Movie Review #6: Lee Daniels' The Butler

Lee Daniels' The Butler
Director: Lee Daniels
Writer(s): Danny Strong
Starring: Forrest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey, David Oyelwo

I have a very high tolerance for Oscar bait. Sure, the practice of producing period dramas with good acting and exquisite costume design for the sole purpose of winning Academy Awards is unscrupulous and manipulative, but, so long as a good movie is the result, I'm totally OK with it. Just give me a good movie, and I'm satisfied. Now, turning a movie into a commercial: that is a crime for which I will not spare the rod. Both things considered, Lee Daniels' The Butler is both Oscar bait and a commercial. It excels at one, suffers as the other. But is it worth one's time? Let's find out.

Forrest Whitaker plays Cecil Gaines, the son of a sharecropping family who leaves his home to seek a better life elsewhere. Due to the racism of the South, he makes his way north, eventually earning a living as a butler in a hotel. His skills are such that he is invited to work at the White House as a butler. While there, he has to suffer in silence as decisions are made regarding the African American people, and he cannot say a word. Back at home, his son (David Oyelwo) joins the civil rights movement, playing the W.E.B. DuBois to his father's Booker T. Washington. The two come to conflict as the younger Gaines becomes more and more radical in his pursuit of justice. All the while, the Gaines family must suffer heartbreak after heartbreak as the family begins to tear itself apart.

Some say that Forrest Whitaker gives the performance of his career with Cecil Gaines. Having not seen The Last King of Scotland, I'm going to approach that statement with some trepidation. He is certainly effective in the role, but I'm not sure if every scene comes across quite perfectly. The role does feel somewhat manipulative as we watch it, rather than a genuine part. David Oyelwo is much more compelling as the son: he proves to be highly adaptable with the many different phases through which the son goes. Most of the other actors do fine jobs, though subtlety doesn't seem to be Cuba Gooding Jr.'s strong point in his role. A whole cadre of Hollywood all-stars play the various presidents, to varying degrees of success: Robin Williams plays a very convincing Dwight D. Eisenhower, but I never saw Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan. (Though, Jane Fonda does do a nice job as Nancy Reagan.) Most of these parts are subsidiary, as we are left to observe their actions, as is Cecil.

Structurally, the film's greatest deficiency is Oprah Winfrey as Cecil's wife. The film has no purpose for here. A subplot revolving around her infidelity is briefly introduced, but it ultimately amounts to nothing. She dies at the end of the movie, but we have no real reason to care about her. For the preceding two hours, all she does is act in a sassy manner. She's not a strong character; she's not even a character. She's just an excuse to put Oprah into the movie and add more star power to an already star-studded cast. Every second we spend with her is a second wasted on the film's real strength: the relationship between the father and the son.

I previously compared the relationship between Cecil and his son to the feud between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois. This may or may not have been Lee Daniels's intention, but, if it was,  it succeeded masterfully. The Butler brilliantly demonstrates the parallels between the moderate and the radical throughout the film, both visually and scripturally. Towards the beginning of the film's second act, we see excellently framed contrasts between the White House kitchen and the famous 1960s diner sit-ins. None of the later scenes quite match this, but the contrast between the message of Martin Luther King Jr. and that of the Black Panthers works well also. Though the film ultimately reconciles these contrasts with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, they do hold their own for at least the film's beginning. These stories aren't unknown, but they are worth telling multiple times; this film did manage to present them in an at least half-creative way.

Less creative is the heavy-handedness of the film. Every single theme is made glaringly obvious. There is no ambiguity, no room to disagree. Watching The Butler is equivalent to reading an Aesop's Fable: there is a clearly stated moral at the end. And, just like an Aesop's fable, the moral isn't anything deep or thought-provoking. The Butler manages to be interesting insofar as it is a family drama and a period piece, but as a piece meant to increase awareness of the African-American condition, it seems lacking.

And then there's the ending.

Oprah Winfrey has pulled no punches in her endorsement of President Barack Obama. It would not surprise me if her presence in this movie had nothing to do with the end result of the film. Cecil Gaines is eventually witness to the election of President Obama and is invited to the White House long after his retirement. This would just seem like a regular plot point designed to give us closure, but the film frames this moment as if this is the culmination of race relations in America. President Obama's becoming President is this great ultimate victory for African Americans in the United States. This practice seems manipulative and warped in every sense possible. First, to implicitly claim that racial problems in the US have died out since the Obama administration's beginning is to be wholly dishonest and insensitive. Second, to promote Obama solely on the basis of his race (a promotion the film implicitly, if not intentionally, makes) is to ignore both the strengths and failings of his character and administration. And, worst of all, the insertion of this scene and the manner in which it is carried makes the entire movie feel like a two hour campaign ad - after President Obama won his re-election. I wanted to watch this movie for the history, not to endorse someone I would have already voted for in the first place!

But, despite the shameless pandering of the film's conclusion, the journey remains engaging enough to warrant at least a watch. It's FAR from perfect, but it has enough elements to keep a critical viewer engaged. And, if one doesn't think too hard about it, Lee Daniels' The Butler is an enjoyable enough film. Is it a masterpiece? No. Is it a shameless commercial? Maybe. Is it Oscar-bait? Probably. Whatever the case, I am ultimately glad to have seen it. I just probably won't be watching it again.

Recommendation: Lee Daniels' The Butler moves quickly enough so that anyone of any age might enjoy it. Of the people I've spoken to, the ones who most liked the film are middle schoolers and young high schoolers. And, to be perfectly honest, that is the age demographic this kind of film for which this film is best engineered. However, if you are looking for a deeply engaging commentary on racial relations in America, I'd turn your attention to 12 Years a Slave or Do the Right Thing.

I give Lee Daniels' The Butler 5.8 stars out of 10.

Movie Review #5: Der Untergang (Downfall)

Der Untergang {trans: Downfall} (2004)
Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Writer(s): Bernd Eichinger
Starring: Bruno Ganz, Alexandria Maria Lara, Corianna Harfouch

There will always be movies about the WWII and the Holocaust: put together, the two are the greatest tragedies ever to befall mankind. It's a true story so horrific that we cannot help but tell it over and over again. Each time, we feel a new shock. Some have called Hollywood's fascination with the Holocaust a morbid and, indeed, exploitative fixation. By making so many movies about the Holocaust, Hollywood is gradually desensitizing us to it. Sure, some films like Shoah may be appropriate, but the rest of the films just seem to capitalize on the tragedy. As for me, I hold the position that so long as there is one Holocaust denier in the world (and, trust me, there are plenty), we have an obligation to continue telling the story. And, so long as global cinema is able to tell the story of the Holocaust and the fall of Nazi Germany in new, interesting, yet historically accurate, ways, I will sit down and try to seek a greater understanding any day.

But what happens when one looks at WWII from the point of view of the homicidal maniacs? All reasonable people know that championing the Nazis as heroes is a morally despicable action (i.e. Triumph of the Will) , but what if one looked at the Nazis not as evil monsters but as human beings? It's an approach almost no one is willing to take, but Oliver Hirschbiegel took it. Der Untergang is one of the most challenging WWII films I've ever seen - grisly, gripping, horrific, and, overall, chilling.

Looking through the eyes of one of Hitler's personal secretaries, Traudl Junge, we witness the last days of Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels as Allied forces advance upon Berlin. Our perspective shifts from time to time, as we look through the eyes of doctor Ernst-Gunther Schenck and SS captain Wilhelm Mohnke, but our focus is on the actions within Hitler's bunker. We see every plan fail, every safeguard destroyed, every last hope shattered. We then bear witness to more suicides than can be counted, as the desperation of the battle of Berlin and the demise of Adolf Hitler takes its toll on the emotionally crippled Nazi leaders and Hitler Youth members.

Bruno Ganz masterfully plays Adolf Hitler, slowly slipping even further into madness. His outbursts, though infamously parodied on Youtube, are almost hypnotic: this is a man wholly deranged and at the end of his rope. Any sympathy we feel for him derives from his body language and physical weakness; every word he says is full of hatred and faux-compassion. Indeed, Hitler cites the Holocaust as his only victory in the war. We know he is a sick man in every sense of the word. The film shows that Hitler had some compassion for his dog and some kindness towards his secretaries, but most of this is but a disguise for the twisted lunatic hidden beneath. Bruno Ganz practically turns Adolf Hitler into Macbeth, a person with some sympathetic elements but a morally corrupt and insane person at heart.

None of the other performances are on par with Ganz's, but nearly everyone gives an adequate turn. Alexandra Maria Lara is perfectly fine as Traudl Junge, evoking the spirit of someone young and far in over her head. Christian Berkel and Andre Hennicke both do fine jobs as Schenck and Mohnke, the two Nazis to which the film shows genuine sympathy. Ulrich Matthes and Corinna Harfouch are absolutely frightening as the Goebbels; though one generally doesn't think of the Nazi minister of propaganda as one of the most evil members of the Third Reich, this film certainly hammers in the horror. My pick for the best underrated performance is that of Ulrich Noethen as Heinrich Himmler, the most despicable Nazi to ever live, and quite possibly the most evil man in human history. Of all the Nazis in the film, he is the only one to evoke a presence of pure evil. And, to be honest, a man as cruel as him deserves such a treatment.

One key element Der Untergang wholly understands is that film is a visual medium. It is the images of Der Untergang that remain rather than any particular performance or plot point. The putting down of Hitler's dog. The execution of "cowardly" Hitler Youth members in the street. A bucket of sawed off limbs in a military hospital. The barrel of a gun, hammer cocked, pointed at the temple of a man's head. A lone boy dragging a bike out of the mud, just hoping to escape. One could have silenced the film during these moments, and one would still remember every detail. We see that those killed in the blitzkrieg and the Holocaust were not the only victims of Nazi terror; the German citizenry itself proved to be another casualty of Nazi cruelty. Through Hitler's unwillingness to surrender and evacuate Berlin, he condemned his entire country.

Even more frightening is the fanaticism displayed by the Nazi leaders. I have not seen another film with more suicides; indeed, even Book V of Tacitus's Annals doesn't contain as many suicides as the third act of Der Untergang. Most point to the death of the Goebbels' children as the single most horrifying moment of the film. The scene is effective, no doubt; watching Magda Goebbels murder her children rather than have them live without National Socialism is mortifying. But I think the death of Magda and Josef is even more disturbing. The camera pans away from Josef shooting his wife and then himself, showing us instead the crew of men armed with oil cans and matches, ready to burn the bodies. It is as if we the audience should consider this suicide a procedural measure, as they did. Personally, this makes the moment all the more disturbing.

Now, I must address the elephant in the room. If anyone has spent more than a half hour's time on Youtube, one will find thousands upon thousands of Der Untergang parodies, in which the scenes of Hitler ranting are overlayed with new subtitles. Most of the time, Hitler complains about the most fickle mundane subject matter possible. I've watched more than a few of these parodies, and some of them are quite funny. But, after actually watching Der Untergang, I don't think I can ever look at one of them the same way. Certainly, their irreverence is funny, but it is irreverence nonetheless. And one cannot help but feel kind of disgusted when seeing moments of a dark, harrowing film being used to decry the latest album from Justin Bieber.

For Der Untergang is an adult movie, uncompromising in its visuals and its message. This is a story of how collective ignorance and dependence led to the rise and fall of one of the most evil men in history. This is the story of fanatics willing to kill themselves rather than let a perverse ideology die. This is a story about abandoning the ignorance of youth and taking up the responsibility that comes with anyone of any age. Der Untergang ends with a clip of the real Traudl Junge saying, "Of course, the terrible things I heard from the Nuremberg trials about the 6 million Jews and the people of other races who were killed were facts that shocked me deeply. But I wasn't able to see the connection with my own past. I was satisfied that I wasn't personally to blame and that I hadn't known about those things. I wasn't aware of the extent. It is no excuse to be young, and it would have been possible to find things out." There is a burden on all of us to seek the truth. In their frivolity, the Der Untergang parodies miss the point of the film entirely. While a Der Untergang parody may take but 10 minutes to make and has the intellectual value of a Stuart Woods "novel," the actual film is a masterpiece.

Recommendation: Der Untergang is not a film to show kids. There are plenty of other, less graphic, films that can begin to tell the story of Nazi Germany in a more sensitive way than Der Untergang. Nonetheless, everyone over 16 should watch this film. I think there is a moral value to be found in here that one will not find in many other places. It is a brilliant piece of work.

I give Der Untergang 9.3 stars out of 10.

Sequel Face-Off: The Kill Bill Saga

Welcome to a new feature on the Evaluation Zone: a series in which I take two or more films and a franchise and evaluate which film is better than the other. I'm going to evaluate these movies on the basis of 11 criteria, giving them points based on who fares best in each arena. I'll give final point ratings and recommendations for these movies at the end of my set-up. Furthermore, inclusion in these contests doesn't mean I won't return to these movies for a full review sometime in the future. This is just a change-up from the usual formula for fun.

Quentin Tarantino is quickly ascending my list of favorite directors: I doubt he's going to trump Coppola or Hitchcock anytime soon, but he's getting there. While I think both Inglourious Basterds and Reservoir Dogs are above average outings, Pulp Fiction is one of my personal favorite movies - in my top 20, in fact. I was somewhat hesitant when approaching the Kill Bill series, knowing that the series is notorious for its massive amounts of violence and gore, but, my trepidations set aside, I sat down and enjoyed the pictures. After watching them, both rank under Pulp Fiction, but I think each is stronger than Basterds or Dogs. I watched these movies over the course of two consecutive nights, an arrangement I felt gave enough time for me to digest the movie experience in full. Some have told me that watching the two films jointly is an even better experience, but I have my hesitations. A few moments in Kill Bill Vol. 2 don't mesh perfectly with the ending of Kill Bill Vol. 1. As a result, I prefer to look at the two as sequels rather than as one film divided in two.

So, without further ado, let's begin the comparison.

1. The Bride

The Bride, played by Uma Thurman, is the main character of the Kill Bill franchise. A former assassin gunned down on the day of her wedding, the Bride is a woman hell bent on having revenge upon her former lover, Bill, and his league of assassins. Her quest for vengeance is the plot of the entire series, and she manages to be a strong source of focus. Many have called the Bride Tarantino's greatest character. While I still prefer Jules Winnfield from Pulp Fiction, I understand their reasoning. In both films, Uma Thurman gives a great performance as a woman with nothing to lose. She seems to have no compassion, but she can quickly turn and perform incredible acts of kindness and, in the rarest instances, mercy. The Bride is also quite unique in that she has very little dialogue, especially when compared to most of the other great Tarantino characters, like Hans Landa of Inglourious Basterds or Mr. Pink of Reservoir Dogs. Thus, Uma Thurman must heavily rely on her eyes and face doing most of the acting for her. It's a tough role, but she is more than up to it.

Choosing which film handles the Bride better is mostly dependent on what the Bride has to go through. In the first film, we see the Bride at her greatest physical vulnerability. She has just recovered from her gunshot wound, she has been drugged and raped whilst in a coma, and she can hardly move her legs. As the film goes on, the challenges just get tougher and tougher. The forces of O-Ren Ishii prove to be the most lethal opponent's of the Bride, leaving her battered and bloody after several fatiguing fights. Plus, since the Bride is barely given a chance to speak in this film, her acting is almost wholly reliant on body language. It's still communicated masterfully, but the part clearly has its limits.

I think we see a greater depth to the character in Kill Bill Vol. 2. For, instead of being physically vulnerable, the Bride is now emotionally vulnerable. Her daughter, long believed to be dead, is alive and at the mercy of the man the Bride trusts the least: Bill. Bill himself knows the Bride's personality forwards and backwards: he knows exactly what strings to manipulate. The Bride is also given more dialogue, allowing Thurman to communicate with all her acting skills, not just the silent ones. She has more roles to play, having to play the mother, lover, student, as well as the avenger. And, since Thurman does such a good job with all of these roles, we come to respect the character as a fully three-dimensional one.

The Bride is certainly good in Kill Bill Vol. 1, but Kill Bill Vol. 2 just has more depth with regards to its main character.

Vol 1: 0
Vol 2: 1

2. Villains

The overarching villains of the Kill Bill saga are the members of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, a group of elite killers headed by Bill and of which the Bride was once a member. For this section, however, I will only be focusing on the main villainous force in each movie: the other members of the DVAS will be included in the next category. Let us then focus on the primary villains of Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2: O-Ren Ishii and Bill.

O-Ren Ishii, played by Lucy Liu, is one of the members of the DVAS and the reigning leader of the Yakuza. The only survivor of her family's massacre by a Yakuza boss, Ishii works her way up to being one of the world's top assassins. With Bill's help, she quickly climbs her way through the Yakuza ranks to take it over, even though she is not 100% pureblood Japanese. Ishii is a capable commander with keen organization skills, but she is utterly ruthless when it comes to questioning her blood. She is one of the single most difficult opponents for the Bride to take down, managing to inflict severe wounds upon the Bride during their fight. On the downside, many have complained that Liu's performance is rather wooden. She isn't given too much time to display her full range of emotions.

Contrast this with Bill, played by David Carradine. The leader of the DVAS, Bill is the Bride's former lover as well as one of her mentors. He is alarmingly intelligent, able to understand and manipulate others with ease. He is the single toughest emotional obstacle for the Bride to overcome, using the Bride's daughter (his own) as a bargaining chip to tide over the inevitable. He is seemingly kind but is all too aware of the killer instincts within himself. He is an excellent fighter but doesn't feel the need to display his abilities. He is soft-spoken, collected, and ready to face any challenge.

Based on the two descriptions and the plot summary I've thus far provided, it appears that Bill should win this contest hands down. I'm not so sure. For Bill's motivation is quite lacking indeed. The reason Bill orders a hit on the Bride is his being impulsive and jealous over her marrying another man; is that really just cause to murder eight people during a wedding rehearsal? This apparently makes Bill all the more cold-blooded, but, in my view, it makes him all the more childish and immature. Bill's soft-spokenness also leaves his lines somewhat monotonous in expression, even if his lines are engaging.

Ishii, in my opinion, actually demonstrates tremendous subtlety for a villain, for Liu's blankness makes Ishii more compelling. In her final battle, she manages to keep an almost completely emotionless face, putting her in line with the principles of bushido.  She is clearly not afraid to die, even if she thinks herself superior to the Bride in combat. She displays an elegance and grace in her combat, allowing the action of Kill Bill Vol. 1 to add even more to her character. Her motivations are more believable. Her arc is a bit more organic. Thus, when her duel with the Bride comes to a close, we find that she is a far more honorable and important opponent for the Bride to face than even Bill himself.

Bill may be the leader, but Ishii really is the best member of the DVAS.

Kill Bill Vol. 1: 1
Kill Bill Vol. 2: 1

3. Side Characters

Gogo - Kill Bill Vol. 1

Vernita Green - Kill Bill Vol. 1

Elle Driver - Kill Bill Vol. 2

Pai Mei - Kill Bill Vol. 2

While some others might put most of these characters into the "villains" category, I think they deserve their own designation. The Bride has plenty of other worthy adversaries in the Kill Bill movies, all of which deserve to be talked about to some extent.

The original Kill Bill has quite a cast of fun, minor characters. Sofie Fatale, played by Julie Dreyfus, is a nice incarnation of the cowardice and weakness we are supposed to universally loathe, from the perspective of both the heroes and the villains. Buck, played by Michael Bowen, is a disturbing male nurse turned rapist, who gets his just desserts for his most loathsome of crimes. Better than both is Vivica A. Fox as Vernita Green. The sassiest member of the DVAS, Vernita is our first introduction to the insane fight choreography of the series. A former assassin turned family woman, she manages to be exactly what the Bride wants to be and loathes the most: she is a proud mother with a stable family, but she uses her family as little more than a bargaining tool.

But my personal favorite has to be Gogo Yubari, played by Chiaki Kuriyami. Putting it bluntly, this girl is bats*** crazy. One of the most lethal henchmen in movie history, Gogo is a psychotic schoolgirl wielding a meteor hammer that nearly manages to kill the Bride. Indeed, she's one of the closest characters to actually killing the Bride in the entire series. Her combat is also ridiculously sexualized, as she seems to derive orgasmic pleasure from fighting. The role is so ridiculously hammy and over-the-top that it's impossible not to fall in love with it. Not to mention, the fight between her and the Bride is the best in the entire saga.

This is not to say Kill Bill Vol. 2 doesn't have a good supporting cast. Christopher Allen Nelson makes a brief appearance as the Bride's groom-to-be, Tommy Plympton; his role is short but effective. Less than stellar is Daryl Hannah as Elle Driver. The least likable of the DVAS, Driver is psychotic without any of the ham. She is needlessly narcissistic, shows little to no respect for her opponents, and plays dirty constantly. The audience quickly dislikes her from the instant she appears, for we know the Bride deserves a much better rival. I've not liked Daryl Hannah in a single role I've seen her in; this time is no different. Fortunately, the Bride's teacher, Pai Mei, as performed by Gordon Liu, more than makes up for Driver's lack of grace. A man so skilled at martial arts that he is able to use every part of himself (and I do mean every part) as a weapon, Pai Mei is arrogant in all the right ways. He is funny and threatening at the same time.

Budd - Kill Bill Vol. 2

But the cream of the crop here is Bill's brother, Budd. The final member of the DVAS, Budd is the character who actually defeats the Bride purely by being smarter. He doesn't need superb combat skills; just give him the right timing and a shotgun, and he's good to go. He's also the only side character in the Kill Bill series to have a legitimate arc. Budd is clearly haunted by what he's done and has turned to drink and money to solve his problems. He appears to be motivated by greed and greed alone, but the audience senses that he is merely tired. The fact that he beats the Bride even though he is a drunk makes the Bride's quest all the more urgent, while also showing us how vulnerable we all are, even at the peak of our powers.

Though the characters of Kill Bill Vol. 1 are a lot of fun, not one of them is as complex as Budd. So, the drunk guy nails the sequel a point.

Kill Bill Vol. 1: 1
Kill Bill Vol. 2: 2

4. Action

Here's where things get bloody. Ridiculously bloody. The Kill Bill franchise has more limbs hacked off within it than within Ed Gein's house. The question here is which movie handles this violence more tastefully, has better fight choreography, and just has a better handle on its action.

It's a rare sight to find combat as meaningful in any movie; more often than not, it's but a special effect added to wow the audience rather than evoke an emotional response. But there's something I call "narrative through combat," in which the fight choreography is able to explain the characteristics of a person and tell the story without dialogue. It's one of my favorite things found in movies, as expertly demonstrated in The French Connection, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Warrior. The Kill Bill  series manages to exhibit "narrative through combat" rather consistently, with only a few minor flubs here and there.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 certainly has much more fighting and violence than the sequel. Within the first movie, we see people cut in half, scalped, bludgeoned to death, hemorrhaged to death, stabbed, mutilated, decapitated, gunned down - there's no shortage of violence. And Tarantino doesn't spare us the detail; we see every drop of blood. The image of Gogo's eyes bleeding still gives me chills. One has to wonder if the violence is somewhat gratuitous. Some would say "yes," but I'm not one of them. To me, the violence of Kill Bill Vol. 1 crosses the line twice. At first, it's disgusting and almost gratuitous. But, since the movie keeps up the violence and keeps finding new ways to stylize it, it manages to cross the line back into non-gratuity. The sheer insanity of the fighting makes it more enjoyable and more artistic. Special mention must be given to the fights between the Bride and Gogo, arguably the best fight in the entire franchise in terms of pure fight choreography, and the battle between the Bride and O-Ren, pitting the principles of bushido against the natural fury of a vengeful murderess.

Kill Bill Vol. 2 tries to restrain itself. Whereas the original Kill Bill has at least nine full fight sequences, Kill Bill Vol. 2 only has four, none of which are as lengthy as those in the first. At the same time, each of these fights serves to tell a different part of the story. The Bride vs Budd fight demonstrates the evolution of warfare, while the Bride vs Pai Mei fight shows us a totally new side to the Bride - her as a student. The highlight is the Bride vs Elle Driver fight, if only because the audience wants to see Driver die painfully. The ending is both shocking and disgusting; unfortunately for Kill Bill Vol. 2, the lack of consistency in its violence make the gore of this final fight somewhat gratuitous. It doesn't have the chance to cross the line twice. At the same time, the conclusion is quite poetic in its execution, with the fast editing contributing to the shock.

Since both movies clearly demonstrate the virtues of "narrative through combat," this point really comes down to the fight choreography. On that basis, I have to hand it to Kill Bill Vol. 1. While the combat of Kill Bill Vol. 2 is well-executed, it is often performed in very enclosed spaces. As a result, the movements become much less fluid. It's tonally appropriate but not as enjoyable to watch. In this category, Kill Bill Vol. 1 cuts down the competition.

Kill Bill Vol. 1: 2
Kill Bill Vol. 2: 2

5. Pacing/Narrative Structure

Tarantino is the master of non-linear cinematic narrative. Pulp Fiction is said to be the most influential film of the 90s due to its perfection of non-linear plot structures. But, being honest, Tarantino has been using this same technique since Reservoir Dogs. Both Kill Bill movies feature some degree of non-linear narrative; the question is: which is more creative and more focused?

Kill Bill Vol. 1 starts us, like the great Homeric epics, in medias res. The Bride is off to kill the second on her hit list, having already defeated O-Ren. The movie then brings us up to speed, telling the preceding story. There is a brief diversion in Chapter Three, in which we hear the background of O-Ren, but we return right back to the present after that. We end the movie as we began, with the Bride off to hunt down Vernita Green, but with new information at hand.

Kill Bill Vol. 2 cuts to immediately after the Bride has killed Vernita and is off to kill Bill. The film then cuts to events prior to those of the first movie, giving us the exact details of what happened before the Bride was shot down. We then travel to the Bride's taking down Budd and Elle, before immediately proceeding to her hunt and takedown of Bill. Then, in full Homeric fashion, we return to the center and finish the story.

Despite all the hopping, not once does the story ever seem confusing. The tidy chapter structure of the saga also contributes to a steady pace. Thus, determining the winner in this category is going to come down to the nitpicks. Personally, I wish we could have spent a bit more time in the last chapter, Face to Face. Since Bill is the final member of the DVAS, it would have been nice had the joust between him and the Bride been a little bit longer. It's a small point and is almost entirely dependent on the plot of the second story, but it's enough to tilt this category in favor of the first Kill Bill.

Kill Bill Vol. 1: 3
Kill Bill Vol. 2: 2

6. Writing/Dialogue

If Kill Bill Vol. 1 barely squeaks by in the last category, Kill Bill Vol. 2 takes this category in a landslide. Sure, Kill Bill Vol. 1 has some fun lines (i.e. "Silly Caucasian girl likes to play with samurai swords" and "I should have been mother******* Black Mamba"), but none of these even come close to the material in Kill Bill Vol. 2. The second Kill Bill movie features classic Tarantino dialogue: pop culture references, pointed and direct sentences, character development through non-cliché writing. It just works in all the right ways. My personal favorite is Bill's analysis and critique of Superman: not only is it an interesting consideration of America's quintessential superhoro, but it also manages to reflect Bill's consideration of himself as compared to the other members of the DVAS and to the world at large. Each line and delivery has much more at stake in the second Kill Bill: an easy win for the sequel.

Kill Bill Vol. 1: 3
Kill Bill Vol. 2: 3

7. Lighting/Camera/Sound

These elements aren't talked discussed too much in most film comparisons, but I think they warrant discussion. After all, the films that make it onto the critics' Sight and Sound poll of the best films of all time usually land there due to their camera and sound work rather than their story. This category will try to examine which film uses the camera, lights, microphones, and all the other fineries of film better.

It's important to keep in mind that the two Kill Bill movies, especially the first, are heavily influenced by Eastern action films. Movies like Battle Royale (also the inspiration for The Hunger Games) showcase many similar filming styles to those seen in Kill Bill Vol. 1. So, not all the creative moves in these movies can directly be attributed to Tarantino. All the same, he manages to pull off some pretty impressive shots. The fight scenes in the House of Blue Leaves pull off some intense shots; the animated .gif you see above shows one of the best low angle shots I've ever seen. The framing is exquisite. The first film also nails its close-ups, with the reveal of O-Ren Ishii's demise being both brutal and beautiful at the same time. The second film's best shots come into play during the Bride's burial and her confrontation with Elle. Both of these moments are very claustrophobic, and the camera perfectly reflects that claustrophobia.

The sound is crisp and well edited throughout all these movies. The soundtrack, as usual in Tarantino's movies, is great, with a wide range of European, Latin, and Eastern tracks. Personally, I think Kill Bill Vol. 2 uses sound a little bit better. During the Bride's burial sequence, we don't see anything. We just hear it. At the end of the day, it's a much more effective scene due to much of the action being left to the viewer's imagination.

That little bit of sound turns the tide in favor of the sequel.

Kill Bill Vol. 1: 3
Kill Bill Vol. 2: 4

8. Suspension of Disbelief

You might call this section the "nitpick" part of the analysis. Whichever movie gets by with fewer plot holes and personal issues gets the edge.

Kill Bill Vol. 1
- If Vernita Green knew she was better with an edged weapon than the Bride, why didn't she just wait until nightfall to fight? Did she really think that the Bride wouldn't expect a sneak attack?
- How the heck can a mass murdering woman escape the authorities when she's driving a truck with a giant "Pussy Wagon" label on the back?
- Couldn't the Bride have just taken one of Hattori Hanzo's other swords rather than have him break his vow to make a new one?
- If O-Ren Ishii is an expert marksman, why does she use a sword?
- In fact, why does anyone in these movies use a sword? Wouldn't it be smarter to just use guns?
- Biggest plot hole: how the hell did the Bride even survive getting shot straight to the head?

Kill Bill Vol. 2
- So the Bride hides under Budd's trailer, allows him, unarmed, to walk into his trailer, waits until he gets his shotgun and positions himself in front of the door, and then barges in to kill him? Shouldn't that have been a big tip off?
- How did Elle Driver get the black mamba into the briefcase to start with?
- So, both the Bride and Elle manage to have a full fight scene in a small trailer while a black mamba is in the same confined space and neither of them gets bitten? Especially when black mambas are notorious for their aggression, speed, and willingness to attack humans if threatened in the slightest way?
- Why would Bill keep in contact with someone who could sell his location out when he knows the Bride has tracked down everyone else?
- Really, Bill murdered 8 people because he was jealous? Also, why didn't he realize the Bride could have been pregnant the whole time?
- Also, why is Bill still killing people? I know it's his "nature," but he's so rich he doesn't need to do it any more. It's apparent that he's a good father; why not just retire, marry the Bride, and spend the rest of one's life reading and analyzing Superman comic books?
- Biggest plot hole: the grave scene... just the grave scene.

1. Assuming the Bride did learn how to break a solid 4-inch board from three inches away, that's only under the conditions of air being on the other side. This board has at least 4 feet of dirt on the other side.
2. Even if she broke the board, there's no way she could have broken a hole through it. That would require her breaking it multiple times, two times of which she would have had to break the wood against the grain.
3. Making the hole would use up more energy and air than would be available in the casket.
4. Even if she somehow made a hole and still had energy, the dirt would pour through the hole and crush her before she could even get her hand free, let alone her entire body.
5. Even if she somehow managed to get her body through the hole before she suffocated, she would have had to dig straight up using only her hands through at least 4 feet of dirt, all without taking a breath.
6. AND, if she somehow managed to get out of the hole, after all that, her hand would be broken. Therefore, how could she have fought off and killed Elle without going to the hospital?

Point to the original.

Kill Bill Vol. 1: 4

Kill Bill Vol. 2: 4

9. Themes

The battle of which film has better themes is a match between subtlety and relevance. Namely, Kill Bill Vol. 1 manages to showcase several subtle themes, but said themes amount to very little, whereas Kill Bill Vol. 2 throws subtlety out the window in favor of a much more important message. This is a difficult battle between two things I greatly value in themes, so it's going to come down to the wire on this one.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 is, at its heart, a revenge story. Revenge is the single engine behind the Bride's behavior. She does not kill to survive or to even live: she kills out of pure, untempered rage. The same notion of revenge applies in her rival, O-Ren Ishii, who murders her family's killer. After the Bride kills Vernita Green, she tells Green's daughter that she can seek revenge once she is old enough. The most profound element about this cycle of revenge is not that the revenge, in and of itself, isn't satisfying; it's the karma of revenge that makes it undesirable. Sure, one might feel the satisfaction of revenge, but such satisfaction is temporary, as someone will mount a reprisal. I also appreciate the subliminal conflict between East and West that's at the heart of Kill Bill Vol. 1's final chapter: at first, both the Bride and O-Ren Ishii are far too overconfident in their own native styles. Eventually, the two come to terms with each other's differences as they fight each other. There's an odd cultural unity to the film, with immense respect for both Eastern and Western fighting styles.

All of these themes are very subdued, though, and only really come forth after much analysis. Also, I find it questionable how applicable these themes really are. Sure, the discussion of revenge is interesting, but do rewal people honestly go around killing dozens of others in order to gain revenge? Furthermore, since "revenge is bad" is a theme so ingrained in our consciousness, in both Western and Eastern politico-religious thought, the point seems somewhat redundant. The other themes of the first film can be written off as homages to previous films of the Eastern canon, as well.

I'm not sure the themes of Kill Bill Vol. 2 can be written off so easily. Not only does the sequel expand upon the themes of the first, bringing the entire karma-revenge cycle full circle, but it also adds in a new theme: motherhood. Most, if not all the Bride's actions, can be likened to what a mother is willing to do for her child. When a mother truly cares about her kin, there is no force in the world that can stand in her way. The only issue here: the movie highlights this theme with all the force of a sledgehammer. It even spells the theme out for the audience with not so subtle symbolism and a written moral. It's somewhat irritating. At the same time, it's an idea that does leave a moral impact, unlike those of the first film. The maternal instinct is something we don't really examine too much in movies. And, since the Bride clearly wants her baby and wants her baby to live a non-murder filled life, her decisions don't come across as Tarantino-based sexism at all. They come across as indicative of sacrifice: positive character development. The Bride's choosing to abandon her murders and become a mother doesn't make her less of a role model; it makes her more of one. (After all, how many katana-wielding psychopaths do you look up to?)

Chalk up another point for the sequel.

Kill Bill Vol. 1: 4
Kill Bill Vol. 2: 5

10. Creativity

Out of all the categories, this was the easiest to determine. Kill Bill Vol. 1 takes far more risks than Kill Bill Vol. 2. Not only does Tarantino have to abandon his signature element, his dialogue, but he also has to experiment with many different filming styles and artistic mediums. There are intense action scenes shifting from black and white to color, battles shifting from full volume rock music to dead silence, split screen moments focusing on suspense and build-up, even an entire chapter that is animated in a combination of anime and sketch textures. Kill Bill Vol. 2 falls back upon most of Tarantino's familiar elements: violence and witty dialogue. It's not that these things are bad, but none of them really test the boundaries of film as a medium.

Kill Bill Vol. 1: 5
Kill Bill Vol. 2: 5

11. Story

The contest ultimately had to come down to which movie told a more focused, important, effective, and cohesive story. Once again, this was a difficult choice to make. It came down to a question of urgency: which film really felt more in the moment? Which film understood how to make each moment matter all the more? After much deliberation, I had to side with Kill Bill Vol. 2.

As I mentioned in the first category, while Kill Bill Vol. 1 is about the Bride's physical peril, Kill Bill Vol. 2 is about her emotional peril. Emotional peril has far greater storytelling prospects than mere physical peril. In fact, all of the Bride's conflicts in the second film have a far greater punch. The conflict with Budd has more emotional weight because Budd is the one person truly able to beat the Bride. The fight with Elle has more gravitas because the Bride and Elle really do despise each other, something not present in the other fights. And the final confrontation with Bill, even if somewhat underwhelming, does explore most of the emotional issues at hand. The characters are constantly developing, even if they aren't necessarily the most likable or the subtlest.

Furthermore, Kill Bill Vol. 2 does seem much more comfortable in its story than the first Kill Bill. Much of the creativity of the first Kill Bill, what with the animation and different camera, seems like it is compensating for the lack of emotional and plot complexity that's present in the second. Certainly, said creativity does add a great deal to the story, but it can't fully make up for the limitations Kill Bill Vol. 1 places on itself.

Even if I enjoyed Kill Bill Vol. 1 a bit more while watching it, I think, if I watched these movies 2-3 more times, I'd probably find myself gravitating towards the second. Much more is at stake, the story is much more focused, and there's just a little bit more to be found. In this case, the sequel is better than the original.

The winner is:

I give Kill Bill Vol. 1 8.2 stars out of 10 and Kill Bill Vol. 2 8.5 stars out of 10.

Movie Review #4: The Untouchables

The Untouchables (1987)
Director: Brian de Palma
Writer(s): David Mamet
Starring: Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Robert De Niro

I will be blunt: I love mobster movies. The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, White Heat - I love them all. (Granted, some are better than others, but I have a soft spot for the genre in general.) That being said, I also have standards, both moral and critical. A good mobster film never glamorizes the mafia or endorses the warped, twisted morals of organized crime. A good mobster film is also a good film; simply following the tropes of the genre is not conducive to an enjoyable experience. Sadly for me, The Untouchables manages to satisfy neither of these criteria. Though it depicts those who fought against the Chicago Outfit and parades them as heroes, The Untouchables is little more than a violence-glorifying, plot hole-ridden, poorly acted mess parading itself as one of the premier gangster films of its era. How could a movie based on an autobiography make me this angry? Let's find out.

Elliot Ness, played by boredom incarnate, Kevin Costner, is an agent from the Department of the Treasury sent to take down the criminal empire of Al Capone (Robert de Niro). Due to Capone's wide-reaching influence and government corruption, Ness is unable to pull off even a single sting operation. He soon turns to beat cop Jimmy Malone (Sean Connery) and a small cadre of other incorruptible, "untouchable" agents to help him take down Capone's empire. Capone, however, is one tough cookie, using his top assassin, Frank Nitti (Billy Drago) to thin the ranks of the Untouchables before they can put him behind bars. Can Ness and his men catch the most notorious gangster of all time? The answer: read your history books.

I guess I'll begin with the positives; otherwise, this review would become less of a structured critique and more of a sycophantic rant. Sean Connery won an Oscar for his portrayal of Jim Malone, and he certainly does a good job. Malone is the only character in this film that has three-dimensions. He's able to show us his experience, his fury, and his wisdom tactfully. I'm not sure if the role deserved the Oscar - I still need to watch the other nominees - but it's a good performance, nonetheless. Robert de Niro is also quite fun as Capone, playing the role with some comedic flair. This matches the real life Al Capone quite well, a man notorious for loving the spotlight. The setpieces are very nice, and one does feel transported back to the era. And, as always, Ennio Morricone gives us a great soundtrack.

If only Kevin Costner matched any of these elements. I don't know if The Untouchables is the film where he first gained his reputation as the blandest man in movies, but I wouldn't doubt it if someone told me it was. Ness is one of the most boring protagonists I've ever seen. He has no identifiable characteristics, no quirks, no weaknesses to be exploited, no strengths to be displayed. Making matters worse is the film's own recognition of Costner's weakness. Half the plot elements surrounding Ness exist only to give the audience a faint cognizance of his humanity. He has a loving family, but the family is given just enough screen time to make us "feel" for Ness rather than develop in its own right. He develops a rivalry with mob boss Frank Nitti, so to give him an identifiable mono y mono rival for the film's climax. The rivalry is forced and awkward, not helped by Drago's hammy performance. These relationships and elements are clearly shoehorned in.

There are no side characters in this movie. There are plenty of side caricatures in this movie. Andy Garcia plays the guy who can shoot, Charles Martin Smith is the nerd, and Richard Bradford plays the crooked cop. None of these characters has anything interesting to say or do. Garcia talks smack for a good five minutes of screen time, with us never getting insight as to his reasons for wanting to be a cop.  It's played for laughs, but the joke isn't funny. Smith does fare somewhat better, getting one funny scene with him wielding a Tommy gun. But worst of all is Billy Drago as Frank Nitti. This Nitti is no more than a mook, relishing every murder he commits. He's not enjoyably evil, though. In fact, the performance seems to assassinate the character of the actual Frank Nitti: sure, the real life Nitti was a despicable murderer, but he wasn't as stupid and outright obvious as Drago's Nitti.

The plot and pacing aren't much better than the characters. The Untouchables is primarily based on a television series. It shows; the plot feels as if the exciting moments of various TV episodes were spliced together with no thought or care as to their arrangement. The "untouchables" hop from location to location, gathering bits of evidence that can be used against Capone, in a fashion more akin to a poorly made movie-licensed first person shooter than an actual motion picture. The action is also more reminiscent of a video game cover system than an actual movie. Bullets stop dead whenever they hit cars (a mobster and action movie cliché that has long since been debunked), gangsters pop out just long enough for a policeman to shoot them down, and the final gangster/boss takes more effort to kill than the men before him. There is one fun sequence in which Ness and one of the other cops fight men on a staircase in slow motion, but, even here, the fight seems somewhat manipulative.

Normally, I could shelve all these criticisms if the film managed to add up to something. That's not the case. As a critical thinker, I believe I ought to take something away from every movie I see. If The Untouchables had something of value to say, I'd enjoy it. Unfortunately, the true message behind The Untouchables is one of the most disgusting to which I've ever borne witness.

The Untouchables doesn't believe in American rights.

All throughout the film, our main characters constantly flout the necessities of any legal system in order to establish their perverse sense of "justice." Storming into people's private homes and businesses without a warrant to gather evidence? A-OK by The Untouchables' standards. Killing some mobsters in order to extort information from others? Two thumbs up. Cruel and unusual punishment? Fine. Cold blooded murder for sake of revenge? Go right ahead. As long as you are on the right side, you can use whatever means necessary to get what you want. WHAT. THE. HELL.

By no means is The Untouchables incompetent, but it manages to be all the more infuriating for wasting all its potential. This could have been a fun romp with a dynamic cast and a nuanced understanding of what methods are necessary to take down the world's deadliest criminals. Instead, it's a film almost hateful in its apathy and lack of effort. It's the most hollow movie-going experience I've had this month, a movie I will never willingly revisit.

Recommendation: If you are a die-hard mob movie fan who wants to see all the "classics" in the genre, I guess there's no stopping you watching this film. I say it's not worth two hours of anyone's life.

I give The Untouchables 2.1 stars out of 10.

Movie Review #3: A League of Their Own

A League of Their Own (1992)
Director: Penny Marshall
Writer(s): Lowell Ganz, Babaloo Mandel
Starring: Geena Davis, Lori Petty, Tom Hanks

I cannot stress this enough when it comes to sports films: the outcome does not matter. There are two results of a sports game: victory or defeat. Ending a sports film with either is cliché. What matters in a sports film is the odyssey; our satisfaction with an ending is wholly dependent on how much we care about the journey. With this in mind, A League of Their Own is a satisfying, if not spectacular, sports film. Is this a truly excellent sports film, like Rocky or Remember the Titans? No. Is it a terrible, patronizing mess like Facing the Giants? No. It finds a happy medium, avoiding the worst of the genre's pitfalls while somewhat succumbing to formula. All the same, I say it's worth a watch.

Dottie Hinson (Geena Davis) and her sister, Kit (Lori Petty), are two Oregon women who are avid fans and players of baseball. When most American men, including almost the entire MLB, enter combat in WWII, the owner of the Cubs decides to found a women's league in order to make money. Dottie, with a husband overseas, is hesitant to join this new league, though Kit is ecstatic. Dottie's incredible playing abilities net her access to training, while Kit just barely manages to enter training on her sister's coattails. Both make the league, encountering a star-studded cast of various quirky players and executives, including their manager, Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks). As the league struggles to gain national momentum, the forces of the war and jealousy begin to tear at the relationship between the two sisters, leading to a final game that will decide the fate of their sisterly love and the league at large.

Don't let the headlining pictures of Tom Hanks and Madonna fool you: this movie is about Geena Davis and Lori Petty. The movie, much like Titanic several years after, begins and ends with a quasi-inspirational flashback; both flashbacks end with a discussion of sisterhood's importance. Thankfully, this story is the greatest strength of the movie. Both Geena Davis and Lori Petty give fine performances; I only saw the characters on the screen, not the actors. Lori Petty in particular gives her career best, portraying a three-dimensional younger sibling who can equally feel excitement, rejection, disappointment, anger, and compassion. Davis, on the other hand, is the solid rock on which the film is based. She is our main character, with all the central conflicts and relationships in the movie tying into her story. As such, she plays a strong role model, willing to do what it takes to get fans in the seat but not willing to take chauvinist bull. She has her vulnerabilities, too, making her somewhat more believable.

The rest of the cast is somewhat hit-and-miss. Tom Hanks, as usual, turns in a fine performance. Everyone and his/her mother will remember the "there's no crying in baseball scene" for years to come. Megan Cavanagh does a fine turn as second baseman and slugger Marla Hooch. Madonna, a musician and actress whom I actively loathe, is actually not bad as center fielder Mae Mordabito, although her character is somewhat pointless. Less than appealing are Rosie O'Donnell, playing herself (really third baseman Doris Murphy) and Jon Lovitz as talent scout Ernie Capadino, both needlessly sleazy and utterly two-dimensional. Of all these characters, Hanks as manager Jimmy Dugan is the only one really given anything to do. It appears as if Marla is going to have an interesting arc, but she gets married off in the middle of the movie. Madonna and O'Donnell spend most of their time making jokes rather than developing. The rest of the girls are little more than bit parts.

The film's plot points fare similarly. Both the main storyline and the Jimmy Dugan subplot, in which the alcoholic Dugan must overcome his prejudices and learn to manage a team, hit all the right marks. Less than appealing is Dottie's dealing with her husband's presence overseas. At first, this story seems quite functional. Geena Davis and Tom Hanks share some surprisingly touching and subtle scenes discussing this matter. But one scene manages to botch all the build-up with a sledgehammer. Dugan receives a telegram from the War Department right before a game: the audience naturally assumes that Dottie's husband has died. This is an excellent opportunity for character development and emotional depth. Just as Dugan is about to hand off the letter to Dottie, he gives it to the player next to her, a player whom we care nothing about.

Such false twists are what I call "teases."

A good plot twist is one that surprises the audience but offers a new perspective on the scenes prior to the twist. A good plot twist is deducible. A bad plot twist is one that comes out of nowhere, a twist that, in retrospect, does absolutely nothing to further the movie and serves only to confuse. A tease is even worse. This is when a twist emerges in a movie usually for the purpose of a joke or a false start, ultimately resulting in no change to the status quo. Teases are that much worse than bad plot twists in that they have no purpose other than wasting the audience's time. If one can remove the scene without any change to the story, then the twist you've just seen is a tease. These are the banes of my film-watching existence. I have one life to live, and I don't want it wasted on false hopes.

Despite this glaring flaw in the film's pacing, the rest of the movie holds up pretty well. It follows the standard sports film formula, what with the training montages and dramatic defeat before the third act. At the same time, there are some nice other elements. I found the balance these women had to find between sexing themselves up for a male audience and playing professional baseball quite interesting: I'm not so sure Betty Friedan would have been happy with the choices made, but I think the film recognizes what compromises had to be made simply because of the time. It was either somewhat degrading clothing or no female presence in athletics altogether. It's a tough choice, no doubt, but a choice that was actually made. There's nothing else in this movie that's intellectually challenging or exceptionally strong, but it manages to satisfy. Like in any good sports film, one leaves the viewing with that "fuzzy" feeling.

Recommendation: While not a "must watch," I'd say that A League of Their Own is a great family film. This is a movie anyone can enjoy, from kids 6+ to adults. If it's on Showtime or Starz on a Friday night, I'd say it's worth one's time.

I give A League of Their Own 6.9 stars out of 10.

Movie Review #2: American Psycho

American Psycho (2000)
Director: Mary Harron
Writer(s): Mary Harron, Guinevere Turner
Starring: Christian Bale, Willem Dafoe, Jared Leto, Cara Seymour

There is a fine line between shock violence and cruelty, between intensity and gratuity. American Psycho toes this line so carefully that it seems to cross the line back and forth. It's either one of the most brilliant psychological horror films ever made or a malicious, accidentally misogynistic, gore fest. Whatever way one looks at it, American Psycho is certainly a well-made, well-edited film. The question is: do its strong elements actually amount to something of value?

Christian Bale plays the well-to-do businessman, Patrick Bateman. Bateman may be rich and surround himself with an elite circle of seemingly like-minded yuppies, but behind his finely maintained veneer is a psychopath. His daily meetings and excursions to 5-star restaurants seem to be but a front for his true lifestyle, that of a serial killer preying upon the poor, the suffering, and the helpless. Matters all change when Bateman kills one of his yuppie associates, Paul Allen, over his fancy business card. What ensues is a deepening of Bateman's insanity and a startling disconnect between Bateman, his upperclass world, the world below, and the world of the viewer.

Bale/Bateman is brilliant. I put the two together because I honestly could not identify the actor; Christian Bale just seems born to play this part. It is alleged that Edward Norton was also offered this role, but Bale blows any other actor out of the park here. This role defined Bale as one of Hollywood's top tier method actors. His physique fits Bateman's perfectly. (Kudos to the costume designers, too: his suits are impeccable.) He offers pure confidence, no arrogance: quite a contrast between his cocky, shallow "friends." At the same time, he slips right into a genuinely disturbing mania whenever he kills someone. He pulls us right into his paranoia, and we gradually begin to sympathize with a homicidal maniac.

Of course, all the acting in the world couldn't save American Psycho if its script and cinematography were bad. That's not the case. Most of the dialogue and inner-Bateman monologue is lifted directly from Bret Easton Ellis's book. The script offers a subtlety lacking in many other films, with the dialogue itself suggesting the malice hiding within Bateman. There is also a compelling contrast between the verbal banality of the 80s pop Bateman adores and the visceral visuals of Bateman murdering his victims. In addition, many of the angles featured in American Psycho really highlight the insanity. At one point, Bateman enters what appears to be the same building twice in a row; this is all due to well-executed camera work.

But it's the editing that gives American Psycho "a big boost." The most intense scenes of the movie are Bateman's murders of two prostitutes and his over-the-phone confession. The former lets us follow a prostitute, Christie, as she tries to flee from a chainsaw wielding Bateman. Along the way, she stumbles upon the bodies of the various women Bateman has murdered. The jump cuts here are dizzying; the viewer becomes nearly as nauseous as the victim. When Bateman finally reveals himself and kills his victim, it is truly disturbing. The confession scene is also one of the best uses of sound editing I've seen in a while. Every background sound cuts out. There is no music. We can hear every breath, every crinkle of fabric as Bateman blurts out all his crimes in a twisted attempt at catharsis. The desperation sinks in fabulously.

So, without a doubt, the film is well-made. But I do have my issues. For American Psycho is one of the most brutally violent films towards women in cinema history. Some critics, such as Roger Ebert, have considered American Psycho from a feminist perspective, and the results are quite fascinating. The vast majority of Bateman's actions, psychotic or otherwise, can be seen as little more than him extolling the virtues of his phallus. Since the film ends ambiguously, his greatest crime ends up being his sexism. This is a keen interpretation, but I think American Psycho goes a bit too far. We do not sympathize with Bateman, but some of the imagery in American Psycho is brutal beyond necessity. The murder of the prostitutes is one of the more disgusting movie scenes I've seen, even if it was appropriately scary. Even worse is the last scene, in which we see the horribly graphic drawings Bateman makes during his downtime. Some of this violence to women is extreme to the point of being offensive.

Perhaps my aversion to this violence is my being a man; when I see such brutality to women, I must therefore feel some responsibility for perpetuating a patriarchal system in which such violence is possible. My response: maybe? That certainly was not my tone when I watched the film. My simple thought at the moment was, "Wow, that's a bit over the top. Do I really need to see a woman's eye punctured through with a needle?" Certainly, I can retroactively place patriarchal guilt into my viewing of the film, but that would be inconsistent with my feelings as I watched the movie. And even if my feelings are my patriarchal tendencies rearing their ugly head, I still believe American Psycho is simply too cruel in its treatment of women. We do not necessarily need to see the violence to extract the message; indeed, sometimes the suggestion of violence against women, as in Psycho or Alien, is more compelling than actually showing the violence.

I am but one critic, and a male critic at that. Many others more experienced than I find American Psycho unimpeachable in both its intentions and its pay-off. They are entitled to that viewpoint, as am I entitled to mine. As is, American Psycho is a great, disturbing motion picture. I just think it treads a fine line, a line it occasionally crosses.

Recommendation: If you are squeamish in any way, American Psycho is not the film for you. The sheer quantities of blood alone would be worth the R-rating, putting aside the profanities and sexual content. Also, while the sexual content of American Psycho does not involve full frontal nudity, its portrayals of prostitution and <speaking for what it truly is> rape are far more disturbing. This is not a film to be watched lightly. While not entirely scary, per se, it is certainly unsettling. This is a film that must be approached with the right frame of mind. One is supposed to be challenged, one is supposed to be disturbed, and one is supposed to be disgusted. If one is prepared, though, it is worth the viewing.

I give American Psycho 7.6 stars out of 10.