The Matrix

The Matrix is one of those movies that it's really hard to write a review about. I have a hard time writing reviews on huge ground breaking block busters because so much has been said. It goes the same with Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and other films. Even after this rewatch where I think I have things to say, especially considering the movie is 20 years old this year, it still feels weird reviewing a film that has had such an impact on cinema, for better or for worse. I think my approach with this review is more on the basis of areas where the movie holds up and where it doesn't. I also hope that it can serve as an introduction to people who maybe haven't gotten around to seeing this film in the 20 years it's been out and what that might be like as opposed to people like me who have grown up with its influence manifesting in front of me.

Who knows, this review might not even be published, but I'll at least make an attempt.

For a little bit of background, The Matrix came out at an interesting time in cinematic history. The 90's for better or worse was an interesting transition point from the cinematic world of the 70's and 80's with blockbuster hits like Star Wars, Jaws, Terminator, Die Hard, the list goes on, to the cinematic world of today with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the advent of Superhero films, and most notably, the emergence of CGI.

That is not to say there weren't great films to come out of the 90's. The picture above does a pretty good job at illustrating at least some of the big blockbuster hits to come out of the decade to include the Matrix.

But something I took note of in this viewing of The Matrix was the influences of both the emergence of CGI and big budget epics, but also the fight the system attitudes that were starting to form in response to commercialism, the rising age of technology, and a rising feeling of rebellion against "the man".

I have never claimed to make this blog about philosophy, social trends, or really all that political (when I can avoid it), but I do think it is interesting seeing The Matrix from that lens. Take the leather for example. In the late 90's, it made sense. It was edgy and trendy, symbolizing a break from the mainstream, but today it just looks silly. While there are for sure parts of this film that do not feel dated at all and have held up incredibly well, there are a lot of moments in the film that feel very reminiscent of a time with transitioning attitudes and ideas coming to life in film.

And if there's one thing that we can point to the Matrix and say thank you, it was launching Keanu Reeves into the star he is today.

Keanu Reeves plays the main character, Thomas Anderson (not enough people talk about how that's his real name), who goes by the hacker name, Neo. Neo is a computer hacker who has begun hearing the inklings of something called, the Matrix and he's on a journey to find out what that is when the movie begins.

Now when the movie first came out, there was a lot of mystery behind what the Matrix was. It was such a vague term that most people didn't know the definition of that the discovery of it was just as intriguing to the audience as it was to Neo.

Today however, the truth about the Matrix is pretty well known, and Neo discovers, after meeting some mysterious individuals named Trinity (played by Carrie Anne-Moss), and the illusive Morpheus (played by Lawrence Fishburne), that the Matrix is a simulation that all humanity is plugged into. The 1990's surrounding they live in is an illusion that a futuristic, post apocalyptic machine run world has pulled over humanities eyes in order to fuel their AI driven world.

Morpheus brings Neo out of the simulated world and into the real world because he believes that Neo is a prophetic savior who will lead the revolution of humanity against the machines who keep everyone slaves within The Matrix.

The rest is discovering if Neo is The One, the fight against the machines, and a lot of, at the time, state of the art kung fu, gun play, and really interesting effects that I will admit, still remain impressive today (for the most part).

Cards up front, I still really enjoy this film. I've read a lot in the years since I saw it last kind of pointing out its flaws and there are people out there who say that this movie doesn't hold up as much as people say it does. There are elements of those arguments that I agree with and some of them I don't, but overall, I'd say this movie does still hold up by itself. It's actually pretty intriguing to me to watch this by itself and try and think about it without the context of the 2nd and 3rd film which are more unanimously criticized.

I think what I'll try and do is point out the movie's flaws or things that either I didn't like or don't hold up as much as they used to. At the end of the day, the good really does outweigh the bad in with this movie, but that's not to say that there are not some points of this movie that don't work as well today.

The first really noticeable thing I'd say is that the acting in this film is, in reality, not that great. I say that with a huge caveat because the truth is, I like a lot of the actors in this film and I do think they are talented. Furthermore, the exception to that thought is Lawrence Fishburne and Hugo Weaving, those two are fantastic.

But the truth is, as much as I love Keanu Reeves and Carrie Ann Moss, their performances in this are pretty bland, especially in the areas where I'm supposed to believe there is this love connection between the two of them. Other actors in the film, especially the ones that didn't get the same launching of careers that the main stars did really give performances that, while not horrendous, don't really hold up.

I think the main reason for this is because the main star of the Matrix isn't Keanu, it's more the philosophical ideas and themes within the film. I do think the Wachowskis were tapping into not only their own philosophical passions that seem to drive a lot of their work, but also the counter culture that this movie represented. The characters in The Matrix are less characters than they are symbols, religious, philosophical, social, or otherwise.

I do think it works and the truth is, they're not the worst thing in the world, but I think a lot of elements of traditional story telling was overlooked for an interesting counter culture story.

I do think the caveats to this rule are Hugo Weaving and Laurence Fishburne because these two were just doing something totally different. I think these two color in the blank spots left by the other characters and give the movie some flavor.

While Morpheus's character is pretty much the epitome of the philosophical nature of this film, he's not just an unemotional monk, he's got a lot of character to him where you understand why people follow him.

Smith on the other hand is just so iconic that it's hard to see it work with anybody other than Hugo Weaving. In fact you can see it in the other agents. While the other two agents in the film are super bland and emotionless, Hugo Weaving's computer-like villany is just really entertaining. You would think that wouldn't work against a "Woah" blank slate that Keanu plays, but it actually really works because he adds character to someone who probably shouldn't have had any.

The other big thing that doesn't exactly hold up is the CGI, especially when you see the machines in the real world.

Luckily, everything in the real world is a pretty muted color and very dark so it allows for the bad CGI to be masked a little, but that doesn't totally negate the fact that the CGI definitely looks pretty dated.

There are a couple of effects like that in other places in the movie and I remember it being quite a bit worse in the sequels, but I will pair this criticism with the fact that while the CGI does look a little dated, a lot of this movie was produced with practical effects, even in moments that had some CGI in it. Because of that, even the parts where the CGI might look a little dated, it still works because the practical effects do a lot for the way the movie holds up. I remember watching some documentaries on the making of this film and it is a good reminder that while those practical effects and stunts can be expensive, if it works towards a good story, it can be well worth it.

The other "flaws" in the film are small little plot holes or funny issues that years and years of examining this film have created. I won't go into many of them because I don't really think that's the most constructive use of my time, but I will note some of my favorites.

The Oracle (played by the late Gloria Foster) is a good character and the scene in her apartment is a really nice splash of color in a green shaded dark 90's film. If I'm looking at the film by itself, there are no issues here and Gloria Foster did a great job. That being said, this character doesn't make sense if you know (from the later movies) that she is a program. I know they explain it a little, but I don't think that was how she was originally written and I think it's really funny somethings that they had to kind of retcon in order to work it into a sequel.

Neo's real name is Tom... I still think that's funny.

Who were these guys? Did Trinity send them or did she just know that one of them had a white rabbit tattoo? Why are they dressed like that? Is that what people dressed like in the 90's? Was that what people in the 90's thought were going to be the trends? What's up with the nose piercing girl in the back? The introduction of Neo is kind of rushed and dated, partly because Neo is a blank canvas for the audience to latch onto. See awesome old Cracked After Hours video for explanation.

Now that I'm done nitpicking and trying to pull flaws out of this movie, I want to talk about the awesome things.

So while he's a blank slate of a character, I am so happy that Wild Wild West was so appealing to Will Smith that he turned down this role because while I would have loved to watch that movie, in that scenario Keanu would have only been known as Ted from Bill and Ted and the Point Break dude. Keanu Reeves is a gem and I don't care how meh this performance is, its brought so much joy since.

The action in this movie is spectacular and it still holds up. Yes, the CGI is not always great and sometimes it kind of looks like Spy Kids 3D, but like I said, a lot of it is practical effects and it looks awesome to this day.

The choreography, the sets, the ideas, and the science fiction nature of this movie really sets it apart from anything we had ever seen and it feels like its own thing. A good example of this is the movie Dune. I'm trying (emphasis on trying) to watch that 1984 film and I just can't help that it's was trying to replicate and fill the void left by the conclusion of Star Wars in 1983. The Matrix feels so original and fresh (even today) that it just feels like they created their own form of science fiction and it deserves to be praised.

And yes, I have seen Dark City, I do know that some of the ideas in The Matrix are not totally new or unique, but I do have to give credit where its due. As much as I find Dark City intriguing, it never was going to reach that innovative level the Matrix got to. Whether its the sets, the story, the concepts, or the mind blowing action and stunts, The Matrix stands out as the superior idea of simulated reality science fiction because of its unique take on it. So much that when people draw inspiration in that type of Science fiction, they're pulling from The Matrix, not Dark City or the other material that delves into the same ideas.

There are so many influences that The Matrix has had on society as a whole. I can list all the problems with the sequels (and believe me, I probably will when I get around to watching those films), but the first one (regardless of parts that are outdated or flawed) still really holds up and has huge influence on the world of cinema we live in today.

Unfortunately... this is also cinema today and that means that somebody is floating around the idea of doing some kind of continuation, whether its a reboot, sequel, whatever, of The Matrix... and while it's an inevitability because everything gets remade one way or another, because this is the reality we live in... do we have to?

Regardless, the Matrix is a film that does stand the test of time (for the most part). If you haven't seen the film, please do yourself a favor and jump down a nostalgic road back to the 90's where Rage Against the Machine was in their prime raging environment and the idea of the internet was still pretty new and maleable. I didn't even talk about the elements of this film was really prophetic on when it came to technology but I do want to give some of it still for you to discover in case you haven't seen it yet.

But have you watched The Matrix recently? Does it hold up? What are your thoughts today as opposed to twenty or so years ago? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Bad Times at the El Royale

So this past weekend seemed to be the weekend on catching up on some films that I didn't push myself to go and check out last year. Both this an Overlord were more of those lower budget films that I thought looked cool but for one reason or another, didn't go out and see.

Bad Times at the El Royale is a period piece in the late 1960s. It takes place at a motel that used to be fancy back in the day but has since fallen into disarray. The unique part of the hotel is that one side is in Nevada and one side is in California. While this doesn't bring a whole lot to the table besides some symbolism, it does make for a really interesting location for a really well written thriller mystery film. The El Royale sees the patronage of 6 guests overall but in different circumstances and this is really where the meat of the story comes from, the characters.

I think a good comparison (more aesthetically not story or theme-wise) would be Murder on the Orient Express. The story centers on a 7 characters with their own backstory, motivations, and deceptions. Not everything is as it seems at the El Royale and it makes for a fun story that feels very much in the vein of a Tarrantino film.

At the front end of the story you have "normal" guests who come to stay for one reason or another. A priest named Father Flynn (played by Jeff Bridges), a singer named Darlene (played by Cynthia Erivo), and a vacuum cleaner salesman named Seymour Sullivan. (played by Jon Hamm).

In that mix is also a "hippie" named Emily played by Dakota Johnson. I would say she's got a secret but pretty much everyone here has a secret so that's not really a surprise. The more interesting thing about her is the fact that Dakota Johnson plays her... and does a really good job. To the point where I feel bad that her big break so to say was the Fifty Shades garbage because I think it put her on the wrong foot.

I'm not trying to give Dakota Johnson shit for taking a job that she probably knew would launch her into fame and be a franchise (and god knows everyone needs a franchise). I just think its funny that we put so much stock into one person's performance in a movie when we're probably unfairly taking out our shit on the movie on her.

Were there things wrong with Dakota Johnson's performance in Fifty Shades? Oh yes. But don't write her off. This movie is a prime example of that.

Robert Pattison is a great example. He's done a lot of movies since Twilight, a lot of them were really good. But he is tapped for that good acting to play an iconic character like Batman and everyone loses their mind. I'm not saying we need to give Dakota Johnson a superhero franchise, but I was surprised on how much I enjoyed moments with her, and in reality, she's not even a huge part of the film.

There are other characters, like the hotel attendant (played by Lewis Pullman). A kidnapped girl (played by Cailee Spaeny), and a cult leader played by Chris Hemsworth.

 I wanna get the big items out of the way before I talk about the real heart of this story, but Chris Hemsworth plays a Charles Manson-type and I think he was kind of the draw of this film because he dances at one point in the trailer and its kind of funny

And Hemsworth is perfectly fine in this movie. I'm not saying he's bad at all. In fact, this movie on top of him maybe doing less Thor (?) after Endgame maybe opens up the chance of him getting more strange roles like this because I think he had fun.

Just be aware that if you are watching this movie because of Hemsworth, while he is a fun, and definitely a different part that you've probably seen him in in the past, he's not a huge part.

The bigger parts are the character interactions and moments, cinematography, and the twists.

Seriously though, the location is small, the characters are really unique, and I got invested pretty quickly.

I gotta hand it to Jeff Bridges because the guy has been around long enough to know that a movie like this isn't going to grow really big or anything. You'll get people like me who want to check out random thrillers like this, but it's going to be huge. And yet Bridges just nails this part and made me care a lot.

I saw Cynthia Erivo in Widows and she was fine, but here she steps up her performance quite a bit and if anything, she sings really well.

It's hard to say a lot about this film because I went into this film knowing pretty much absolutely nothing and I think that's why I enjoyed it.

While I really enjoyed this film, I do recognize that there are some problems with it as it is trying to be a couple of different films, or at least emulate parts of other films that were more successful.

The zany characters and the long drawn out dialogue does feel like Drew Goddard was trying to do his take on a Tarrantino film. I liked the dialogue and the characters, but I don't think it reaches the level of Tarrantino gold (that being said I'm not a huge Tarrantino fan myself, but I'm speaking more what the general consensus might be).

The other aspect is the integration of music. Now I really enjoyed the soundtrack of this film. While everyone is using 80's classics, Bad Times at the El Royale pulls out some of the 60's classics and I'm sure anybody who watches this film might have a new found interest in 60's rock and RnB like me. But I will admit that it does try to draw people in with that soundtrack the same trend Guardians of the Galaxy started and has since been pile driven into the ground.

I think my criticism of this movie is more from a technical or general consensus perspective. Personally, I really enjoyed this film.

I don't think it's going to blow anybody's mind or really be remembered highly, but I would kind of put it in the same category as Overlord where I think it's a film that is actually kind of underrated from 2018.

I personally really like Drew Goddard. I think he's actually got a pretty good eye for directing and this was the first movie that didn't have Joss Whedon's heavy hand in it (Cabin in the Woods). Goddard has had his hands in a lot of movies that I really like as well as creating Daredevil which is one of the better shows to have come out of Netflix.

I really hope he gets another chance to make a movie like this. I think he could probably only make better films and I think this is a pretty good, if not a little bit forgettable first go at it on his own.

If you want a fun night of watching a movie, Bad Times at the El Royale is a fun little mystery that I think is worth your time.

Those are my thoughts on Bad Times at the El Royale. What did you think? Do you like Drew Goddard? Comment and discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading.

Overlord

I don't really understand J.J. Abrams and the Bad Robot people who make these horror films. I'm a fan of them, I don't think there has been a Cloverfield film that I haven't at least initially enjoyed so I clearly enjoy their style and film making. I guess I don't totally understand why they're so wishy washy on making a horror/sci fi anthology series. Yes, Overlord is not apart of the Cloverfield films, but there were at least rumors that it was, and while I like the idea that we're just going to get horror films from this company and not have the extra baggage of trying to tie it in with other films (especially if they don't have a clever plan to do so), but if you're making a horror anthology film kind of akin to Black Mirror, it shouldn't be hard to connect these films, right? All you need to do is call the lab in this film Cloverfield labs or have the team dropping in be the Cloverfields or something stupid like that. I'm conflicted, on one hand, I really enjoy this film and am glad it's not attached to Cloverfield, on the other hand I want that kind of creative idea to happen so if they had loosely connected it with this film it would have been an interesting chapter in that weird franchise.

But that's the last I'm tying this to Cloverfield because this movie deserves to be talked about on its own merit.

Overlord takes place the day, practically hours before D-Day. A group of airborne infantry men are parachuted behind enemy lines to knock out an antenna and provide support for the D-Day invasion.

This small group of those Soldier find themselves in a small village in France that is occupied by the Nazi Army (headed up by the guy who played Uron Greyjoy in case you're a Game of Thrones fan, Pilou Asbaek). As they're trying to find the antenna and blow it up, they stumble across some shady doings by the Nazis and find a secret underground lab where the Nazis are creating essentially zombies. I say essentially zombies because while they are zombie like, there are two elements you usually find in a zombie flick that you need to be prepared there is none of in this film. They're not brain hungry, and there is no hoard. There is for sure zombies in this film, but very few.

The reality is that this movie is a pretty small, lower budget horror action film that has some good character dialogue, and in my opinion some pretty cool ideas both in terms of the war, action, and horror genres.

As you may know, I don't watch a lot of horror films but with the exception of a couple of jump scares, this movie falls more into the category of Cloverfield where the focus is more on the action and the story.

The team has some stereotypes like the straight up good guy (played by Jovan Adepo, though I have a sneaking suspicion that they wanted John Boyegea for the role. Doesn't take away that Adepo does a good job), the leader (played by Wyatt Russell from that one horror video game Black Mirror episode), the smart ass (played by John Magaro, that guy from Umbrella Academy), and a girl (played by Mathilde Olliver).

Like I said, the movie is kind of smaller and more claustrophobic. There are a few set pieces but they are really good and I thought the characters interacted and performed really well in the really unique circumstances. It's a pretty violent film and that violence almost makes the movie feel like an exploitation or grind house film that makes the entire film centered on the blood and gore.

This movie level sets those moments with some interesting sci fi ideas, some somewhat interesting dialogue, and just an overall fun streamlined story.

Good guys have an objective, they need to destroy the tower from the Nazis... plus zombies.

For the most part I liked the use of zombies. Again, if you're expecting the hoard, you're going to be disappointed, but again, these are not necessarily zombies.

While the concepts they use are by no means new, I think its an interesting setting and instead of regulating this to a B-film you see in the bowls of Netflix, this movie takes the concept of Nazi Zombies a little more seriously and I think it really works.

This was a pretty small movie with not a very big release and I'm actually kind of bummed. I don't think a lot of people checked it out and I'm starting to realize there were a couple of good movies that came out in 2018 that were like that. This one, Annihilation, and the next film that I'm going to be reviewing, Bad Times at the El Royale.

I really enjoy finding movies like this both in the theaters and after the fact. And that kind of goes into the conflicted thoughts I have on this film that I was talking about at the start.

What I enjoyed most about this film was the visuals and the use of science fiction ideas in a really smaller setting. I'm not saying I need this in a Cloverfield franchise, but I do think there is a market for these kind of films and that's the part of me that's bummed I didn't see this movie in theaters. I like supporting films that I wouldn't mind seeing more of in one way or another and I don't think that's going to happen with this film. It was somewhat financially successful but I'd be surprised if there's any follow up to a story like this.

Is it a perfect movie? No. The story, while good, is nothing ground breaking. It has a lot more B-movie elements that make it feel more like a one-off and honestly, I'm okay with that.

But for what it is, I liked it and I could see myself checking it out again if I want some Nazi zombie action that makes me think a little.

But have you seen Overlord? Do you think it should have been a part of the Cloverfield franchise? What other small horror films should I be checking out similar to this one? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

The Golden Compass

So the first thing to note is that I have not read The Golden Compass. While it's a series I have had some interest in, it wasn't the fantasy series that I was into as a kid. I know some background on the series and the author that I have some thoughts on. I might discuss that a little bit, but I do want to focus on the elements that I do know a lot about, and that would be my viewing experience of this film as well as my troubled anticipation of the HBO series coming out later this year.

The Golden Compass was the first book in a series known as His Dark Materials, written by Phillip Pullman. In doing a little bit of research on the series and Pullman himself, I find him very interesting as a person and the motivation for His Dark Materials to be really interesting. It's got high fantasy elements but then elements of physics, theology, and philosophy is thrown into it with the series being compared to Paradise Lost. Pullman is highly critical of religion and even took aim at C.S. Lewis, calling The Chronicles of Narnia religious propaganda.

Unfortunately, that has made His Dark Materials both a really interesting yet kind of annoying series. On one hand, it is a really interesting perspective and I love it when authors take elements of philosophy and theology and throw it into the fiction/fantasy work, I think it adds a level of complexity.

On the other hand, I've never been a fan of the idea that His Dark Materials was written in part to create a counter argument to The Chronicles of Narnia. It's one thing to write a series based off of religion or your philosophy, its another to write in total retaliation to other people's work.

However, I find the concept of the story really interesting. Just because someone might have a particular thought on religion doesn't discount them in my mind. Stephen King has plenty of things to say about religion but I still love his work.

On top of that, whether its been through this particular film or just what I've heard of the series, this kind of fantasy does interest me. I'll talk about it more when I talk about the aesthetic, but I did want to preface this review with the fact that there is some biases I hold towards this series. However, I am intrigued by the series and will be checking out the HBO series when it comes out later this year.

The other element that I should mention is that no matter what my thoughts on the series are, that doesn't really change the execution of this movie... because this movie is a bit of a mess.

In an exposition dump in the first 2 minutes of the film, the setting is established as a parallel dimension where people's souls live on the outside of their bodies in the form of an animal. This dimension looks like ours except for some differences like steam-punk-like fantasy mechanisms, witches, Ice Bears, and a race of people called Gyptians.

Despite being an exposition dump, there are a lot of questions you'll have during this movie that will never be answered. Just so you're aware.

But the movie mainly centers around a young girl named Lyra (played by Dakota Richard Blue), whose Uncle, Lord Asriel (played by Daniel Craig), is on the cusp of a discovery of the origins of something called dust, an element that would disrupt the world order of the governing Magisterium (probably the biggest allegory for the Catholic Church in cinematic history).

While Asriel goes on what is clearly the more interesting story here, to go north and find the source of the dust and travel across dimensions (because nobody would ever want to see that story), his brat of a niece Lyra is wisked off on her own adventure through a series of circumstances.

First she's lured into the company of the mysteriously devilish Mrs. Coulter (played by the stunning Nicole Kidman), then she's given a Golden Compass in which she is told it helps people find the truth and that Mrs. Coulter should never know she has it, then she gets thrown into a larger adventure about saving some children and she odysseys from place to place, kind of aimlessly until the end where she flies off into a sequel we'll never get to see.

Are parts of it interesting? Yes. For sure. The visuals and the world they build out is actually pretty impressive. One thing I should give this movie credit for is going through a lot of places, introducing a lot of elements to the world, and making me curious. The movie is also really good at no context exposition dumps.

The first 30 seconds of the movie is Eva Green (who adds absolutely nothing to this film by the way, but she's Eva Green, she's got a cool voice and she looks badass) explaining how this takes place in an alternate dimension where people's souls live outside their body in the form of an animal.

There's a lot more she says with no explanation, like what Gyptians are, what armored bears are or how they're different, and some of it is explained, but the animals is a good example.

That raises a lot of questions, that they never really explain. When a person dies the animal vanishes but what happens if the animal dies? What does a certain animal tell you about a person? What does having a monkey tell you about Mrs. Coulter? Why doesn't her monkey talk and Lyra's daemon does? Do Daemons have alternate personalities than their owner? Are there monkeys in this world who are not daemons? Why does Kathy Bates voice Sam Elliot's daemon and what does that say about him?

Not all of these questions are super relevant but I hope you get what I'm going at. If you have quite a bit of mythology to explain, just rushing through the plot as fast as you can and hoping that the audience is catching on as you go doesn't make for a very interesting story because you don't know the rules.

That fits into another issue, the pacing.

The movie clips by very fast that we're not really allowed to get to know the majority of the characters and the characters we do get to know very well, which is essentially just Lyra, aren't that likable.

Take Lyra and Lorek Byrnison for example. One we get to know from the get go. She's the stereotypical tomboy who hates being called a lady and is ready to fight the system. But in multiple scenes she just comes off as a brat and since she's the main character, we get to see this asshole the entire movie. And it would be one thing if that was a character flaw that she needs to work through, to gain compassion. But no, she's just an asshole but she's the main character so they just kind of accept it as her personality.

Now take Lorek Byrnison. We meet him around the half way point and because he's so late in the game, they have to spend cram in his entire backstory and his motivation for joining Lyra in a matter of a couple minutes. Unfortunately, a lot of the characters fall into this category. Sam Elliot, Eva Green, Daniel Craig, all the Gyptians, they're backstory gets crammed into very few scenes and at the end of the day, they're just people in cool costumes following around a bratty young girl just because she's the one who can read the mcguffin, the Golden Compass.

Another point on pacing is how this movie doesn't follow the classic structure of a film and it turns out awkward. Breaking traditional structure is okay, but it makes certain parts of the film seem uneven.

So the beginning starts with Mrs. Coulter taking Lyra away on a trip, treating her nicely, and as an adult I'm realizing that she's most definitely being held hostage and seems more like the B story to a more interesting A story with Lord Asriel, but whatever, that wasn't the story.

The problem is, at the 15 minute mark which is when the hero is supposed to be heading off on their mission, that happens. Lyra leaves with Mrs. Coulter but doesn't totally understand why.

At the thirty minute mark she realizes Mrs. Coulter's cruelty and runs away. Now, you could say this is the point where Lyra realizes her quest where a usual movie would, but she's just running away. She's not going to help any children which kind of becomes the main plot, she's not going to find dust which was probably going to be the plot for the movie franchise, she's just running away.

And that's the main problem, the objective of the movie is split between this larger objective of dust and taking down the magisterium, and the smaller but probably more actionable objective is saving the children. Yes they are somewhat related, but one was an objective that wasn't going to be solved in one movie, dust and taking down the magisterium, and the other wasn't paid enough attention to.

It's the classic DC blunder, trying to make a franchise before you make a good movie.

The last issue I wanna bring up is the fact that the villain is not clearly defined in this movie. Mrs. Coulter is set up as a bad guy in the beginning but after Lyra escapes, Mrs. Coulter shows up once to slap the shit out of a monkey (hilarious) and then she shows up at the end where she's revealed to be bad... but not that bad.

The main villain is supposed to be the magisterium, at least the overarching bad guy for what would have been the movie franchise.

The problem is, and hear me out here, there's nothing to indicate to the characters that the magisterium is that bad of a government. They make them out to be like the evil Empire from Star Wars, but lets take a look at the bad things the magisterium does in this movie.

They send a guy to assassinate Daniel Craig, fair but it goes by so quick and is downplayed so much that it's hard to even say that guy was representing the magisterium, and even if he did does that mean the entire organization is evil?

Mrs. Coulter was mean. Yes... but so? Lyra was being a dick!

The one argument in the story is that they kidnap children to separate them from their daemons which they even try to play off as a kindness to save them from dust (which we never really get an idea of what it is to begin with in this movie).

Now listen, I know that Derek Jacobi, Nicole Kidman, and the great late Christopher Lee are the villains in this film, it's obvious

They threw Saurman in this movie for absolutely no reason, but he's very villainy.

But in the logic of the movie, for the majority of the film, there is no indication that the Magisterium is this downright evil force. For example, in The Hunger Games which came out a year after this, the main focus of the movie and the crux of why the Capital is evil is the games where they pit children against each other for sport... pretty obviously they're evil. The Magisterium kidnaps children sure but it's never really made clear why. If they're evil, they're kind of stupid evil.

I won't jump to too many conclusions because I haven't read the book, but if this movie was criticized for being hyper critical of the catholic church, I'm also not gonna play dumb and say that the Magisterium isn't the metaphor its trying to be and it feels like the perception Pullman had of the church constituted to him as evil, but I don't think that's going to translate 100% to everyone else's sentiments.

Honestly, this movie makes me want to read the book and check out the HBO series because of the world that this takes place in. It's got these really interesting fantasy elements, interesting characters that I'm sure they spend more than 2 minutes explaining, and they actually have time to develop their character arcs.

As a movie, it's visually beautiful. I love the visuals, the fantasy elements, and some aspects of the story. I think it's a really creative and innovative world that oddly makes me want to explore it more. But the movie is a bit of a mess. The pacing is way off, the characters are either underdeveloped or unlikable, and the movie can't decide on the exact plot or message its trying to convey. Now I did read that the movie was edited to take out some of the more anti-religion parts. I'm sure that was a pain in the ass. I think while this movie was really a trainwreck, it does make me more interested in the direction the HBO series will go. Will they lean into the fantasy elements? Will it lean into the criticism of religion? Will it find an in between? I don't know.

I might revisit this source material down the road and some of my thoughts might change. But until then, I can say The Golden Compass is a bit of a mess, but if you're looking for some good visuals and don't care too much about the story or the mixed up messages, it might be something to check out. Otherwise, wait for the HBO series.

But what did you think of The Golden Compass? How does it compare to the books? Are the books worth reading? Why? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Hellboy (2004)

Before you ask, no I haven't seen the Hellboy film that came out this year. I honestly don't know anybody who has.

The concept of Hellboy has never appealed to me. It came out in an awkward time for superhero films before the Nolan Batman movies and the MCU where we were still trying to find the right way to do a superhero film. Not that they were all bad around this time. The Raimi Spider-man films were at the height of their powers and the original X-men trilogy were proving that superhero films could be done. But at the same time, you had Ang Lee's Hulk, Catwoman, Ben Affleck's Daredevil, and Spawn trying to bring some dark credence to the genre and failing. And somewhere in between the campy, wink and a nod vibe of the Raimi Spider-man films and the bruiting WAY TOO SERIOUS Daredevil, you had Hellboy.

The movie starts out with an origin story that I really like. During World War 2, Hitler begins toying with the paranormal. After a platoon of US Soldiers distrupt a ritual to open a portal to hell (or another dimension with demons and shit), they find a baby demon and name him Hellboy.

Years pass and the FBI creates a covert branch focused on fighting the paranormal and the weapon they use to combat these creatures from hell is Hellboy (played by Ron Perlman in some amazing prosthetic and makeup, seriously, I think he looks great)

And on top of the fact that the makeup looks great, Ron Perlman is a treasure and is perfect for that role.

Hellboy is both tough and smooth, but at the same time he's a stunted man child who likes cats... a lot. He is gritty and fights demons but at the same time has a complicated relationship with his adoptive father Trevor Bruttenholm, the scientist who found him (played by the late John Hurt).

There's a lot to like about this character and for playing a character that I don't think a lot of people know, I think Ron Perlman does a really good job.

The movie is mainly seen through the eyes of a new FBI agent who is assigned to be the partner/attendant to Hellboy, Agent John Meyers (played by Rupert Evans). Oh boy is this guy boring

and very useless to the plot. I haven't seen the sequel to this film but I'm glad they got rid of this guy because he adds practically nothing besides a vehicle for the audience to get to know this wacky supernatural world that we're entering.

He gets more pointless as he perpetuates a sort of love triangle between Hellboy and Selma Blair's character that in my opinion came out of no where. Meyers is being a good guy and helpful to Hellboy and then he takes Selma Blair out for coffee and makes a move on her when he's very aware that Hellboy has a thing for her... that didn't make a whole lot of sense to be honest and was kind of dumb.

The far more interesting parts were when the movie delved into the weirder supernatural parts and characters.

Hellboy is clearly interesting, but then you have Selma Blair's character who has pyrokinesis abilities or the fish creature who would later star in the Shape of Water in 2018 (and I'm only sort of joking with that, while he's voiced by David Hyde Pierce, he's motion captured by Doug Jones who played the fish creature in Guillermo Del Toro's Shape of Water).

When Hellboy is interacting with these characters or John Hurt, it gets really interesting. As boring as Meyers is, for the majority of the movie he's just along for the ride and witnessing all the crazy supernatural stuff going on, like the villains.

The villains on paper were probably really great, but in execution they're pretty paper thin. Karl Roden plays Rasputin who I guess was possessed by a demon who wanted to open the gate to hell or something? He's got a random blonde lady and a Nazi assassin who was clearly the best villain, both in action and design.

Honestly, the story and plot of the villain was kind of hard to follow in detail but getting the jist of it isn't hard. Rasputin wants to release hell hounds into the world and eventually open up a portal to hell. Hellboy tried to kill the hell hounds and stop that from happening. Cool? Cool!

One of the coolest things about this movie was the creature design and practical effects used in this film. In a time where CGI was just starting to be the paradoxically good and bad monster it would eventually become, Guillermo Del Toro tried to utilize creature prosthetics and practical effects throughout this movie and it's kind of a wonder.

Do I know that that monster to the left is fake, yes. But the way it was designed and the way it moves was fascinating, especially in the world we live in where CGI is everywhere. When JJ Abrams uses practical effects in Star Wars everyone gives him a round of applause while Guillermo Del Toro has been doing that for years.

I am not a huge connoisseur of Guillermo Del Toro but the costume design and monster design in this movie just beyond amazing that I want to delve more into his films and see them just for that element alone.

Now unfortunately, because there are so many practical effects,  the action has its moments where it becomes very slow and lethargic. While it can be good because it provides weight and meaning to punches and such, it does kind of date itself as a film. Is it horrible? No. But you're not going to find high octane action in Hellboy. On top of that, the times where CGI is used, it's pretty obviously 2004 CGI.

Oh also...

I don't care how pointless or fake this part looked, having that animatronic zombie on Hellboy's back might have been one of my favorite parts.

Hellboy is just a wacky concept overall. A demon who is raised to fight the paranormal Nazis with the help of a telepathic fish monster named Abe Sapien and a girl who starts fires is a pretty weird concept for 2004. Oddly enough they really lean into that wackiness and make the execution just as crazy and wacky as you could in 2004. I understand the appeal. It was a different time so I could see something like this having a real appeal, especially if it was the darker story that was actually good unlike Catwoman or Spawn, that wasn't campy or too mainstream like Spider-man or X-men.

Hellboy filled an intriguing counter culture at a time where the mainstream superhero culture was still being defined. While the story is a little bit of a mess and hard to follow, the up and character interactions were so weird and fun that I almost didn't care. It's not a perfect movie by any means but I am glad I can say I've experienced this area of superhero films, at least a part of it.

Am I going to see the new one now? No, that looks terrible...

But what did you think of Hellboy? If you saw it in 2004, how does it hold up today? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

John Carter

So originally, I was going to go into this review saying that this is a deeply flawed movie, but at the same time being very surprised that people have barely talked about it over the past 7 years at all. But then I looked at the movies that came out in 2012 and suddenly it made total sense that this movie got overshadowed. The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit, The Hunger Games, Argo, Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty, The Amazing Spider-man, that is quite a stacked year so yeah, I get it that a lot of people didn't check out what looks like Conan in space. That's not what the film is, but I get it.

I will not claim to know the backstory of John Carter of Mars and I'm not gonna lie to you and say I did a lot of research into the story. I know that it's based off old pulp magazine stories from the beginning of the century and those stories kind of inspired Flash Gordon which would eventually inspired Star Wars.

And on one hand, that's kind of interesting. Those early pulp magazine serials were early steps to take Greek Mythology and integrate it into science fiction and the pop culture zeitgeist and you can see it in the google images you find of the old magazines as well as in this movie. The costumes and Odyssey-like feel of the civilizations and mythology of Mars in the movie do reckon back to Greek Mythology and the natural interesting stories that came out of that pantheon of literature.

However, on the other hand, John Carter almost feels like a missing link rather than a form of science fiction fantasy evolution. It's awkward, it's campy, and especially in this film, it rides this weird line of trying to make the film epic in line with the Lord of the Rings and Marvel superheroes that were coming out at the time, as well as create an epic in line with The 10 Commandments or the great big production films of the 1930s and 40s.

It is clear that Disney wanted this to be their big blockbuster science fiction fantasy vehicle before they acquired Lucas Films. Disney had made failed attempts to launch franchises before like Prince of Persia and other films, but there was something about the music, the effects, the style, and even the story that I think if this movie came out today with some updates could actually be somewhat successful. I can really appreciate what this movie was trying to accomplish, but this movie is a little bit weird to say the least and I'm not really surprised it didn't blow up into something bigger like I know they wanted it to be.

 There is some exposition and story framing that is done at the beginning of this movie that I will talk about later, but essentially, John Carter follows the story of the titular character (played by Taylor Kitsch). He is a former military Captain in 1868 (or something like that) who just wants to be left alone to prospect for gold. Through circumstances, that 45 minutes in you'll honestly forget about, he ends up being beamed up to Mars and goes on a wacky space adventure.

I'll get to that in a second but I do want to talk about the character of John Carter because there is a lot to talk about here.

First off, I feel bad for Taylor Kitsch. This was around the same time that he and a couple of other generic white dudes (Sam Worthington, Jai Courtney, etc.) were really trying to make it big and star in their own franchise. For Kitsch, he was cast as Gambit, the superhero role of a life time... in probably the worst superhero film ever created. And in this movie, he's cast in the lead role of a major blockbuster hit sponsored by Disney... and nobody saw it. Years later he was in the follow up season of True Detective, a highly regarded HBO series... but it's considered the worst season...

But on top of that, John Carter is not really a likable guy...

Put aside the minor (largely insignificant but funny) fact that he's fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War and they just breeze past that (weird flex Disney), he's got a very familiar motivation that all he wants is money. Of course, he has a turn and ends up wanting to help people and become the generic white dude hero.

He's not... god awful in this movie. But he doesn't bring anything really outstanding to the role. You could switch him out for your Sam Worthington, Jai Courtney, and the role would be one hundred percent the same. He's not very compelling, he's just the generic hero shell that the audience can experience the space adventure through his eyes.

Putting the Title Character aside though, Mars starts off as a really interesting world.

Despite being just a desert wasteland, the first five minutes of the film had me interested because visually this movie is actually pretty good. Maybe its just the spaceships but the first exposition drop about warring factions of Mars actually fooled me into believing there was some interesting politics or warfare that could be going on. Then they introduce the villain in the guy who plays McNulty in the Wire (Dominic West) who is granted a weapon from these deity-like aliens called Therns (The lead one played by generic villain #1 Mark Strong).

But then we go to 1800s America and the movie slowed down... A LOT. Side note: Disney has never and probably never will be good at portraying Native Americans... I'm not sure why they keep on trying.

So much that when they get back into the politics and warfare, I didn't care anymore... possibly because they introduce the love interest and stereotypical female badass of the film played by that chick from Wolverine Origins (Lynn Collins).

Lynn Collins is... bad. Like real bad in this film.

Part of it is her script. She plays the stereotypical warrior Princess who isn't as elegant or feeble as society as led you to believe. She's kind of an example of how we're still bad at writing women in science fiction even though we try to be better. At the end of the day, she's arm candy and doesn't add a whole lot to the film. Also Lynn Collins isn't that great of an actor, at least not in this or Wolverine: Origins.

While on Mars, John Carter inserts himself into this interplanetary war and runs into the multiple factions to include the human-like people that Lynn Collins is in charge of, the bad guys who don't look very different from Lynn Collins faction, and then there's the green alien looking people, led by one who is voiced by Willem Defoe. The Tharks are desert dwellers who don't concern themselves with the wars and politics of the human-looking people of Mars.

Hands down, these were the most interesting parts of the movie. This was a display of how weird this world could get. The Tharks community follows different rules, cultural traditions, and have different motivations and customs. I was legitimately interested in learning about their culture and I wanted to know more.

The problem? Well there's a couple. The CGI for these guys does not hold up. They look fake, but whatever, I'm not a huge CGI stickler. The other issue though is that they live in the desert where everything is this beige color and it was just kind of boring after a while. I was still interested in how different the culture was. I didn't need an exposition drop, just things like throwing the babies on the ground and having the aliens fight for who takes care of them. The challenge system for who will be leader was kind of interesting, and Willem Defoe's character's interest in John Carter as he's able to jump really high and is granted super strength for... reasons?

They never really delve too much into why John Carter is this badass on Mars. I think they say something about gravitational properties or something, but he's really just a guy.

On one hand, if that's the case, I guess I could go to this version of Mars and be the hero. But on the other hand, if anybody can be that, they just have to be from Earth, then why am I supposed to connect with John Carter? What makes him important?

And that's the overall issue with this film, there's not enough to really care about. There are some intriguing ideas, concepts, visuals, and scenes in the film. I mentioned it before but I think they trying to make this a big 2012 block buster franchise (you can definitely tell it from the ending), but at the same time the camera angles, the music, and just the overall feel made it feel like an epic high production film from the 1950's like The 10 Commandments or Ben Hur. This movie had something that felt at least a little bit different than the block busters of the late 2000s to early 2010s.

Unfortunately it really doesn't back it up with a lot of substance. The politics and warfare don't carry the movie like I thought they might, John Carter and the main characters around him are pretty paper thin, and the visuals, while innovative and probably cost Disney a fortune, can't carry a film to success, it's no Avatar.

Also, Bryan Cranston was in this movie at like the height of Breaking Bad and you wasted him Disney.

It's comical how little impact Bryan Cranston had on this film. But he does bring up the comic elements of this movie that they don't really talk about. Bryan Cranston gets shot right before John Carter goes to Mars. John Carter leaves him wounded in a cave and the next time John Carter is in that cave all you see is Bryan Cranston's skeleton. I find that hilarious.

I'll also mention how funny it is that John Carter fought for the South and probably was going to go back to Mars to be king and instituted slavery or something. Again, this movie is weird to say the least.

But those are my thoughts on John Carter. What did you think? Did you see this movie in 2012? Does it hold up? Do you even know what movie I'm talking about? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!