James Bond, I'll tell you that much. If you enjoy a good heist movie, you may wanna check this one out. It wasn't my favorite, but it was definitely worth the watch. It could also be one of these titles one has to see a few times to fully get and appreciate, but just for a good time at the theater, I'd say it fits the bill. 4/5 First, some history. The rioting in 1967, on 12th Street was sparked by a police raid on a "blind pig"; an unlicensed, after hours bar. This gives us our "part 1" of the story, as we see racial tensions between black and white flare. The African American community caused an uproar by looting, setting fire to buildings, and showing the world that they are finally sick and tired of such segregation. Getting out of hand, however, the already unfair Detroit police force do what's "necessary" to calm these situations down that are spreading throughout town like hell fire. Enter our main characters, without having to go into too much detail. Larry Reed (Algee Smith) and Fred Temple (Jacob Latimore) of the real singing group 'The Dramatics' get separated from the rest of their band during a riot, and they stay at the Algeirs Motel that night. During their stay, another guy named Carl (Jason Mitchell) decides to mess with some of the riot guardsmen by shooting blanks in their direction. Of course, they are taken as real gunfire, so a group of cops head in to begin what would go down in history as the "Algiers Motel Incident". Melvin Dismukes (John Boyega) was acting as security at a grocery store right near where the blank-shooting was aimed, so he and the guardsmen go to check things out. Meanwhile, however, a crooked and racist cop named Krauss (Will Poulter) is in the motel, with his two partners, seemingly doing whatever is "necessary" to get the answer from anyone staying there as to where the gun is. The whole thing is very disturbing to watch, but it's made even more disturbing by the fact that according to various sources, the actual goings on of the incident were much, much worse. You can't help but feel for Melvin during the whole movie, and Boyega really shows some more of his acting chops here. Don't be so fooled by his just okay role in 'Star Wars', the dude can carry emotion. It should be mentioned that the second part of this movie, in which the Algiers Motel Incident is unfolding, is one of the most uncomfortable things you'll see this year. It's very much torture porn, but more in the sense of emotional than physical. I mean, of course it does get physical, but it's not like watching 'Hostel' so much as watching a bully breaking people down. The third part of this movie is the aftermath, taking place during the trials, and showing the testimonies of those involved. And I won't spoil the ending, but let's just say it ends up being a very important part of history that you probably never actually knew about. I mean, it's not like saying "Oh, the Titanic sinks at the end, haha" where everyone is well-aware of the incident. It's more like a wake up call, in a way, and a total downer when you find out what really became of it all. The movie was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who many may still be mad at for winning that Best Picture award for 'The Hurt Locker'. Y'know, one of those movies I liked for the story but it's basically the fakest thing in the world according to anyone with any sort of military training. So yeah, between that and the potential taboo of having a white woman direct a movie on black history, there's some controversy floating around on this one. But what do I think? Well, I have to say that it looked like Bigelow did a pretty good job at doing her homework on this one. You're given a better history in the beginning of this movie as to what lead up to this riot than you can even find online. I know this because I was trying to start the review with it, but I didn't wanna screw anything up, historically. Apart from that, it's very well-acted and has given me my most hated character of 2017 in the form of Krauss. I've always also been one to shy away from the "torture porn" aspect of film, but in a case that involves historical events, I daresay it's somewhat necessary. This was this big important event that happened and more or less got ignored for about 50 years. For most of us, this movie seems to be the introduction to it, and to see people get treated so harshly is a reinforcement of the reality of it all. No one came out of 'Saving Private Ryan' saying they hated it because of the Normandy scene and it's literal bloodbath. Most people, including veterans, claimed it to be the most realistic portrayal of the battleground and respected it for that reason. This one gets a lot of flack because it's the torture of African American people plus two white women. I don't mean to sound insensitive on that point, but I think it illustrates how truly sensitive we are to these issues. We're quick to say "that's just sick torture porn stuff for Hollywood purposes" when the reality was, again, apparently much worse than what was on screen. This movie brought this incident to my attention, and made me fully aware of how bad things got during those riots, whereas I can admit to sadly being ignorant to it beforehand. It's a powerful one to watch if you can make it thorugh, but it's a lot like watching something like 'Schindler's List'. It's dark, it's depressing, it's uncomfortable, and you may never want to see it again, BUT that "holy shit" message definitely gets across. Turns out, for me, this was a powerful story. 4/5 |