Danger Zone 2: This Time it's Not Danger Zone 1

 

Well, since I reviewed Top Gun, it only seemed appropriate to review the sequel as well.

30 years later, Pete "Maverick" Mitchell is still a great pilot, though he's moved from instructor to testing experimental aircraft, and finds his job on the line thanks to Admiral Cain (Ed Harris), who aims to replace pilots with drones. But OH NO! Another vaguely defined "enemy" (who may or may not be the same one from the first film) has built a super dangerous uranium plant, and the Navy needs a special team of fighter pilots to deal with it. And wouldn't you know it, Maverick's old friend Tom "Iceman" Kazinsky (Val Kilmer, in his last acting role) has recommended him to train the new squad. 

Despite the reluctance of his commanding officer Beau "Cyclone" Simpson (John Hamm), Maverick is assigned to take a group of top gun graduates and prepare them for a potential suicide mission. But there's another problem - one of the candidates is Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw, the son of Maverick's old co-pilot Nick "Goose" Bradshaw, and there's some complicated history between them. 

I wasn't entirely sure what to expect going into this one. Part of me was worried it was going to just be the first movie all over again, or it was going to feel like it was still a product of the 80's. And it proved me wrong. Top Gun Maverick takes full advantage of the 30-year gap between installments, allowing it to explore how things have changed over time. The increasing prevalence of drone warfare was an interesting thing to see explored in the opening, though it perhaps could have been given more attention. We get to see how characters have grown and developed. 

And the film takes advantage of the time jump to give us a much more varied group of characters. There's actually a woman on the team this time around. Natasha "Phoenix" Trace (Monica Barbaro) is a member of Maverick's strike team who, while not the primary focus, does get her share of action scenes. 

It is nice to not just get ANOTHER male bonding film.

Perhaps one of the biggest surprises in this film was the return of Val Kilmer as Iceman. You'd think this would be a logical choice since he was a big part of the first movie, but at the time Val Kilmer was suffering from throat cancer that prevented him acting in other roles. He'd previously been unable to reprise Mad Martigan for the Willow miniseries for this exact reason, yet they somehow actually got him to come back, if briefly, for Top Gun Maverick. And they made an interesting decision for how to do it- by actually incorporating the actor's condition into the character. It limited his screentime to one scene, but that one scene makes the most of him.

The romantic plotline in Top Gun Maverick is definitely an improvement over the original. While the sudden and unexplained disappearance of Kelly McInnis might be jarring to longtime fans, they actually do pretty good with new love interest Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly). It probably helps that they forego having Maverick do any cringey "romantic gestures" and she isn't his teacher this time. She actually feels like a new character and not just "Charlie but with brown hair." The film takes its time building up their relationship but, unlike the original, the romance portion seems to gel a lot better with the rest of the film. It doesn't feel like they're suddenly putting the movie on hold for Tom Cruise to get laid.

One thing that's interesting about Top Gun Maverick is how it manages to mirror scenes from the first movie without feeling like it's directly copying them. It makes for interesting moments, like when Maverick himself is introduced to his class in a scene that feels suspiciously reminiscient of Charlie's reveal as their instructor. Even the opening, which is very clearly modeled on the first right down to using the same font for the credits, feels more like an homage than a direct copy.

And of course, there's the flight sequences which... still look amazing. Maybe a bit hard to follow at times because of all the rapid editing, but they still give you a sense of what the characters are feeling amid all the fast-paced action. It even builds on some of the original's cinematography, experimenting with a few new techniques, like filming a takeoff from inside the cockpit.

I wasn't entirely sure what to expect Top Gun Maverick to be but this... well, it actually does pretty good. Sequels can be hard to pull off, especially when the original is such an icon, but Top Gun Maverick actually does the seemingly impossible and arguably improves on the original Top Gun in many ways. It captures everything that got people into the original and builds on it, creating something that calls back to the original while also feeling like it's own movie.

Apparently, there's a sequel in development. It will be interesting to see where they go with that.

Guns on Top

 

Somehow, in all my time studying film, I never actually saw Top Gun. I guess I just never felt much incentive to watch it. Now, I finally got talked into watching it on Paramount+ and it was an... interesting experience. 

Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Tom Cruise) is a US Navy pilot who is good at flying, but has a reputation for doing crazy things like flying upside-down over Soviet aircraft. Along with his co-pilot Nick "Goose" Bradshaw, he gets enrolled in "Top Gun"- an elite training program that takes the best naval pilots and teaches them how to dogfight like it's World War I. Under the training of Vietnam veteran Mike "Viper" Metcalf (Tom Skerritt), they take part in training exercises and develop a rivalry with fellow pilot Tom "Iceman" Kazansky. Maverick slowly learns to be a team player and also develops a romance with instructor Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood (Kelly McGillis). 

Let's get this out of the way. The romantic b-plot of this movie really hasn't aged well. Maverick's advances on Charlie range from weird and confusing at best (bombarding her out of nowhere with a "romantic serenade" performed by his whole flight squad) to unprofessional (asking her out after finding out he's her instructor) to potentially creepy (following her into the women's bathroom). While this behaviour does somewhat fit with Maverick's recklessness, it does feel a bit discomforting that the film tries to paint it as charming instead of a glaring character flaw. Or how readily Charlie accepts his advances.

Apparently, getting approached by a stranger accompanied by a dozen men singing out of nowhere is romantic. And here I was thinking it would be overwhelming and confusing at best.

To the film's credit, it does make an effort to portray Charlie as a strong female character. She is consistently shown to be intelligent and displays a knowledge of aviation that is easily on par with the guys. However, so much of her screentime is focused on her relationship with Maverick instead of highlighting her intelligence. Even her position isn't very clearly explained, beyond being a "civillian contractor" apparently hired for her knowledge on jet planes. It doesn't help that she conveniently disappears during the climax, when it might have been worthwhile to have her assisting from the ground.

And the thing is, I'm not totally convinced this movie needed a romance. If anything, the romance portions seem to just abruptly put the main plot on hold, and don't really add a lot. They probably could have made Charlie work just by focusing on her role as an instructor, maybe one whose respect is slowly earned by Maverick over the course of the film, more like how they treated Viper. The whole teacher-student thing is a bit offputting, and if they really wanted a romantic plotline, it might have been better to just have a separate character in the role.

That said, Top Gun's biggest strength is undoubtedly its aviation sequences. The best parts of the movie are when the focus is on the planes. Even just the shots of day-to-day operations are really engaging. The opening sequence takes its time to show in great detail just how much goes into take-off and landing with an aircraft carrier, all the people who have to co-ordinate and make sure they do their tasks perfectly so the planes don't slide into the ocean. It's really good at drawing you in. My five-year-old self would have gone crazy for this stuff.

And then, of course, there's the actual jet sequences. The training exercises that make up most of the main plot, and this is where Top Gun really shines. These sequences seem to take heavy inspiration from classic aviation films, and even have a bit of influence from the original Star Wars movies in their fast-paced editing that mixes shots of aerial maneuvers with close-ups on the pilots as they interact with each other. Although it can sometimes be hard to keep track of everything that's happening, it does give an idea of what it's like for the characters, who have to act fast and make quick decisions without much time to think.

Granted, some portions of the movie could benefit from clearer explanations of things. This is especially true during the climax, where everyone's called in to deal with a vague "crisis situation" that apparently requires them to shoot down planes of an unidentified enemy over the Indian Ocean for reasons that aren't very well explained. I think the "enemy" is supposed to be the Soviet Union, though the film seems to go out of its way to avoid actually stating this. 

And of course, there's the soundtrack. "Danger Zone" is a pretty great song. I didn't actually know going in that it was written specifically for Top Gun, but it does a pretty good job of setting the tone for the rest of the film. Although the song doesn't explicitly mention planes, it does seem like a good description of the everyday life of fighter jet pilots, who are constantly putting themselves into danger every time they take off regardless of circumstances. 

Overall, Top Gun makes for a (mostly) action-packed thrill ride even if it hasn't aged perfectly. Tony Scott clearly put a lot effort into making this and it can't have been easy to film. Is it perfect? Hardly. Does it do a decent job of showcasing the intense life of a fighter pilot? I would say so, even if it might have worked better without that plot occasionally getting put on hold for an unneccessary romance. Just be prepared for the parts that clearly mark it as a product of its time.

Deepwater Horizon: A Pretty Solid Disaster Film

 

If I had a nickel for every time I played a Lovecraft-inspired video game and suddenly felt inspired to go to my local library and check out a tangentially related disaster movie with Mark Walburg that dramatized a tragic nautical disaster, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't much, but it's weird that it happened twice! 

First, I played Dredge, game about being a fisherman in Lovecraftian waters, and suddenly felt the need to seek out Wolfgang Petersen's The Perfect Storm- still a pretty good movie. A few weeks later, I try out a game called Still Wakes the Deep, and suddenly I'm reminded of a movie about an oil rig disaster- Deepwater Horizon. I don't think I actually saw this when it came out in 2016, but I remembered seeing advertisements for it. 

So why not take a look even if it is an odd way to have it brought to my attention... or is it? 

Mike Williams (Mark Walberg), James Harrell (Kurt Russell), and Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez) are crew members assigned to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, only to find it barely functional. Despite a multitude of problems and last-minute tests showing they really shouldn't be drilling here, BP executive Donald Vildrine (John Malkovich), decides to ignore the experts and force them to start drilling anyway. Because that's what happens when you put big businessmen in charge of dangerous machinery. PLOT TWIST! This turns out to be a really bad idea. The movie is a dramatization of the real-life Deepwater Horizon explosion, which caused a massive oil spill and killed 11 of its workers.

Disaster movies are notoriously hard to pull off. It's easy to get so caught up in the spectacle that the story feels more like an excuse to justify the special effects, or, on the flip side, to spend so much time on the buildup it takes too long to get to the actual disaster. Deepwater Horizon manages to find that comfortable middle ground. It takes its time getting to the big moment, but by the time the special effects happen, you've gotten acquainted with the major characters, conflicts, and the life of an oil rig worker. 

The acting in this film is actually really good. Everyone seems to do their best and fully immerse themselves in their characters. Kurt Russel is barely recognizable with his big mustache and southern accent. But the real standout performance is John Malkovich as the charismatic BP executive Donald Vildrine. He really nails the role of a charismatic but ruthless businessman who misuses his authority, easily stealing the spotlight in every scene he's in. Interestingly, though, this is mostly in the first half, while he is completely silent in the second- an interesting reflection of his experiences.

And of course, we can't discuss a disaster movie without talking about the special effects. And the film certainly delivers on that. Deepwater Horizon takes full advantage of its setting to create a visual spectacle for the audience. Even before the fires and explosions happen, the audience is treated to some interesting views of the rig's inner workings. These shots, giving us a glimpse into how the drill shaft operates, actually do a lot for building up atmosphere. 

Of course, when things actually start going wrong, it still delivers. The rig feels like a deathtrap from the start. Everything about it just feels like it's begging for something to go wrong. The team supposedly there to inspect the drill's structural integrity leaves the instant the main characters arrive, having done zero tests. A lot of the rig's machines are poorly maintained, if they even function at all (probably because BP is cheap). Even the phones aren't working properly. So when the explosion finally happens, it feels like a natural consequence of everything that's already been established.

Overall, Deepwater Horizon is a surprisingly competent disaster film from, of all people, Battleship director Peter Berg. Yeah, I was surprised to learn that, too. Turns out, he might be a more capable director than the infamous board game adaptation would have you believe. Even if it was a bit weird to be brought here by making an unlikely connection through a video game... or was it.

Still Wakes the Deep and Deepwater Horizon aren't quite as far off as you might expect. It's true that one is a grounded dramatization of real events while the other is a fictional Lovecraftian horror story, but ultimately they both start from the same basic point. They follow workers who end up trapped on a deadly oil rig because corporate greed forced them to drill where they shouldn't. And it could be argued that Deepwater Horizon's result is just as bad as, if not worse than, any monster Lovecraft could conceive. Interestingly, Deepwater Horizon even has people comparing the oil well to provoking a sea monster. It actually doesn't seem like that big a stretch to imagine the developers of Still Wakes the Deep were taking inspiration from Deepwater Horizon.

There's Always a Lighthouse, There's Always a Man, but this Time There's No City

Lots of free time, not sure what to do with it, trying to write more often, and I'm stuck in quarantine. Might as well use some of that time to watch some movies, right? Fortunately, I have access to Amazon Prime, and with that a fairly large uncatalogued of films I'd barely tapped until now (it was being used more often for watching TV shows). So here I was seeing what their fairly extensive library had to offer, and I stumbled across a curious title called The Lighthouse, an independent film from last year revolving around the growing conflict between a pair of lighthouse keepers. Sounded like an interesting one to check out.

Somewhere in the 19th Century, two men- Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson) and Thomas Wake (Willem Dafoe) arrive at a lighthouse with a contract to oversee it for four weeks. The lighthouse is located on a remote island, the surrounding waters of which may or may not be inhabited by sirens and a kraken (it's a bit confusing). They go about their usual routines, doing the various tasks that need to be performed to maintain the lighthouse and chores that need to be performed on an everyday basis. But over time the boredom and repetitive work begins to mess with their heads. The fact that Wake seems to be keeping secrets doesn't help. When their replacements fail to arrive at the end of the four weeks, things only seem to get worse. Tensions mount between the two men as both start to lose their sanity.

Probably the most obvious touch in the film is its decision to shoot in black and white- which was actually a pretty good choice. Obviously the use of black and white gives the film an old-fashioned look, but it doesn't look like something you'd see in classical Hollywood. Instead, a lot of the film looks like something you'd expect to see from late 19th/early 20th century photographs of a lighthouse rather than an old movie. Structurally, The Lighthouse has a much closer resemblance to the European art films of the 1960's than anything you'd see from Hollywood. It seems to have traces of Robert Bresson and Ingmar Bergman, which makes the black and white all the more fitting. I don't think I can imagine this film being in colour.

Pulling off a minimal setting (the entire film being set in and around the lighthouse) with the cast limited almost entirely to two actors is no easy task, but The Lighthouse makes full use of these limitations. The film does a surprisingly good job of making the day-to-day lives of its protagonists seem compelling, even if some of the details can be harder to follow. Depictions of chores from repairing the roof to hauling coal convey a sense of boredom, frustration, and monotony, yet seem to really draw the viewer in. The tight spaces of the lighthouse itself are often used to create a sense of unease and disorientation that only heightens the Bergman-esque discomfort.

But while the film may have an interesting aesthetic, it's also just as much about sound. Diegetic sound is used to its full effect in conjunction with a haunting musical score that often includes suspiciously foghorn-like sounds. But when it isn't making use of its soundtrack or the various noises around the island, it's creating unease through silence. In fact a lot of the film's audio is made up of either diegetic noises or complete silence. Dialogue is present, but used sparsely. It actually takes some time before we hear anyone speak.

The two leading actors also do a very good job with their roles. Robert Pattinson has come a long way since Twilight. In The Lighthouse he fits into the role so well you could almost be forgiven for not recognizing him. Same with Willem Dafoe, who really developed a unique voice for Thomas Wake, though his thick accent may sometimes be hard to understand.

The Lighthouse is not an easy film to sit through, but it is one that is worth exploring if you are able to find it. I would recommend this to fans of art films from the 1960's, especially the works of Ingmar Bergman. In many ways, The Lighthouse feels like an homage to Bergman and some of his contemporaries (not as much Fellini or Antonioni in this one, though). But if even if, like me, you never really got into art cinema it's still an interesting experience.

Love, Friendship, and Incoherence

Okay, so what's our role in this film again?

A few of my friends decided to go see a movie, and we put it to a vote to see which one. We tried to find what was playing and came up with a list of several films. We quickly ruled out Warcraft and a few others, and somehow we ended up settling on Love and Friendship. It was something of an odd choice seeing as there was a grand total of one person in the group who seemed interested in seeing it. At that point, I didn't know much else beyond the title. Apparently it's based on an unpublished Jane Austin novel from early in her career.

Of course, I didn't know that until it was explained to me, seeing as I know very little of Austin's writing. While it is admirable that a woman managed to run a fairly successful writing career during the Victorian Era, her work never seemed that interesting to me, most if not all of it being made up of tragic romances set against the backdrop of Victorian aristocracy. Of course, I'm not here to criticize an author I've never read. I'm here to look at one particular film adaptation. Unfortunately, while it does make an attempt at an unusual structure and to avoid coming off as a film made to win Oscars, there are a few things to be said regarding its narrative, as I will explain below.

Lady Susan (Kate Beckinsale) is an American "exile" who delights in manipulating everyone around her. This being set in the regency, she has developed skills in discreetly controlling others in her life in order to gain power. She also has a daughter, Frederica (Morfydd Clark) who she is purportedly caring for even though she's really interested in exploiting her. One day, they are visited by a bumbling aristocrat named Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett), a well-intentioned idiot who wants to marry Frederica. She is reluctant to become engaged so quickly, so Susan begins trying to bring them together and later marries him herself. Some stuff happens, a few questionable remarks related to women are shared, and an assortment of relationships are formed and destroyed.

That was the extent of the plot I managed to draw from Love and Friendship. This brings me to the largest problem with the film: it makes no sense. While I can't speak for the five or six other people we shared the theater with, I can say that this impression was shared among my friends. We had an interesting discussion while leaving the theater, in which we found that none of us could agree on what the actual story was. There are a lot of people to keep track of, and as the film went on, we generally got totally lost and had trouble telling who was who. In fact, it was hard even to keep track of which people any of us meant to refer to when trying to make sense of the film's incoherent narrative.

To make matters worse, the relationships among the large cast proved integral to the narrative. That seemed like a very bad sign when none of us could even figure out what the relations were between everyone. There are several romantic sub-plots and family-related stories, only it is impossible to keep track of who is engaged with who. There is an especially confusing sub-plot in which a teenager is upset because her husband is apparently having an affair, only I couldn't figure out who was supposed to be the husband (talking to my friends after, he apparently remained entirely off-screen). Then of course there are sudden changes in character that make the timeline of events especially confusing.

The movie also proved to be confusing in terms of what it was. It felt like it was generally trying to be a period piece, only there were the really strange comedic moments that seemed to go against this (particularly whenever the over-the-top Lord James enters). Some of the audience was laughing, and it seemed confusing whether the film was trying to be funny or serious. Was this supposed to be a drama or a comedy? Whatever it was, I would say the dramatic and funny moments don't go very well together, and as amusing as Lord James could get, his strange personality was really out of place in the otherwise grounded environment.

Love and Friendship is one you can avoid at the theater. It remains nothing more than an incoherent mess which is impossible to follow. Unless you want to be totally confused, or spend the time afterward with your friends trying hopelessly to figure out what the actual plot of the movie is, it's not worth your time. After watching this movie, I found I came out not even understanding what the actual narrative was supposed to be. In fact, while we tried desperately to explain the relationships between the film's large cast we found that no one seemed to know (one admitted to have "given up the story entirely") what actually happened.

Tough Rider

With the fall of the Hollywood Studio System in the late 1950's and early 1960's, there was a new era beginning in American filmmaking as studios struggled to adapt to a changing world. They started by making big-budget epics like Cleopatra that nearly bankrupted them. The 70's saw the beginning of the "New Hollywood," a brief period in which a series of low-budget films emerged that were noticeably darker in tone than those of the Studio Era, and would ultimately go on to set the stage for the modern blockbuster. One such film in this period was Easy Rider, a film which served to usher in the New Hollywood, despite being an awful film. This was a bad movie, with nothing worth seeing.

Wyatt (Peter Fonda) and Billy (Dennis Hopper) are a pair of bikers who don't really do much other than ride on their motorcycles, have sex, and get high. They have somehow put together some money from buying drugs (which Wyatt very intelligently keeps in his gas tank) and want to go to New Orleans in time for Mardi Gras before they retire wealthy. They ride around, get high on marijuana, meet some people once in a while, get high on marijuana, ride around, get high on marijuana, ride around, and get high on marijuana. Did I mention that they spend a lot of the film smoking marijuana? Anyway, they make a few friends but most people apparently hate them so eventually some rednecks show up out of nowhere and fire a shotgun at them.

I really wanted to like Easy Rider. I really did. Unfortunately, this movie is dull and repetitive. Most of it feels more like the "plot" was just an excuse to show off the desert landscapes they filmed in, which I was unable to enjoy because the rest of the film was so boring. There are a variety of far better movies you could be watching if you just want to see that, or you could just use Google to look up photographs of those same landscapes or go there yourself. Most of the film basically amounts to Billy and Wyatt driving on the road while 70's pop music plays over top, with the occasional stop to get high on marijuana. The direction is terrible, the script is weak, and the editing is really, really bad, to the point where it can easily be very difficult to watch.

Wyatt and Billy have absolutely no depth or personality to them worthwhile protagonists. The intention appears to be that they go through some kind of emotional development but their personalities amount to riding, smoking marijuana (and any other drugs they can get their hands on, apparently), and occasionally giving someone a lift. That is literally the extent of everything they do in the film. Apparently there is supposed to be some prejudice involved towards them, but it is hard to relate to that aspect of the film when there is absolutely no emotional link towards them. The rest of the cast is hardly any better. Most of them amount to minor roles who are treated as being important at first but are forgotten about as soon as their role in the story is finished.

So basically, don't bother with Easy Rider. It is a dull and boring film with absolutely nothing worth watching beyond possibly the historical significance of its influence. How did this film make such an impact when it came out? It is an awful and ridiculous film that makes absolutely no sense. As far as biker films go, there are far better options you could be watching. If you want to see desert landscapes, try watching a western instead. This film is a waste of time. It is boring, dull, frustrating, and in general just very poorly thought out.

I'M DUELLING A TRUCK!

Have you ever wanted to see Christine played by an 18-wheeler? No? Well, it's funny how big directors get started because it just so happens that such a film was made in 1971 by none other than Steven Spielberg. Yes, this is the same Steven Spielberg who later went on to make classics such as Jaws and Saving Private Ryan. Originally released as a television movie, Duel proved to be so popular that Universal Studios decided to give it a theatrical release. In this process, they unwittingly launched Spielberg's career and opened the door for him to make a variety of very different films from this one.

David Mann (Dennis Weaver) is an ordinary person going about a normal day. He is driving out to meet a colleague when he finds himself blocked by an old truck carrying ammonia. Out of frustration, he passes the truck, only to find himself being passed again. Initially, Mann dismisses this frustrating but seemingly brief encounter. That is until he begins to see the truck reappear everywhere he goes. After some time, it starts to become clear that the driver (who is never seen) has apparently developed a grudge against Mann, and will stop at nothing to kill him. Mann now realizes he is locked in a motorized duel, as he desperately tries to evade his attacker while the driver pulls every trick to mess with him and drive him off the road. To make matters worse, nobody believes him, and his attempts to find assistance only endanger the bystanders he comes across. So basically, it's like a feature-length version of the biplane sequence from North by Northwest.

Funnily enough, this one is actually better than you would expect from a film with this kind of premise. The narrative is fast-paced and straight forward, and while there might not be much to the central character he does manage to carry the audience through. It is definitely a simplistic film. Outside of the people he occasionally runs into, Mann is pretty much the only character of significance, and a lot of the action is focused purely on the chase. Even the film's treatment of Mann himself, rather than detailing his personal life beyond a brief telephone conversation, is primarily about his emotions and his reactions to the unusual situation he has found himself caught in.

The decision to hide the truck driver is also an interesting touch. We never get a clear glimpse of his (or her?) face. All we see is a pair of boots that indicate little about the driver's appearance. Aside from eliminating the emotional repercussions of killing the driver at the end, it does have the effect of making this person a lot more intimidating. We never know quite what is going through their head, or why they have become so determined to kill this one man. As a result, the truck itself becomes a character in its own right. This creates an interesting dynamic of man vs. machine that continues throughout the film.

Spielberg's Duel makes for an interesting experience, especially for one who is familiar with his later work. Compared to the types of films he is known for, Duel is a strange experience. Like many directors' early work, it does not easily show the trademarks that they would develop later in their career. Even disregarding the later films, Duel still remains an adrenaline-packed thriller that creates constant tension and suspense, even if it can be described as simply as "Christine meets the cropduster scene from North by Northwest." It's an unusual movie, but still an interesting one to see if only for a glimpse into Spielberg's early career. 

Blindspot: Back to Bataan (1945)

I'll be honest here and admit that I did not go into this one with high expectations. Back to Bataan was a film that had been sitting in my drawer for years. The truth is the only reason I had it was because of this one time I found it among some low-priced DVDs and I happened to be a big John Wayne fan at the time. If it hadn't been for him I probably would have overlooked this one entirely. Going in now offered a better understanding of why the film was made, but that was really about it. I expected this film to be basically American propaganda and I was more or less right, as you can expect from a Hollywood film made just as World War II was ending.

Though the film begins with a disclaimer claiming that the story is based on real events, Back to Bataan is really a sequel to a 1943 combat film called Bataan. That film centered on a small ragtag group of American soldiers who were forced to band together in order to make a stand against the Japanese. Bataan basically ended with everybody dying and the last man standing trying to take as many Japanese soldiers with him as he can. There was then a title card which promised that one day America would return to avenge its fallen soldiers and retake Bataan.

Unfortunately, real life failed to deliver on that promise, so a sequel was made to "fulfill" it: Back to Bataan. That's literally all this film is: it's an American fantasy made to fulfill a so-called promise made in a single film two years earlier because reality didn't work out the way people wanted it to. John Wayne plays the role of Colonel Joseph Madden, an army officer given some kind of top secret mission to unite members of the Filipino resistance against the oppression of the Japanese. Meanwhile, a middle-aged teacher named Bertha Barnes (Beulah Bondi) is running a school at a local village in which she tries to force American values on provide a proper education for Filipino children. Unfortunately for her, the village is invaded by Japanese soldiers who show they mean business by hanging the principal over the American flag. Then some stuff happens and Madden suddenly decides to try and help the village or something while we occasionally get glimpses of Japanese atrocities.

One thing I only found out after seeing Back to Bataan is that the filmmakers were trying to keep up to date with current events in the war and had to keep changing the script according to major developments. Unfortunately for them, it really shows. The story gets extremely disjointed and confusing as the film develops, probably the result of all the abrupt changes being made to accommodate what was going on in the actual war. None of the characters really seemed particularly memorable, and plot threads seem to come and go out of nowhere. Even the basic military objectives of the main characters weren't very well explained.

There were also plot threads that never really seemed to connect; like the film begins and ends with the liberation of a Japanese POW camp and then takes the time to identify several of the captives... and it has no connection to the rest of the story. It never ties into the central plot, none of the POWs named make an appearance outside of those scenes, let alone have a part in the actual narrative. The POW raid itself was also ridiculous, considering it happened in the most unsubtle way imaginable and in real life the Americans would probably have been slaughtered.

In many ways, Back to Bataan is really a product of its time. While some credit could be given to there being at least an attempt to present strong sympathetic Filipino characters, most of them are stereotypes by today's standards and the choice to cast Anthony Quinn, a white actor, as someone who is supposed to be Asian can definitely leave a bad taste for modern viewers. Also true to propaganda of the era, the Japanese are given no humanity. The only Japanese character of note is a single officer (the rest are anonymous soldiers) who is also a very obvious stereotype and treated as a monster. While historically the Japanese did commit some horrifying war crimes and ran POW camps that calling inhumane would be an understatement, this part of the film has definitely not aged well.

The only thing that I would say makes Back to Bataan at all a worthwhile experience for anyone is from a purely historical perspective. It does offer some insight into American views of World War II and makes sense for scholars who want to study this film and how it fits into contemporary cinematic reactions to the war. So for academics and scholars this film might be okay to look at, but for casual viewing there are better options as far as John Wayne movies go. Personally, I'd say John Wayne's later propaganda film The Green Berets is a better choice; as much as most people today would disagree with its pro-Vietnam messages at least that one was somewhat entertaining and had a coherent story. There isn't much of that in Back to Bataan.

Roads of Fury

I'll admit that when I first heard of Mad Max fury road I was somewhat skeptical of its quality. It also seemed to be quite a bit different from the first three Mad Max films, though those films were quite a bit different in themselves. I never fully understood the appeal of Mad Max (though I have been informed that I may have been watching the version that dubbed over the Australian accents). Mad Max: The Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome both still proved to be entertaining movies. It did seem a bit odd that they chose someone other than Mel Gibson to take on the title role, but as more information became available I gradually started to warm up to it, especially when I found out just after its release that it was being directed by the same person behind the last three films.

Continuing on with the post-apocalyptic theme of the previous two Mad Max films, Fury Road puts us right back in the chaotic world where Max (now played by Tom Hardy) is just trying to survive despite constant physical and psychological torment from everything around him. He happens to be kidnapped by the servants of warlord Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) whose face, similar to the villain of The Road Warrior, is always concealed behind a mask that makes it hard to understand what he is saying (not that it matters much). Immortan Joe happens to run an empire of sorts, controlling the local people by withholding a large supply of water.

After a somewhat disorienting and chaotic first 20 or thirty minutes during which Max has to wear a strange mask, he gets mixed up with Imperiator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), a mysterious one-armed woman trying to help Joe's wives escape and take them to a better life. This group of characters soon finds themselves stuck in a "war rig" on the run from Immortan Joe, with his henchmen Nux (Nicholas Hoult) also getting stuck with them. Tension mounts as the unlikely heroes find themselves forced to work together and make a stand against their relentless pursuer.

One thing that helped to win me over when I first saw the trailers was the presence of Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa. She seemed like she had potential to be a strong female character and that seemed somewhat refreshing. After all, the Mad Max series is not exactly known for its strong female leads. In Mad Max the only female character of note was the title character's wife, who served mainly as a motivation for him with her death. The closest person to a strong female lead in The Road Warrior didn't even get a name, simply being credited as "Warrior Woman". There was also Tina Turner, but she didn't get involved until Beyond Thunderdome. Seeing a strong female character taking center stage was a nice change, and they delivered with Furiosa.

The funny thing is that they may have gone above and beyond on that front; to the point where Max ends up being more of a supporting role and the story ends up being more about her, as well as the group of heroes being predominantly female in an unusual move for this kind of film. That's not to say that the film is perfect in this regard. The supporting cast includes Immortan Joe's wives and later in the film a group of women from Furiosa's past, and I did find a lot of these characters were noticeably underdeveloped. All of them were enjoyable and competent women who got to take part in the action scenes at some point but aside from Furiosa they never seemed to get anything that distinguished them individually.

In fact, there is a distinct feminist message here that was not as clearly present in the first three Mad Max films. The title is somewhat misleading as it implies the film is about Max, which is arguably true of the first three installments. This time around, Max is more of a supporting role (though the opening makes it look like he is going to be the central character). From the trailers, one would think that this follows a similar pattern to The Road Warrior or Beyond Thunderdome where Max finds himself becoming the only hope of getting Furiosa where she needs to be. It's actually the other way around: she is the real protagonist, and Max is more like her sidekick. If anything, Furiosa is the one taking charge, Max is just her backup.

From the moment we first encounter the wives of Immortan Joe, it becomes clear that they are more than just objects (there's even an emphasis on the women freeing themselves, using what looks like an extremely heavy pair of pliers to remove their chains while Max still looks like a prisoner for some time after). Really, the dynamic of the film seems to be more about the predominantly female cast and their two male companions coming to recognize each other as equals. This is emphasized by the fact that Immortan Joe's army is made up almost exclusively of men who look like skinny versions of the Engineers from Prometheus, and that the women Furiosa seeks to protect (note that it's another woman protecting them, Max is just helping her) are explicitly identified by Joe to be good only for reproductive purposes. Immortan Joe is the embodiment of patriarchal society, and taking him out makes way for a new world in which men and women are equal.

Another area I can give credit to Fury Road for is in its production design. The landscapes have changed but the general aesthetic is very true to Miller's previous three installments, especially evident in the vehicles. Much like before this is a world in which people kill each other for fuel, and Fury Road definitely retains the bizarre-looking trucks and motorcycles that defined the previous installments. For that matter even the plot makes perfect sense: it's a road movie. How is it that an entire franchise based around people trying to survive on the road never thought to center its story on a road trip until now?

My final verdict is that Mad Max: Fury Road is a surprisingly worthy addition to the series. It has its flaws, I won't deny that, but it's a compelling story with some amazing action and a few interesting characters. It certainly brings some new elements to the series while also retaining a lot of what defined its predecessors. There is also plenty of tense and exciting action within a compelling world. It is definitely worth watching, and I would recommend checking it out.

Switzerland and Science Fiction

After my experiences with Oblivion I felt I needed to see a much better science fiction film. Naturally, this turned out to also be a great opportunity to look at something I haven't before, and I don't think a lot of people have covered (at least, I'm not aware of any scholars or bloggers who have covered this area): Swiss cinema. Yes, it seems Switzerland does in fact have a film industry, and produce its own movies. This has a bit of significance to me, seeing as I actually spent a portion of my childhood in Switzerland, though so far I've only seen one Swiss movie (though I have seen a few Swiss TV shows, Pingu perhaps being the most iconic).

That film was a 2009 science fiction movie titled Cargo, originally released in German but also available with English and French dubbing. I was first introduced to this film in high school when one of my teachers recommended it. Funnily enough, this was not actually my film teacher, but I received a number of recommendations from him and pursued most of them. I saw Cargo with an English dub years ago, and naturally it seemed like perfect material to revisit, but this time around I made sure I heard it in its original German (though I will confess the subtitles don't do it justice). My exposure to Swiss cinema may be limited, but Cargo is definitely a great first impression.

In the year 2270, the Earth has been rendered uninhabitable due to pollution. Most of the remaining population of humanity is confined to the crappy environments of orbiting space stations. It's a miserable life for most, living in confined and crowded places just trying to find some way of getting by. Fortunately there is hope in the form of a distant planet called Rhea, which has apparently been the site of successful colonization, but getting there requires money, something a lot of people still don't have. This is the case for Dr. Laura Portman (Anna Katharina Schwabroh), a young woman desperate to reunite with her sister Arianne (Maria Boettner), who successfully moved to Rhea years ago. Hoping to get the money, Portman manages to get a job working as a medic aboard a cargo ship Kassandra.

At first, it proves to be a lonely life, during which most of the crew is in cryosleep, taking rotating shifts to maintain the ship during its automated flight to a space station. However, that all changes when Portman has an unexpected encounter, leading to an investigation of the cargo hold that ends in the unexplained murder of the ship's captain (Pierre Semmler). Suddenly it becomes clear that the mission was not as simple as the crew initially thought. Something much bigger is going on, some members of the crew are not who they appear to be, and flight lieutenant Anna Lindbergh (Regula Grauwiller) seems to be in on it and doing everything she can to keep them from finding out. Now it's up to Laura Portman and security officer Samuel Decker (Martin Rapold) to get to the bottom of this strange mystery before Kassandra reaches its destination.

There is definitely a lot of influence on this film from earlier, perhaps better known, works of science fiction. The basic structure of the narrative definitely has some resemblances to Alien, and some of the aesthetics used in the worn-down style of future technology call to mind the likes of that film and Dark Star. There is even one supporting character, Claudio Vespucci, who I can't help noticing has a vibe that reminds me a bit of Dave Lister from Red Dwarf. A lot of the space visuals probably draw from the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, though at the same time I find myself wondering if Gravity might have borrowed some ideas from Cargo's climactic extravehicular sequence. That said, Cargo should not be considered a rip-off of any of these films. Part of the charm with this film is that it takes those ideas and does its own thing with them. There is a rather unique feeling to Cargo that does not come with other science fiction films.

The visuals are incredible on so many levels, be it in the vast long shots of outer space or in the shots of the grimy interiors of Kassandra. Outside, some incredible work is put into the designs of the space stations and space ships, as well as the exterior shots of planets and the one scene where the characters have to step outside. Inside the ship, there seems to be a balance of remaining creative while also trying to make things look real. There is a "used future" aesthetic reminiscent of Alien and Dark Star in just how everything seems to be decaying (there's even an airlock door that doesn't close properly). It makes for some very curious environments, especially for the scenes dealing with the cryochamber and the cargo hold.

The film's story is also fast-paced and easy to follow. I never found it to get confusing at any one point. I think the only flaw I could note was that perhaps the romance between Dr. Portman and Decker may have happened a little too quickly, but even that wasn't a huge issue. In fact it might even be justified by the simple fact that the characters were under an extreme amount of stress at the time and probably not thinking clearly. I would definitely say that Laura Portman is a strong character for the lead, seeing as she is the one who does a lot of the investigating, and ultimately goes on to play a crucial role in the film's final moments. Decker makes for a suitable partner. Lindbergh also serves as an interesting antagonist, and I'll admit it was interesting to see a female protagonist going against a female villain without any apparent intent to arouse the viewer to play it off as attractive.

I would recommend looking at Cargo if you get the chance. It is definitely a better movie than Oblivion, seeing as this one actually does have some strong female characters and a far less predictable narrative. Science fiction is not something one would normally associate with Swiss filmmaking, but they guys behind Cargo really pulled it off, taking the ideas of classic science fiction films and putting their own spin on them. It is a really unusual science fiction film, and unique among the genre. It also should not be too hard to find, so I would say check it out.

Tossing Good Ideas Into Oblivion

I've realized recently that I haven't watched a lot of science fiction in a while. It's always been one of my favorite genres and last year I found myself writing about it a lot, but I haven't touched on it much in a while. Naturally I got to thinking that I should try watching some more science fiction films, and while looking for popular options I happened to find Oblivion through HBO on Demand. I didn't have super-high expectations but I do recall finding the trailers interesting when I first saw them back in 2013. I never got a chance to see it, something not helped by the fact that it came out around the same time as the similarly-themed After Earth, which I understand was not a very good movie at all. I decided to give Oblivion a watch and see if it was anything worthwhile. I'm not the biggest Tom Cruise fan but I know he can do good sci-fi/action if Edge of Tomorrow was anything to go on. Sadly, Oblivion doesn't live up to what made Edge of Tomorrow such an interesting experience.

It is the year 2077, and there has recently been a war between humanity and an alien race. Humanity won the war, but the Earth was destroyed so now Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) have to serve as a "mop-up crew" to destroy what's left of the aliens and deplete Earth's remaining resources before going to Titan (because, you know, a freezing cold moon orbiting one of the furthest planets from the sun with an atmosphere of nitrogen and methane seems like the perfect refuge for what remains of humanity). Unfortunately, it turns out there is something weird going on when Jack discovers that the "aliens" are actually humans led by a mysterious survivor named Beech (Morgan Freeman). Along the way, he also encounters his ex-wife Julia (Olga Kurylenko, who between this and Quantum of Solace really needs to find better action roles). Some stuff happens and it turns out that he's actually been working for the aliens and then Jack tries to make a stand while Victoria refuses to get involved and Julia keeps getting pushed aside.

Really, the treatment of the women here is probably the one of the biggest problems in Oblivion. Both Victoria and Julia end up being little more than a cheap love triangle when they each had potential to be interesting characters. Instead, Victoria just seemed too annoyingly stubborn. I wouldn't have minded the romance between Jack and Julia if they'd just given her more to do. Most of the time she's just following Jack around and being told to wait for him. Julia had potential to be a strong female character, and she even gets and opportunity once to get tough only to fail miserably and get saved by a male character who has almost no personality beyond being distrustful of Jack. It even got to the point where during the climax, the script seemed to deliberately keep her from playing any useful role. Unlike The Rock, I'm not sure this is any active sexism and more just bad writing, but it's still a load of wasted potential. The rest of the cast isn't all that much better.

The story itself I found also to be full of interesting ideas, but overall very weak. There is some suspense at first but after a while the twists start to become obvious, at least until the end when things just get confusing. Suddenly there's a big action scene and a bunch of people we don't know get killed but Jack has some sort of plan to thwart the alien invasion. The plan makes very little sense and ends up being a convoluted mess. Even the aliens, when they are finally encountered, don't turn out to be all that interesting. The one thing I can give the movie credit for is it does have some very good visual effects, but that's not really enough to save it.

However, even with the effects there was something weird that seemed to be going on. Oblivion was obviously influenced by 2001: A Space Odyssey in many ways. That should hardly come as a surprise, seeing as the majority of contemporary science fiction borrows something or other from that film. The weird part is how it is constantly incorporated into the visuals, to the point where the "drones" seem to be heavily modeled after the pods and there is even a series of shots depicting figures in a position very suspiciously reminiscent of the "Star Child" from the end of 2001. It felt a lot like Oblivion was just trying to be 2001, which didn't make sense since it was clearly not even remotely in the same area of science fiction.

My advice? If you really want to see Tom Cruise stop an alien invasion, just watch Edge of Tomorrow. It's a far better film with interesting ideas that are actually used and it even has a strong female lead. Admittedly I've seen far worse than Oblivion, but I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone. There are some amazing visuals but that's about all you're going to get, since otherwise it's just a bunch of dull characters, some of whom have absolutely no personality, getting involved in some convoluted plot to overthrow some race of aliens that never really feel like a serious threat.

Blindspot: The Killing (1956)

I've made no secret on my blog of the fact that Stanley Kubrick is one of my all-time favorite directors, but until very recently there were still two of his movies that had eluded me. These were his second and third films: Killer's Kiss and The Killing. Both naturally seemed like logical choices for the 2015 Blindspot Challenge, but ultimately it was The Killing that made it onto the final list. I saw Killer's Kiss last week, so this was the last Kubrick film I had not already seen, at least out of his feature films (I still need to see his early documentary work), and now I can say I've seen them all. So far, the only other director for whom I could make the same claim is David Lynch, who I might know better than Kubrick now as I've not only seen all of his features but also most of his shorts, a large portion of his television work, his paintings, and his various bizarre web shows like Dumbland and Rabbits that sometimes get even weirder than his movies.

The Killing was Kubrick's third feature, after presenting an unusual war story in Fear and Desire and somehow getting away with quite a few violations of the Production Code in Killer's Kiss. Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden, who would later work with Kubrick again in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) is a criminal mastermind who has planned a brilliant heist on a local racetrack. He has assembled a crew of tough men, including corrupt cop Randy Kennan (Ted De Corsia). He has an in-depth understanding of how the race track works and has figured out every angle necessary to steal a large amount of money, with every person having a role to play. However, one of the participants, George Peatty (Elisha Cook Jr.) accidentally mentions it to his wife Sherry, who much to his frustration refuses to be submit to him and be a typical 1950's housewife. What George doesn't know is that Sherry is having an affair with another criminal named Val (Vince Edwards), who she informs about the planned heist. The job goes off perfectly, but afterwards complications turn what would have been a successful heist into a bloodbath (and a pretty gory one for 1956).

So how did I feel about seeing this film? I'm not entirely sure. This post has actually proven to be very hard to write since I don't really have a lot of specific comments related to the film. It's okay, but Kubrick would go on to do far better (2001: A Space Odyssey being a standout example). Personally I would say I enjoyed Killer's Kiss a lot more. Sterling Hayden delivers a reasonable performance that makes his character interesting enough, and Sherry makes for a decent femme fatale antagonist. However, the rest of the cast isn't really all that memorable. For one thing, I didn't feel like Marvin's role in the whole operation was very well explained; he was apparently supposed to be financing the heist somehow... but they were planning to steal money so spending money to steal money seems a bit redundant, and I'm not sure why he was helping them either since he seemed to be doing okay for himself.

The actual heist was still fairly well-executed. Kubrick really defied the Studio System this time around by presenting a narrative that jumps back and forth through time (though a voice-over narration helps to establish when everything happens in relation to each other). Taking this approach, he is able to spend time focusing on each individual involved with the crime and illustrate their role in the heist. Once it's done, it makes sense why each person was involved and what they contributed (except Marvin, who I still feel they could have explained better). It also gives time to focus on developing each of the individual characters, and in some cases the problems they encountered (one guy ends up in the awkward situation of having to pretend to be racist to get a parking attendant to leave him alone; this strategy also ends up backfiring in an unexpected way). Still, as interesting as all this was, I can't say I ever felt emotionally invested with anyone in particular.

In addition to that, I think the ending may have been a little contrived. They set up a plot thread with Val, but he only shows up in two scenes. He appears near the beginning when he finds out about the heist and decides to get involved, and then they forget about him until he suddenly shows up again at the very end and there's a shootout that somehow ends up killing everyone. It didn't seem clear from the editing so when everyone suddenly turned up dead it was a bit confusing. There is a bit of comedic value to how Johnny Clay is eventually caught, but even that seemed a little contrived. I get why it ended this way: it wasn't unusual for noir films of the time, especially those centering on criminals, to have a "crime doesn't pay" message at the end (usually involving the deaths of said criminals), I just wonder if there might have been a better way to do it.

The Killing is an interesting experience, and I'm glad I saw it, but I don't think this really strikes me as Kubrick's finest work. Of course, even a great director has to start somewhere, and Kubrick seems to be doing his best with the source material and working under the Production Code, but this is probably a very good example of Kubrick's biggest difficulty in his early career: he always needed complete control over everything, and he probably did not get that here. Still, The Killing does have its merits and it isn't that long a film so I'd say it is still worth looking at if you get the chance.

Blindspot: Gangs of New York (2002)

I won't go on the record to say that this one is my favorite Blindspot so far, and I will also confess it was not one I obtained under the most pleasant circumstances. It happened when I was in college, back when I was still collecting films by Lynch and Cronenberg. At the time, both directors proved extremely elusive, and for whatever reason it was very hard to find films by Lynch (with the exceptions of Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr., though Lost Highway appears to have since become easier to obtain). I'd just figured out how to use my debit card and I was having some trouble controlling how much I'd spend at a time on films. Adding to that, because of how frustrating it was locating films by either director, I started to find other targets to search for in between. This came from Martin Scorsese's crime films.

Gangs of New York was one I picked up for no real reason other than because I'd enjoyed some of Scorese's other films while I was also buying Lost Highway and Inland Empire. I had no real reason to buy it at the time, and for a few years it sat in the drawer, probably out of personal shame. I'm not proud of those days, and while I still struggle sometimes with saving money I have since made a more concerted effort to avoid spending recklessly on films. Still, a few films remain in my collection from incidents like this one (another film on my Blindspot list, Atonement, was also obtained through similar circumstances). That naturally made it perfect material for the 2015 Blindspot Challenge.

When people think of the 19th century, the images that often come to mind are those of upper-class Victorian England. I'm talking about the fancy houses, the men in suits, ties, and top hats, women in elegant dresses. Typically the men are in business or some respectable career, smoke thick cigars, and like to drink tea. The "Victorian gentleman" is itself one of many stereotypes commonly associated with the English people. What many do not understand is that the world was far more complicated than that, and what we get here is another side to that same era. This is arguably the greatest strength displayed by Gangs of New York, as it was interesting to see this angle normally reduced to the background. Instead the lower class is placed front and center, and while I can't be 100% certain of its historical authenticity, it certainly makes for an interesting world.

It is the mid-19th century, and the American Civil War has just begun. It is a dark time for the American working class of New York, who live in a town torn apart by crime and prejudice. Every day thousands of Irish immigrants arrive in America only to be met with hate from the so-called "Natives" who through backwards thinking actually have a range of outrageous assumptions about the new arrivals that sadly weren't too uncommon for the time. At the same time, the society of New York has been split into various "tribes" in the form of gangs in constant conflict with each other. The most powerful of these gangs is led by a nasty man known as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, who has eliminated most of the competing gangs and even bought out some of the authorities (and is also extremely vocal about his bigoted worldviews).

Also thrown into the mix is Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio), the son of a gang leader (Liam Neeson) killed by Cutting fifteen years earlier. Amsterdam is not pleased with the actions of Cutting, but manages to find a place in the latter's gang and works his way to being second in command. However, despite all outward appearances, Amsterdam is still loyal to his Irish heritage, and plots revenge against Cutting. Meanwhile, he also finds an unlikely friendship and eventual romance with a young Irish thief named Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), who proves to be quite talented and a valuable ally. However, in the end, it is left open whether any change has really happened, with the ending montage suggesting that modern New York is not that much different.

One thing I will note I was pleasantly surprised by was the general moral ambiguity that came with this story. The film makes a point of highlighting early on just how messed up a world the characters are living in, with several very real issues for the period. These included situations like rivalries developing between early fire departments, something that actually happened quite often and caused a lot of trouble (two different groups would show up at the same emergency, and then get distracted fighting over which one gets to put out the fire). The racism and backwards thinking, like the various characters who claim that the Irish and people of colour are "stealing jobs" from white men, is absurd today but also not unusual for the 19th century.

The main character himself is not so much likable as interesting, but it helped that he was never fully portrayed as being the good guy. He may have had some sympathetic goals but on several occasions his methods are called into question and it is never totally certain if he is doing the right thing (this calls to mind similar vigilante themes explored in Scorsese's earlier film Taxi Driver). Cutting also makes a decent antagonist, though sometimes his mustache seems to be a distraction from the overall performance. The rest of the supporting cast do okay as well, though there aren't very many who particularly stand out.

One exception to that rule is Everdeane, who I will have to admit I was pleasantly surprised by. My initial expectations of the film included her simply being a love interest and motivation for Vallon, and while that was partially true it turned out to be a lot more complicated than that. Writing strong female characters into historical movies is note easy, especially in a period like the Victorian Era, but here they really pulled it off. She's a thief but she is also smart and capable of looking after herself (and indeed, saves herself on multiple occasions, as well as Vallon at least once), all while maintaining the illusion of being an "ideal" 19th century girl.

Another area where I can definitely give this film credit is its pacing. The full movie is almost three hours long, but it actually moves fairly quickly. I don't recall any specific point at which I felt a scene was going on longer than it needed to, and I could see it was trying to use the long runtime to its advantage. The only trouble was that there is a lot going on in that time. Maybe not quite as much as a movie like The Godfather or Scorsese's later film The Departed, but still a lot. The central narrative: that of Vallon, Everdeane, and Cutter, is pretty straight forward and easy to comprehend, but there are plenty of other characters and sub-plots that can be easy to lose track of.

I won't say that Gangs of New York is my favorite Blindspot so far, but it proved to be an interesting experience, and I'm certainly glad I watched it. It has its flaws but it is a compelling story with some amazing period detail that shows a side of history often overlooked. I'd recommend checking it out if you like Scorsese or want a good crime film, and even with the long running time it hardly feels like it's that long. If I were to label Scorsese's best crime films, I would probably choose either Goodfellas or Taxi Driver, but Gangs of New York is a reasonable second or third option, and I will say that it is definitely better than Raging Bull.