How often do you go to the theatre, see a movie, and then forget about it the next day? I know it happens to me every once in a while. For example, when I sat down to write this review, I stared blankly at my computer screen for about 5 minutes before realizing I could hardly remember a thing about the movie I was supposed to be writing about. After refreshing myself on the film (thank you Wikipedia!), here’s my take on a very forgettable movie- The November Man.

Based on a series of novels by the same name, The November Man stars Pierce Brosnan as Peter Devereaux, an ex-CIA spy now spending a comfortable retirement in Switzerland. However, he is soon brought out of retirement for one last mission. After a complicated series of plot turns, he soon finds himself pitted against his former student David Mason (Luke Bracey) and the rest of the CIA as he struggles to protect a woman named Alice Fournier (Olga Kurylenko). Between double-crosses and frequent betrayals, he must find out the truth about a conspiracy involving the CIA and the man who will soon become the president of Russia.

Like I said earlier, the single defining characteristic of this movie was how forgettable it is. It’s not even particularly bad, it’s just not very interesting. The plot of the movie was confusing and didn’t seem to make much sense; I was often confused as to why people were doing whatever they were doing, and the constant double-crosses didn’t help matters. Although, I suppose it’s possible that the plot did actually make sense, but in that case it bored me to the point where I couldn’t be bothered to keep up with it. I’m honestly not sure which it was.

The casting of the movie was also not the greatest. Pierce Brosnan was fine- just fine. Yes, he was James Bond for a number of years, but he wasn’t channeling that experience here. Olga Kurylenko is similarly average; she was marginally more interesting to me, but I think that’s because compared to Brosnan, she seems new and different (my dad showed me pretty much every James Bond movie). The casting of Luke Bracey seems the strangest choice to me; he wasn’t particularly bad, but the most notable works he has been in prior to this were an Australian soap opera called Home and Away and a romantic comedy called Monte Carlo alongside Selena Gomez.

I’ve been mentioning James Bond a lot in this article; it’s difficult not to when a former Bond actor is in the movie. And it should be compared- James Bond is the most popular spy series of all time. And I believe that the reason for that is because, despite all the violence and grittiness the series possesses (especially in the more recent adaptations), James Bond movies are always fun. Yes, they’re intense, and yes, they can be dark. But they never lose sight of the reason why people go to see them: to see James Bond kick ass and take names and look damn cool while doing it.

The November Man is an example of how not to do spy movies. It’s not fun and entertaining like a Bond film. Neither did it take the completely opposite route and become extremely realistic, a style that one of the summer’s earlier films so admirably demonstrated. Instead, it’s stuck somewhere in the middle: it takes itself too seriously to be enjoyable, but its plot is not interesting enough to carry the film’s weight entirely on its shoulders. So in the end, we’re left with a film that’s so extremely average, so completely forgettable, that I had I forgotten about it by the time I walked out of the AMC’s doors onto Tremont Street.

Grade: C-/D+

I open the door and the smell of butter hits me like a sack of bricks. The street outside was full of those damn baseball fans (Red Sox vs. Basin City Blues), but at least I couldn’t smell them. Here, the stench of sweet, buttery popcorn and over-priced soda is overpowering. It’s like a woman who’s put on too much perfume: intoxicating, hypnotic, mesmerizing…

I walk up to the ticket counter and bark my name. He glares at me like he’s considering knocking my teeth in, but they wave me through. They know my rotten face, my always mispronounced name. I walk into the theatre and there’s my seat, just sitting there waiting for me. Reserved, just for me. That’s power, enforced through the barrel of a… well, I guess it’s a pen and a computer keyboard.

So, what do you think? You think I could fit in in Sin City? You think I could play the role of the hard-boiled detective, the tough-guy enforcer, or the reluctant and incredibly violent hero? I’ve been waiting a damn long time (9 years!) for this film to be released, and while I can’t say I was blown away, I sure as hell wasn’t disappointed either.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is the long awaited follow up to 2005’s Sin City. Based off the graphic novel series by Frank Miller (300, The Dark Knight Returns), the film is an anthology set in the fictional metropolis of Basin City, known as Sin City to its inhabitants. The film is made up of four parts, two of which are adapted from stories from the graphic novels (“A Dame to Kill For” and “Just Another Saturday Night”), and two are new stories written especially for the film (“The Long Bad Night” and "Nancy’s Last Dance”). The film is neither a sequel nor a prequel to the original film; rather, the various stories jump around in time, some taking place before the first film, some after, and some concurrently with it.

Much of the original cast has returned, including Mickey Rourke (Marv), Jessica Alba (Nancy Callahan), Powers Boothe (Senator Roark), Rosario Dawson (Gail), Jaime King (Goldie and Wendy) and Bruce Willis (John Hartigan). However, some of the characters had to be recast, including Dwight McCarthy (with Josh Brolin replacing Clive Owen), Manute (with Dennis Haysbert filling in for Michael Clarke Duncan), and “deadly little Miho” (Jamie Chung steps into Devon Aoki’s shoes). Last but not least, we also get some brand new characters, most notably Joseph Gordon-Levitt as gambling man Johnny and Eva Green as Ava Lord, the titular “Dame to Kill For”.

The first thing to mention is that this movie is filled to the brim with gratuitous violence, gore, and nudity. While the first film was certainly notorious when released for the very same thing, the follow-up certainly surpasses it. This is mostly due to the fact that the first film, while very violent, had (comparatively) little sexuality in it; this film has heaps of it, virtually entirely due to Eva Green, who we see a lot of (pun intended). The content of the film is as relentless and intense as the first film, if not more so. While I generally dislike movies with gratuitous sex and violence, the heavy layer of parody and self-awareness dolloped on by Frank Miller makes the whole thing not only edible but quite tasty.

Sin City broke new grounds by using digital technology to create completely artificial sets and environments, in a successful attempt to replicate the heavily stylized look of the graphic novels. The same technology is on display here, but it is pretty much the same as before; nothing new seems to have been added. In fact, that is something I can say about the film as a whole: it feels just like the first film, whether in plot, visual look, characterization, editing, and music. If not for the fact that they were released 9 years apart and some of the cast is different, you could be forgiven for thinking they made up parts of the same movie.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is not revolutionary. It will not be fondly remembered for breaking new cinematic ground the way its earlier incarnation did. In fact, it will probably not be remembered much at all other than as the follow-up to the first. But, more of the same is not necessarily a bad thing. Under all the series’ digital wizardry and shock-inducing graphic content is a damn good neo-noir action movie. Yeah, the fights are ridiculous and the characters are all noir stereotypes and we know most of the people are going to die at the end. But when I go to Sin City, that is exactly what I expect to see. I want to see Marv casually murder people and Senator Roarke be a scumbag and John Hartigan spout some cheesy noir one-liners. I expect, nay, I desire to see a damned city of dead-end streets and dead-end lives, full of unredeemable villains and only marginally better heroes, full of silvery shadows and nights as dark as the cruel city’s heart. And you know what, that is exactly what I got. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is more of the same, but that also means more car chases, more of the characters I love (or love to hate), and above all, more violence and gore that is so absurd that you can’t help but laugh at it. I got what I came for, no more, no less.

Oh, and by the way, that’s a damn fine coat you’re wearing…

Grade: B-

When I was a little kid, the company my dad used to work for had an annual holiday called “Bring Your Kid to Work Day”. Basically, it was an excuse for the kids to run around the offices playing assorted games and for the adults to slow down and have some fun. As part of the festivities, there was always tons of sweets to be given out to us kids and borrowed by the parents. The first time my dad ever brought me to Bring Your Kid to Work Day, I was absolutely overwhelmed by the cookies and ice cream and cotton candy. I, being approximately six and having no impulse control, gorged myself on the various sweets. Unsurprisingly, I succeeded both in making myself sick and making my father mortified in front of his coworkers, but I learned a valuable lesson about sweets in moderation, and at the next Bring Your Kids to Work Day I showed laudable restraint. Unfortunately, this was a lesson that the creators of If I Stay seemed never to have learned. 

If I Stay stars Chloë Grace Moretz as Mia Hall, a teenage girl who happens to be a prodigy cello player. This in some ways made her a loner both in her family life (both her parents were punk musicians) and her social life (her boyfriend is in a rock band). Throughout her life she has dealt with feelings of inadequacy and isolation. You know, the teenage years we all went through. However, her life takes a turn for the tragic one winter day when she and her family are involved in a car accident. Mia ends up in a coma, but her spirit has been disconnected from her body and she can observe everything going on in the waking world, as well as have convenient flashbacks to various points of her life. It is up to Mia to decide whether “she will stay” or “she will go”.

This movie tastes like diabetes. Here’s Wilford Brimley to really set the mood. It is so sickeningly cute and sweet that it made me want to throw up. And the way in which it shoves all of it down your throat is so cliché. When Mia is thinking that “she will go”, a magical bright light appears down at the end of the hallway that she can walk towards. Mia’s boyfriend Adam is played by Jamie Blackman, who both looks the part of the teen heartthrob and has the background of one; his parents split up when he was little and he’s always been alone, so he formed a bad rock band to cope. Plus, he plays the part so well; when sitting by Mia’s bedside in the hospital he decides to serenade her with a song he wrote for her, and pulls a guitar seemingly right out of his ass. He’s like that asshole we all know who somehow always shows up at parties with an acoustic guitar. And of course, the film shows how even in the most dire of situations, the power of family, friendship, and love can overcome even the most horrible tragedies. The whole movie is like being raped by a sugar maple.

But bizarrely, in and amongst all this sweetness, there’s a significant amount of explicit language. I don’t think anyone ever said fuck, but they said pretty much everything else, including some from the mouth of Mia’s seven year-old brother. In addition, there’s a fair amount of sexually suggestive (if not quite explicit) content in the film. Between those two things, I’m frankly amazed this film was able to get a PG-13 rating, although it is possible that the cut ultimately released to theatres will have some of it edited out. But the whole thing succeeded in confusing me as to the film’s intended audience, as the movie’s themes would be more comfortable in a PG movie while some of the movie’s content really pushes the PG-13 rating. 

Plus, there's an absurd amount of product placement for the Julliard School. I mean, I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense, with Mia being a cello prodigy and all, but the sheer amount of times the school's name is said is overwhelming. Seriously, they say it like dozens of times. Apparently Mia, despite being a serious musician, has never heard of any other music school besides that one. It gets to the point where it starts to break the suspension of disbelief for the movie (not that there was much to begin with), and plus its just really annoying. 

And the worst part of it is that Chloë Grace Moretz is a really good actress. Sure, she isn’t very good in this, but when you’re handed a script apparently co-written by Willy Wonka and the Carebears, there’s only so much you can do. But we saw her in Kick-Ass and Hugo, we know what she can do when handed a good script. Maybe she needed the cash, maybe she wanted to avoid being typecast after being Hit Girl, but I just really hope I get to see her in something better to wipe away the sickeningly sweet taste of this.

This is the kind of movie that 14 year-old girls will flock to and in all likelihood absolutely adore. I, on the other hand, will be sent to the emergency room after suffering from diabetic shock. Now I need to go watch some really dark and depressing shit to clear my palette. If you need me, I’ll be doing a marathon of Sin City, Pulp Fiction, and Watchmen while frantically stabbing myself with shots full of insulin.

Grade: D

Question [to Lowry]: How much involvement did you have in making the film as a writer?

Lowry: I had no official involvement, but they decided that they would consult me, I guess would be the best term. Phillip, the director, throughout the process emailed me, almost every day, sometimes three times a day, just with little questions. They had me look at Odeya’s screen-test before she was cast, they had me look at costume designs, there was one dress they had designed for you [Odeya], and I said it was too sexy, she’s not supposed to be sexy. Make her dress a little longer, it was very short. So I was involved throughout the process but not officially.

[to Rush and Thwaites]: So what attracts you guys to a film like this? Because it’s not a Hunger Games sort-of action movie, it’s a more… thoughtful movie.

Rush: I think so many elements of this project attracted me to it. I mean, when you look at it, you see Phillip Noyce is attached to it, Jeff Bridges is attached, it’s based on a book by Lois Lowry, all those things already make it very attractive. But I think, after reading the script and being so moved and seeing a characters who’s so challenging and has such a journey, it’s one of those scripts that I read that that made me keep thinking about it. I mean I had the audition the night I was reading the script, right before the audition, but it’s one of those projects that stays in your head and makes you think about it a lot and every time I think about this movie and every time I do an interview, there’s something else that comes up there’s a new idea that comes up, new questions that arise.

Thwaites: Well for me it was the chance to work with Phillip Noyce, he’s one of my favorite directors. As a kid, seeing all these Aussie movies, he’s one of those directors that Australian directors look up to because he’s made it in Hollywood, he’s made some great films, and I guess this is his big chance to come back into the big screen. So I really wanted to work with Phil, Jeff Bridges was onboard at this point, and I was super excited to work with Jeff, I’m a huge fan. Then I read the book and I discovered that the story was so powerful and had a great message. Those mixed together was a cocktail of excitement.  

[to Thwaites and Rush] What was it like getting to work with someone like Jeff Bridges or Meryl Streep so early in your careers?

Thwaites: Well, 18 years before we got to work with him, Lois Lowry got to work with him…

Lowry: Well no, nothing happened for those years, we kept talking about it.

[to Lowry]: So he bought the rights to the book?

Lowry: Eighteen years ago, he bought the rights. He was going to direct it, and we was going to star his father in it, Lloyd Bridges [as the Giver], who was a fine actor. Then it just never got put together, never got financed, and his father died. And after time passed, he realized he could play the role.

Thwaites: Oh, sorry, we kind of hijacked your question. Yeah, it was great, it was such an opportunity as a young actor. It can be quite nerve-wracking to meet them and start that relationship. But Jeff’s such a cool guy. He welcomed me, especially, with open arms, and in a way that’s something that the Giver does, so it’s a nice parallel.

Rush: Yeah, you know, Jeff is also a very giving person. He is someone who has sat me down and given me advice on the press stuff and filming, don’t be afraid to be the fool and just jump in. He tells you stories about when he was younger and stories about his dad and he is someone who is very giving and open. And the fact that I got to work with him so early in my career is going to have such a huge impact on what I do next, and it has, I think, on every role I’ve approached since then, it’s really changed.

[to Lowry] So I know that some fans are nervous about how their beloved book is being translated to a movie, so what would you tell those fans?

Lowry: I would tell them: “Relax”. I think people lose eight of the fact that a movie and a book are two different things, and you can love a book, but it’s never going to be exactly the same on the screen. And you just gotta relax and let it happen.

Thwaites: You know, the parts of Harry Potter that weren’t on the screen, originally I was kind of annoyed but they’re still in my mind and I can keep them to myself, and in a way that’s kind of cool. You keep the moments that aren’t transferred to the screen to yourself and they can be your moments.

[to Lowry]: So are you happy with the way the book has been adapted for screen? Because they’re two totally different mediums…

Lowry: It is, and I knew that from the start, I’ve always been a movie buff. So I didn’t think, or expect, or even hope that the book would become the movie and be exactly the same, that’s just not going to happen. The one thing that worried me, and I know it worried Jeff as well, was the decision to make the characters older than they are in the book, in the book they’re twelve. And that decision was made for several different reasons, and was simply that marketing, that the movie would have a larger audience if the cast was older. Apparently marketing research told them that teenagers won’t go see movies about twelve-year olds. Another reason that I had not even thought about, is that twelve-year olds, in a movie, can only work a certain number of hours.

Rush: You can work 9 hours, and 3 of them have to be schooling; it’s how I used to work…

Lowry: Yeah, so it makes the movie more expensive, it takes longer to make it. So at any rate, I was worried about it, Jeff was worried enough about it that he almost withdrew from the movie when he heard that the kids were going to be older. And then both of us got over it. When we met the kids who were going to play the roles, saw them on the screen, and saw that it was going to work. Because they had the same air of youth, naivety, and vulnerability that the characters in the book have. They’re older but they have the same characteristics, so it works. 

“Age is only a state of mind”, as the old saying goes. The cast of The Expendables 3 seems out to prove that with the latest addition to the action movie series.  Lets see if they succeed with their mission…

Let me start by introducing you to the concept of The Expendables with a quick revision. The Expendables are a team of armed men who are trained in battle, each one with their special skills and for some reason also past 50 years of age (which seems to be a prerequisite to apply for the team). This team of veteran fighters are the go-to team for government agencies’ black deeds and missions they don't want in official records. “We walk in. We sweep the floor. And they get the credit”. Now without a lot of connection to the previous two movies, except for the continuing cast, the third chapter is about an operation that goes bust. After rescuing a former Expendable, Doc (Wesley Snipes) from captivity, Barney (Sylvester Stallone) leads the team into a mission in Mogadishu, Somalia. The man they are sent to capture turns out to be Conrad Stonebanks (Mel Gibson), another former Expendable who was thought dead but is now a rich arms dealer who goes by a different alias.

The failed mission leaves Caesar (Terry Crews) fatally injured and puts a question on the capabilities of the increasingly older squad (mind you, Stallone may look fitter than 99% of the human population but he is now 68!). So with an old aide/fiend now resurfaced and little push from new boss Drummer (Harrison Ford), Barney makes it his personal agenda to put Stonebanks down and starts to assemble a new team of young-blood. With the this team failing to help Barney seek vengeance, he is forced to team-up with his original crew (whom he was trying to protect by not bringing them to a suicide mission) for another attempt where the crew proves that they may be old but not ready to quit the game.

“So is it interesting? Well-scripted? Suspenseful? ” you ask. Let me tell you, if story is something you are worried about, you certainly are at the wrong place. Expendables has always been a high dose of action with a sometimes decent story holding together the crazy rain of bullets. That said, the third chapter in the series is actually a slight improvement over the previous two when it comes to the writing material. It has a decent but not particularly original plot of a mercenary carrying out a personal vendetta and teams building a family like die-for-one-another bond. But what is most interesting is that it seems that after two movies, Stallone (the creator of series) has almost come to accept the movies for what they are. There are brash characters, cliche jokes, cheesy lines and more but it feels gung-ho when you know what to expect from the movie.

With the ever expanding cast of Expendables (apparently this series wants to have every action hero who ever lived, on-board), it is impossible to cover them all and remind you where you last saw them, but I guess the poster (top) should jog your memory. That leaves just one thing to discuss: the action. It is bigger, more explosive and I’m quite sure now covers around more than three quarters of the 126 minute runtime. Why is that good? Because by the time you are able to ascertain the credibility of one stunt, a second one is thrown at you. So you can pretty much shut your mind and simply enjoy this endless loop of action.

Whether The Expendables 3 will succeed at capturing the interest of people new to the series remains to be determined. But it does give a reason good enough for the existing fans to go back for one more episode from the diaries of the Expendables.       

Like: Non-stop action , Antonio Banderas

Not so much: That non-stop action is only thing is has to offer

Grade: B-

Rich Hill, Missouri is a town used like many others recently: as a symbol of America’s crumbling social infrastructure.  The documentary Rich Hill focuses on three boys named Andrew, Harley and Appachey from this Missouri town. Rich Hill has many of the familiar signs of ordinary existence; I particularly latched onto the fact that the school has an FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America) club. This detail is of no real significance, however given the authenticity of this film, I’m sure you’ll find little details that remind you of home and growing up too.

I could dissect the specific stories and families but you should discover that through the film. Simply put, you should go watch Rich Hill at the Brattle this weekend or on VOD (where it's already available).  All the sadly familiar elements of broken Americana are here: mental illness, obesity, child smoking, abandonment, instability, mega sodas, childhood trauma, depressive sleeping, guns, prison, etc. And it’s all very real. You’ll feel sullen and dejected, partly because of how perceptively directors Palermo and Tragos capture these stories. Rather than having interviews with a black background or somewhere pretty, they show these kids and their parents intimately where they play in the streets or in their homes. The houses are hard to look at, as behind almost every interviewee, you can see the walls literally cracking. These people’s homes are literally breaking apart, and it’s quite overtly making you grapple with America’s social devastation of late. It’s a paralyzing experience, to watch this happen and not be able to do anything. It’s definitely not the kind of film that makes me feel like I can go out and do something to help.

The deeper story Palermo and Tragos are telling has been told more than a few times in the last several years, however I don’t think it has been told as authentically. Palermo and Tragos have a very non-invasive style with artfully perceptive moments. They must’ve put a lot of effort into developing their relationships with these kids, as the kids are shockingly candid on camera at times. All that being said, Rich Hill certainly has its flaws; at times it felt like they tried too hard to force visual metaphors, like the frequent focus on cracking walls. It tries a little too hard to be American as well and the overall message feels too familiar at this point.

Years in the future, it won’t exactly matter that Rich Hill felt a little too familiar upon release. I will remember it as the best filmic representation of the decay of America’s social foundations at this time in history and that’s certainly something special.

Grade: A-

So apparently, I was just about the only American kid who didn’t read The Giver in grammar school. So, not knowing what the story is about, the initial trailers for the film gave me the impression that this was just another action-packed young-adult Hunger Games knock-off movie. However, I am happy to say that my expectations were completely wrong; The Giver is a very different kind of film.

In case you were like me and didn’t read the novel as a kid, here’s a brief summary: the story stars a boy named Jonas (11 in the novel, upped to 16 in the film), played by Brenton Thwaites. He lives in an idyllic society that has eliminated inequality, racism, and all forms of violence. Upon reaching the age of majority, he and his friends Asher (Cameron Monaghan) and Fiona (Odeya Rush) go through the Ceremony, a ritual where each new adult is assigned the job in which they will serve the community. While his friends are chosen for the common jobs of child-raiser and drone pilot, Jonas is selected for a very special role: he will become the next Receiver of Memories. Jonas’ society has been able to build their utopian community by purging all memories of the past from each member; these memories are carried by one person in case they are ever needed. As Jonas slowly receives the memories from his mentor (Jeff Bridges), he slowly starts to question the culture he has accepted without second thought until now.

Like I said, I thought this was going to be an action-packed young adult summer blockbuster, but it is not. In fact, this film has virtually no action whatsoever; there is a motorcycle chase towards the end, but there is no violence. Jonas’ community has supposedly advanced past the need for violence, so there are no weapons, and indeed most of the residents seem incapable of even conceiving the concept of violence. I found this extremely refreshing, as it left room for quality acting, character development, and world building. The film starts off in greyscale, gradually brightening up as Jonas receives more memories. One of the things the community has forgotten is color, and it is a shock to both Jonas and the viewer the first time he sees green trees and blue skies. Thwaites and Rush act in a purposely stilted and formal style to reflect the mannerisms of the community, but despite their relative inexperience they keep the film enjoyable. The community depicted in the film/book is sort of like a (mostly) kid-friendly version of the worlds depicted in 1984 or Brave New World.

And in fact, the themes of The Giver are not far off from those landmark works of dystopian fiction. Basically, the film questions whether we can achieve peace and harmony while simultaneously possessing free will. Further, it ponders whether peace and harmony achieved at the cost of free will is even peace and harmony in the first place. The film deals with some heavy stuff for being targeted towards young adults, and there are a few moments in particular that will shock those who haven’t read the novel (myself included). However, it doesn’t end up sounding preachy, but rather more like a fairytale with a moral woven into the story.

Judging by the trailers, one could easily be misled about this movie, and go into it expecting an action-fest. After all, pretty much all films targeted towards the young-adult crowd (and much of the literature too) focuses on action at the expense of plot and characterization, just like much of Hollywood’s recent fare. But The Giver is a much more meaningful and powerful film than most young-adult fare, showing that a film targeting that demographic doesn’t need to have action or high tension. At the end of the day, a meaningful story is enough.

Grade: B+

When we think of humor, the first thing that pops into people’s head is not usually senior citizens. If they are considered funny, it’s because old people are adorably anachronistic; they don’t know how to use the internet, and sometimes they are amusingly racist. We think of old people in the frames of grandparents or old cranky neighbors; rarely do we think of them as just people, but older. We often forget that they have lives of their own, and that they can actually be funny.

Land Ho! is an indie comedy written and directed by Martha Stephens and Aaron Katz. It stars Earl Lynn Nelson and Paul Eenhorn as Mitch and Colin, respectively. They are both older men, and former brothers-in-law. Mitch decides that Colin has been acting too gloomy lately and needs to be cheered up, so he surprises Colin with a surprise trip to Iceland. The film follows them on their vacation and their misadventures through geothermal spas, trendy nightclubs, and the Icelandic wilderness.

This quirky comedy reminds us that there is life after the age of 35. Too often, Hollywood movies will be full to the brim with young actors who look like they just walked out of a fashion magazine, with perpetually white teeth and artificially created faces. Earl Lynn Nelson and Paul Eenhorn are pleasantly ordinary looking and sounding. They both do a great job, with Nelson playing the role of the dirty old grandpa and Eenhorn as the straight man, dry-wit Australian. And both of them are full, rounded characters. Yes, they both grapple with their age, but neither of them is defined by their age.

The film’s humor is similarly realistic. Things as simple as Mitch and Colin giving their differing interpretations of modern art at a museum provide witty and subtle comedy. Much of the film’s humor comes from the chemistry between Nelson and Eenhorn, and they play of each other wonderfully. Their individual reactions to getting lost after dark far from their remote hotel are both humorous and interesting insights into their characters. Their differing reactions to their old age and how they interact with younger people is similarly both humorous and illuminating of them as people. This is one of the few comedy films where the on-screen characters are more than just a delivery service for punchlines.

Finally, the cinematography is gorgeous. The film includes many stunning shots of the barren but beautiful Icelandic countryside, geothermal springs, and other scenic locations. Rarely does one end up gazing at the scenery in awe in a comedy movie, but it and helps to give it heart and character. This by no means the film is boring in anyway (I was laughing through the whole thing), but it never hurts to have a little variety.

So, if you’re looking for a laugh this weekend, you could go to the theatre and see an ordinary comedy film with endless pop-culture references and a barrage of dick jokes. Alternatively, you can go to the Kendall Square Cinema and see something that is a little less mainstream, a little more subtle, and that has a lot more heart.

Grade: A-

Series at-a-glance:
Genres: Space Western, Action, Comedy
Creators:  Yasuhiro Nightow, Yōsuke Kuroda, Satoshi Nishimura
Studio: Madhouse
Length: 26 episodes
Year: 1998
Highlights: Wacky comedy and deathly serious drama

On the desert planet Gunsmoke, there is one man feared above all others: Vash the Stampede. Dubbed “The Humanoid Typhoon”, this viscous outlaw is so dangerous and destructive that he has a bounty on his head worth $$60,000,000,000 (that’s sixty billion double dollars). The Bernardelli Insurance Company, nearly bankrupt from paying for all the damages Vash has caused, dispatch two agents to find him: the tall and ditzy Millie Thompson and the short and short-tempered Meryl Stryfe.

However, the man they find surely can’t be Vash the Stampede. Vash the Stampede is a murderous outlaw who kills without remorse or pity; this guy with spiky blonde hair and a big red coat is just a weirdo who likes to eat donuts. Vash the Stampede is a criminal of the worst sort, guilty of countless crimes; this guy is just an aimless nomad searching for “Love and Peace!” And yet, as Meryl and Millie discover, this bizarre man actually is Vash the Stampede. It turns out he’s just a mostly harmless wandering fool. Tasked with preventing Vash from creating anymore mayhem, Meryl and Millie end up traveling with him, later joined by an unusual preacher named Nicholas D. Wolfwood. But why does Vash have an enormous bounty on his head, and why does trouble follow him everywhere he goes…

Trigun is a Space Western anime series produced by the studio Madhouse and based on a manga series written by Yasuhiro Nightow. The first half of the show is a perfect example of a classic shōnen series; shōnen series are those aimed at a male audience between the ages of approximately 10 to 18 or so. The series displays the classic shōnen traits of a male lead, humorous and light-hearted plotlines, and action. Trigun has tons of action; Vash really is an expert gunman, and despite his pacifistic ideals he frequently lands in situations that only a cartoony gunfight can solve. Featuring goofy humor and heavy action, the first half of Trigun is a fun and thoroughly entertaining journey across the wasteland of Gunsmoke.

The second half, however, is very different. Very suddenly and drastically, the show’s theme flips from lighthearted and goofy to extremely serious. The action, once portrayed as silly and fun, is now deathly serious. Initially Vash could easily solve problems without anyone being killed or sometimes even shooting his gun; the episode where the change occurs ends with streets full of bodies. Many people die, some of them in horrible and painful ways. While blood was conspicuously absent at first, the later show more than makes up for it. Through this, there is a serious amount of character development, and we are given glimpses and eventually the full story of Vash’s past, and why all these horrible things keep happening to him. Though the show never completely loses its sense of fun, the second half is always a life-or-death struggle for Meryl, Millie, Nicholas, and Vash.

Unusually for a show that started off as wacky shōnen action and comedy, the later episodes of Trigun examine serious philosophical questions. The show uses Vash and his ideals of love and peace to talk about Christianity; specifically, the show debates the paradox inherent in Christian thought between pacifist ideals and the duty to protect the innocent. Vash tries his upmost to never kill anyone, but struggles with the fact that he may one day face the choice between taking a life and letting someone he cares about die.

Trigun changes so thoroughly that if one was to watch back-to-back an episode from the first half of the series and the second half, you very well may not recognize them as the same show. And yet, whether Vash is saving the day from some wacky villain who looks like he just walked off the set of Scooby-Doo or desperately fighting for his life, Vash always manages to be a determined and hopeful character. In that way he never changes, and whether you prefer silliness or bloodshed and philosophical pondering, Trigun is a show that will never disappoint. 

Brandon: What are your initial thoughts on Calvary?

Carter: Something along the lines of: “Damn, that was a good movie.” I was slightly stunned when I walked out of the theatre.

Brandon: I would agree that it’s one of the best movies of this summer, but it has been a weak summer. It has very good moments, especially the opening, and gorgeous cinematography, but the film felt a little unfocused once it was over. I’m not entirely sure what McDonaugh was doing. It’s really great though, much better than a lot of films I’ve seen recently.

Carter: I interpreted the film simply as a character study of Father James. It was simply the individual trials and tests of faith that he had to endure that particular week. It doesn’t necessarily have or needs to have a point beyond that.

Brandon: Calvary is such an artificially constructed universe that I find it hard to take as merely a character study. The film opens with Father, played brilliantly by Brendan Gleeson, in a confession booth.  A man tells Father that the man was molested by a priest as a child. Immediately, McDonaugh links priesthood and sin. Further, the whole film seems to question if the priest, good or not, is the biggest sinner of us all. Priests implore adults, through guilt, to believe in a theoretical higher power who allows such a horrible events as this. I’m not sure the whole film sticks to this notion, as in parts belief in a higher power is validated, but I think it’s worth noting.

Carter: I think maybe you’re not making the distinction between the Church and the priest. Yes, the Church can be corrupt, and some of the constituents of it have certainly done terrible things. The film does not disguise that. However, that does not mean all priests are sinners. Father James certainly is not. It seems to me like McDonaugh was attempting to equate Father James with Christ, enduring the punishment for the sins of others despite not committing any himself.

Brandon: Is it not a sin to commit your life to supporting and honoring a supposed divine presence that stands for the molestation of children in its name? I think this is the kind of question Father James grapples with in Calvary. I think he may feel guilty for being a priest. I’m uncertain of McDonaugh’s intentions but I’m under the impression he may be juxtaposing the “sinful” with pure Father James because he wants Father James and the audience to see that the deeper sinner is the one guilting those around him.

Carter: I think what we are seeing here, and what will apply to any audience that goes to see it, is that one’s reaction to a film intertwined as closely with the Church and faith as this will be inevitably colored by one’s opinion of that faith. This is not a bad thing, in fact I think its great that we can talk so openly and criticize faith. However, it makes objective analysis difficult. But I think purely from a cinematic perspective this film is wonderful. The actors, especially Gleeson, do a wonderful performance, and like you said earlier, the film is beautifully shot. Although, I may be slightly biased because of my love of Irish culture.

Brandon: I can’t completely agree that one’s reaction is simply colored by their previously held beliefs. This isn’t a broad film about religion, it very starkly opens by making the viewer confront the molestation of children by priests. The more complicated whole of the film is going to bring out one’s own opinion, but I think it slants in one direction (emphasis on slant, it does provide a counterpoint). I wonder if you’ve seen The Guard? I found McDonaugh’s previous film much more clear and focused, not to mention both profound and tremendously enjoyable. Calvary is definitely a different experience but I found it to be a letdown which is why I’m a little more negative than I ought to be towards the film.

Carter: I have sadly not seen The Guard, but I know I need to get on that because of how important it is to Irish cinema. However, from what I understand about it, it sounds like quite a different film than Calvary. Although I understand what you mean by being let down by a director you expected more off; I felt the same way about Darren Aronofsky and Noah.

Brandon: Well, there’s no better way to highlight how accomplished Calvary is, at least in part, than by putting it side by side with Noah.

Carter: Oh, now that’s not fair at all.

Brandon Grade: B+

Carter Grade: A