Mrs. Theron, Tear Down This Wall!: Atomic Blonde Review

Jason Bourne: Look at what I can do with a rolled up newspaper and a book!

Lorraine (from Atomic Blonde): Hold my beer *grabs water hose*

John Wick: That's cute *brandishes a #2 pencil*

Atomic Blonde is the latest in a long line of action movies that feature a singular bad-ass on a mission of some kind to take down all the bad guys. But wait! This time, the lead character is a woman, making this the first time in film history a woman has ever kicked ass! Sarcasm notwithstanding, let me give you a proper synopsis of this thing. 

Starring Charlize Theron as Lorraine Broughton and directed by David Leitch, Atomic Blonde is a spy action thriller, adapted from the graphic novel, The Coldest City, that takes place in 1989 Berlin, Germany, mere days before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Amidst the Cold War era tension, MI6 has reason to believe that the Russian KGB has murdered one of its agents and acquired "the List," which is some sort of hard drive that contains the names and personal information of many British and other Western operatives. Eric Gray, played by Toby Jones, brings Lorraine in to help MI6 to investigate the circumstances of the killed agent's death and recover the List before the KGB uses it to compromise countless MI6 agents. As soon as Lorraine lands in Berlin, nothing is what it seems and she must learn quickly who she can trust and who is trying to double cross her. Let the convoluted and highly stylized espionage thrills begin! 

What Was Good?

This movie goes all in on convincing you Charlize Theron is a one lady wrecking ball and a lean, mean, Russian-killing machine, and I must say that I bought it. Theron has a great physicality in Atomic Blonde and shows off impressive action choreography and fighting skills that you don't see from Hollywood A-listers outside of Keanu Reeves. If you come for fun spy, action fight sequences, you're not going to be disappointed. There's one scene in particular that is brutally mesmerizing; fans of the Netflix series Daredevil will notice many similarities with the scene in Atomic Blonde and two key ones in the series, one taking place in a hallway, the other taking place in a stairwell. While this particular scene is a stand out moment in the movie, just about every fight scene or action scene in the movie is a lot of fun to watch and provides the movie its primary entertainment value. 

I also really enjoy the performances in this movie, in particular those of Charlize Theron and James McAvoy. Their banter back and forth made for some solid entertainment and comedic relief that broke up the gruesome violence and darker tones of the movie. McAvoy continues to amaze me as an actor. In the last 5 or so years, he's established himself as one of the best and, more importantly, most versatile actors working today. Am I saying that this was one of his best performances? Absolutely not. But I'm just saying it was a unique addition to his filmography and he was dang entertaining in it. 

Here's a quick note on the soundtrack. If you enjoy the synthesized rock ballads of the '80s, you're going to love the Atomic Blonde soundtrack. Ever since 2014's Guardians of the Galaxy delighted audiences with its '60s and '70s infested soundtrack, it seems like more and more action movies are trying to duplicate the results. We've seen it now with 2016's Suicide Squad and this year's Baby Driver and now Atomic Blonde. The key difference is in Guardians of the Galaxy and Baby Driver, the soundtrack is not only stylish and full of nostalgia; it also actually has an impact and is incorporated with the characters in their respective movies. The soundtrack for Atomic Blonde does not have that kind of depth. While I've seen other reviews make similar distinctions, it actually doesn't bother me. I love how the soundtrack in Guardians and Baby Driver are used so well, but I also enjoy the stylistic flavor that Atomic Blonde's soundtrack adds to the movie. I ultimately still think it's a positive. 

What Was Bad?

Unfortunately, in spite of its thrilling action, Atomic Blonde is sort of a mess from a narrative standpoint. Lacking the effective simplicity of the John Wick series and the well-executed political sophistication of the Bourne trilogy, Atomic Blonde falls awkwardly in the middle of those two great action franchises and becomes a kick ass thriller that tries to be more, but ends up miring itself in an incoherent plot with confusing character motivations. I won't spoil anything about this movie for my readers, assuming that you're all reading this to determine whether or not you should see it. However, I will tell you that in the last 10 minutes, the movie throws in about 3 or 4 plot twists that completely undo every aspect of the story that's occurred in the previous 100 minutes. I feel like the filmmakers behind this movie wanted the audience's response during the credits to be, "Woah! What?! That was nuts!". Unfortunately, when the credits rolled for me, I went "Woah! What?!.........wait a minute, that doesn't make sense."

The sign of a good plot twist (or twists) is that when you look back at the movie you just watched, you think "Oh wow, so that explains THIS part, and if THAT's true, then THIS is also true!...." and your mind gets progressively more blown as you unravel the rest of what you thought you saw. The context of the whole film changes as a result of the twist. When you look back at Atomic Blonde through the lens of its twists, however, you no longer understand why anyone did any of the things they did. The writers for this movie threw in twists for the sake of having twists because it was a spy movie, and that's what spy movies do. That type of laziness makes me pretty angry, especially when this movie really did have a lot of promise to be something special. Instead, Atomic Blonde is a Frankenstein monster of a movie that cherrypicks aspects of John Wick, Jason Bourne, and every other spy action thriller in the last 20 years and mashes them all together. 

What Should Catholics Know? 

Unfortunately, there's not much good here for Catholic viewers. Aside from the obvious spy vs. spy blood and violence that you were promised in the trailers, Atomic Blonde features a fairly graphic lesbian sex scene. In an attempt to present same sex relationships as beautiful and admirable in nature, consistent with today's society's agenda to do the same, Atomic Blonde uses this scene as a spring board for Theron and Sofia Boutella's characters' (a French spy) blooming romantic relationship. In an interview with Movie Pilot, Theron addresses the scene, saying, "...I just feel that this [LGBTQ] community is not represented the way that it should be in film. Actors are always talking about reflecting society in media, but if we're gonna do that, we should really do that. I could have hooked up with a guy, but it's great that I hooked up with a girl. I'm proud of that." It's clear that Theron and Hollywood as a whole are making deliberate efforts to normalize homosexual behavior in mainstream media and society. If that's their agenda, so be it. But for Catholics, it's important to remember that while Christ and His Church love and welcome all people, including members of the LGBQT community, they do not condone indulging in homosexual acts or behavior. This distinction of "loving the sinner but hating the sin" is important for Catholics and members of society who value conservative social norms to remember. If you go to see this movie, don't fall into the trap of using the emotional empathy Theron generates for her character in these scenes with Boutella as moral justification for homosexual acts. 

On top of this, the movie features generally despicable people doing despicable things to each other, wholly unnecessary nude shots of Charlize Theron sprinkled throughout, and gratuitous violence (although much of Theron's violent acts are in self-defense, so I guess you could argue in most cases she's morally justified to do what she's doing, but that may be a bit of a stretch). This movie certainly earns its R-rating and is not for young children or teenagers. 

Should You See It? 

Atomic Blonde is an entertaining piece of spy action cinema that, unfortunately, is held back by odd story and narrative choices and is too convoluted for its own good. Featuring stand out performances by Charlize Theron and James McAvoy, the film has one of the most thrilling fight scenes in a movie I've seen all year and contains a nostalgia-driven '80s rock soundtrack that gives the movie a unique stylistic flair, even though it may feel a bit forced at times. For my fellow Catholics, I'd recommend waiting until this movie comes out on Netflix or some other streaming service, fast-forward through the lesbian and nude scenes, and enjoy the fight scenes for what they are. Or just don't see it altogether. 

My judgment: 4.9/10

What do you think, fellow laymen and laywomen? Did I judge Atomic Blonde too harshly? Are you still planning on seeing the movie? If you've seen it already, is there an aspect of the film that I missed in my review? Please leave a like, a comment, and a prayer! 

Caesar Reigns Supreme: War for the Planet of the Apes Review

Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape! 

Charlton Heston's famous line from the original film in the series all but a memory at this point (aside from that Draco Malfoy-looking kid's reference to it in Rise of the Planet of the Apes), the Planet of the Apes franchise has come a long way from being a campy, classic '60s sci-fi action flick to now containing one of the best, most complete dramatic film trilogies of all time. War for the Planet of the Apes is the third and final film in the Matt Reeves-directed prequel series of movies chronicling the Rise, Dawn, and War of hyper-intelligent, genetically modified apes as they face off against their human counterparts, led by their wise, powerful, and awe-inspiring leader, Caesar.

War starts where Dawn leaves off; following the devastating aftermath of Koba's (he was the evil ape for those who can't or find it difficult to care to remember a fictional ape character's name) rise to power and brutal confrontation with the human survivor community, led by Gary Oldman's character, a highly lethal and well-trained militia to the north has received word of the apes' aggression and have mobilized to take out Caesar and all ape-kind that remain. What follows is both a militaristic and psychological war between Caesar, played by the incomparable Andy Serkis (Gollum from The Lord of the Rings, King Kong from King Kong (2005)), and the Colonel, played by Woody Harrelson (Detective Marty Hart from True Detective, Haymitch Abernathy from The Hunger Games series) as they both struggle for personal survival and that of their respective species. 

What Was Good?

First off, let's start off the with the most obvious thing about this movie: it looks amazing! The special effects are state of the art and, arguably, some of the best use of CGI in a film I have ever seen. Every ape in War looks as real as any animal you might see in the wild or at the zoo. On top of that, with the use of "performance capture" technology, Caesar and the gang are given incredible emotional depth and characterization that might trick you into thinking these apes are actually highly sentient beings that broke big into the Hollywood scene with their tour-de-force acting prowess and make use of the Kraft services table on set in between takes. Do not be fooled! They are, in fact, human beings in silly gray leotards with white balls and head-rigged cameras who happen to be outstanding actors who combine their talents as actors with the special effects wizards to create the magic on-screen that we, as audience members, tend to take for granted. On a pure digital craftsmanship level, War for the Planet of the Apes is a masterpiece. 

Next, I want to highlight the director of the film, Matt Reeves. In his own words, Reeves describes his film as "an ape war movie Biblical epic...and a revenge western" (here's the interview: SPOILER ALERT!!! DON'T WATCH UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaWLT1hp1JU). That just about sums up the general plot of the movie, and it's undeniably thrilling from start to finish (with the exception of a 15 minute section about halfway or two-thirds of the way through the movie). I won't delve into each beat of the film because I don't want to spoil it for you in this review, but I will say that Reeves has such an intimate grasp of what this franchise is and knows how to highlight the strengths of this story and its characters. He understands that this story is truly about the apes themselves, and not just how they end up in a position where they've enslaved Charlton Heston in the 1968 film. The physical struggle of Caesar and his followers is expertly matched by the emotional and psychological struggle as they try to find their place in the world, especially in the face of the last ditch militaristic might of what is left of humanity. For the most part, Reeves sticks the landing on a very emotionally impactful and satisfying trilogy that happens to be an awesome ape-filled sci-fi franchise. 

The film is carried by a multitude of fantastic performances, and yes, that primarily includes the ape performances. One of the newcomers to the franchise was Steve Zahn (Lenny Haise from That Thing You Do) as "Bad Ape," and his performance is the most unique of the franchise. Primarily the comic relief, Bad Ape actually has some engaging personality and some under-the-surface emotional baggage that allow the inevitable yucks to happen without the eye-rolling associated with the Jar Jar Binks of the world. He was a pleasant surprise in this movie. Woody Harrelson as "the Colonel" was an inspired choice for the villain of this movie, although he was unfortunately not given as much to do as I think he should have. That being said, his Amon Goeth-type presence is felt through out the film and is effective for the most part (he's certainly not as despicable as Amon Goeth from Schindler's List and, thus, not as good of a villain). 

The real star of the movie, however, is none other than Andy Serkis as the titular character, Caesar. Never before has a CGI character evoked such raw emotion and dramatization for its audience. It may be a controversial stance amongst those in the business or even the general public, but I still believe that Serkis gave an Oscar-worthy performance in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. While I enjoyed that movie, and possibly even his performance in that movie, more than War, Serkis once again delivers a nuanced and multi-layered performance that, I believe, has a legitimate chance of generating Oscar buzz. People long believed that superhero movie performances could never earn the honor, and yet Heath Ledger did just that with his turn as the Joker in The Dark Knight in 2008. Andy Serkis is not only a masterclass actor; he is also a champion of the innovative Performance Capture technology and is a big reason people are starting to see it more as an alternate means of immersing an actor into a character, along the lines of digital makeup. With his skills as an actor matched with the breaking down of that barrier, I hope the Academy recognizes the incredible performance Andy Serkis gives in this movie by at least nominating him for Best Actor, because I sincerely believe he deserves it. 

What Was Bad? 

I absolutely hate to say it, but as great as this movie was on a technical level and even with regard to its performances and story, it just didn't quite measure up to my expectations or to the quality of the previous installment, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Both movies share the fact that they subverted assumed plot lines and took the movies in different directions than the trailers would have the audience believe. The difference is, for me, the direction that Dawn went was way better than I thought it would be. Rather than just being a straight forward misunderstood apes vs. evil humans conflict, Dawn contained a Hamlet-esque twist that resulted in an ape civil war and sported nuanced and complex character motivations on both the ape and human sides of the conflict. For this reason, as well as the state of the art effects, the beautiful execution from director Matt Reeves, and a bevy of other reasons I won't go into here, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is one of my favorite movies of all time. 

Much like Dawn, War for the Planet of the Apes ends up going a completely different direction than originally expected. Unfortunately, the movie War promised to be was superior to the one we ended up getting. How do I know? Because the first 10 minutes showed a glorious glimpse of what War could have been, and I loved it. It's an all out war film, complete with guerilla warfare *holds in chuckles and gives self high five*, sweeping battle sequence shots, Zero Dark Thirty-level tension, and so much more that told me, "This could be one of the greatest war films of all-time, ape or no ape." Despite this tremendously strong start, the movie devolves into a revenge thriller that ends up taking more pages out of the Bridge on the River Kwai and The Great Escape playbook than that of Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down, or even The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan has been known to compare the tone of his third Batman film to that of a war film, and it shows). The movie is ultimately still thrilling and super entertaining, but it left me a bit disappointed because the film did not live up to its title or the epic battle-filled conclusion it promised to be. 

What Should Catholics Know?

While filled with some PG-13 blood and violence, War for the Planet of the Apes is a generally Catholic-friendly flick with some morally rich themes and concepts, if one can reconcile the fact that these themes and concepts are explored through the perspective of a hyper intelligent ape. It explores the obsessive and destructive nature of revenge, and shows that even if we feel justified in carrying it out, revenge is a disastrous road that results in the one carrying it out becoming as immoral as the one who has committed the seemingly unforgivable offense. It also shows that this revenge-seeking will not only do nothing to ease emotional pain, but will also bring about further torment and danger and harm to those we love who still depend on us to lead and nurture them.

It's also worth noting that Caesar, who is ultimately the hero and star of this rebooted Planet of the Apes trilogy, bears similarities to several Biblical characters, bearing the wisdom of King Solomon, the compassion of King David, and the fearless leadership into the Promised Land of milk and honey of Moses. All of these strong character traits are carried over from the previous two films and are very much present in the third installment. 

Should You See It?

Matt Reeves completes this incredible trilogy of films on an overall high note that concludes the epic story of Caesar and the Rise, Dawn and War for the Planet of the Apes. Although not really a war movie, War for the Planet of the Apes contains outstanding performances from its actors, led by the incredible Andy Serkis, and contains some of the best digital special effects of any movie I've ever seen. Thrilling and action-packed, yet morally challenging and emotionally gripping, War once again turns the Apes franchise into one of the most relevant and meaningful blockbuster franchises of our generation.

My judgment: 8.5/10

That's it for this review everybody! I hope you've enjoyed my take on the latest Apes movie. What did you think of Matt Reeves' final Apes film? Are there Catholic or moral themes in this movie you'd like me to discuss further in a podcast? Please comment below and let me know what you think!

Christopher Nolan's Bold War Film: Dunkirk Review

Christopher Nolan continues to challenge himself by diving into yet another genre of film he has yet to tackle in his impressive career: the war film. Dunkirk is director Christopher Nolan's 10th movie and is set during World War II in 1940. On the beaches of Dunkirk, France, overlooking the English Channel, nearly 400,000 British and Allied Soldiers await evacuation to Britain as they are surrounded by German forces on land, in the air, and at sea. Based on a true story, Dunkirk follows several characters in their desperate attempts to survive German dive-bombers and U-boats, including a handful of Soldiers on the beach, the Naval commander overseeing the evacuation, a pair of British Royal Air Force Spitfire pilots, and a man and his sons who, along with many other civilians from the homeland, make the journey across the Channel to Dunkirk to assist in the evacuation of their Soldiers. 

I am an enormous fan of Christopher Nolan's body of work; Memento is a blind-blowing masterclass in plot structure manipulation in order to reflect the psyche and mental state of its protagonist, The Dark Knight Trilogy revolutionized the superhero film in terms of what it can accomplish in both spectacle and emotional and moral depth and helped establish the "Golden Age of Superhero Movies," and Inception combined awe-inspiring visual innovation with existential science-fiction concepts that have permeated into modern pop-culture in the tradition of 1999's The Matrix. Even seemingly underwhelming yet truly brilliant films like The Prestige are criminally under-rated by the general public. Needless to say, I think Christopher Nolan has been one of the most talented, technically proficient, and imaginative directors and storytellers working in the last 15+ years. Naturally, Dunkirk was one of my most anticipated movies ever since it was announced a few years ago. I mean, with everything else he's done up to this point, the math adds up to this being the best, most inventive war movie ever made, right? 

But is Dunkirk the game-changing war film that everyone, including myself, expected from Nolan? 

In a word, no.

On the bright side, this fact shatters any potential perception that I'm just a blind "Nolanite" or Nolan fanboy who just eats up anything he craps out with vigorous aplomb. In case anyone isn't familiar with what the heck I'm talking about (aside from the "vigorous aplomb" part), there are groups of people on the internets who, in order to counter the uprising of overwhelming support and praise of Christopher Nolan movies over the years, have voiced their disdain for Nolan movies and have labeled anyone who likes his stuff as Nolanites, or essentially sheep who can't think for themselves and are just drinking the proverbially Kool-Aid that is Christopher Nolan's filmography. My counter-point to these "haters," as the kids say these days, is that just because a guy is pitching a perfect game (that's a sports reference! :D), it doesn't mean that you're a mindless schmuck for liking what he's got. Anyway, let's get back on track. 

I'll start with what I liked about this film. First off, the first 30-40 minutes of this film are breathtaking in so many ways. There's no drawn out prelude or set up that tell you exactly where you are, why you're there, what's at stake, or who is going to be impacted by the outcomes that are about to unfold. From the first minute of the movie, the audience is placed in the midst of a shoot out and, ultimately, a fight for survival. The movie very much starts in Medias Res and barely let's up until the final credits. The film's score, underscored with a ticking-time clock, combined with the sweeping visual of these Soldiers standing along the shores of Dunkirk awaiting either their rescue or their imminent demise, the heart-dropping screeches of the German dive bombers as they make bombing and strafing runs along the beach and the pier, and the desperate looks on the faces of the Soldiers and their frantic shots from their rifles as they exhaust all options in this cruel game of survival, all combine to create a legitimate sense of dread and real-life horror in the viewer as these events occur. As far as war-based action scenes, the opening half hour of this film is on par with the Normandy invasion in Saving Private Ryan and the Bin Laden compound infiltration scene in Zero Dark Thirty when it comes to hair-raising suspense and showcasing the horrors of war. 

Another brilliant aspect of this film was what I like to call "Large Scale Claustrophobia." Dunkirk truly does present a grand sweeping spectacle that somehow exudes a breathless sensation of being trapped, no matter the setting or the situation. As I vaguely alluded to when I gave the synopsis for the movie, Dunkirk is broken down into three settings, or arenas, if you will: land, air, and sea. You have the 400,000 Soldiers on the beach, a group of Royal Air Force pilots patrolling the skies, and a group of people trying to escape Dunkirk and a civilian boat making its way on the English Channel toward them and the rest of the Soldiers. However, a common thread, or theme, that is consistent throughout the film in all three of these settings is that every character a) is trapped in a very confined area with no tangible means of escape, and b) they are further constrained not only by physical space, but also by the inevitable and incessant marching of time. The characters on land are confined to a single beach and a narrow pier, surrounded by a perimeter of German tanks and Luftwaffe dive bombers, and the sea. The pilots are confined to the cockpits of their Spitfires as well as the deep abyss of the sea should their planes crash. The civilian boat and the characters attempting to escape on ships are confined to the vulnerable hulls of their vessels amidst U-boat invested waters and bombers from the sky. Furthermore, they are all at the mercy of the limited time they have available to them. It's only a matter of time before the Germans decide to advance their tanks onto the beach and finish off the Allies. It's only a matter of time before the RAF pilots run out of fuel and crash their aircraft into the sea; every minute they spend fighting and saving their brothers in arms, the greater the likelihood of them not making it back safely. It's only a matter of time until the civilian boat gets sunk or, perhaps even worse, arrives at Dunkirk only to find out it's too late and all is lost. It's fascinating to see how each of these three settings combine to generate an over-arching sensation of "Large Scale Claustrophobia" for all the film's characters. 

Speaking of the film's characters, Dunkirk is filled to the conceptual brim with great performances. With actors like Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy, Harry Styles (wait, what?!), and newcomer Fionn Whitehead leading the charge, there really isn't a weak performance to be found in this impressive cast. Despite my incredulousness at the fact that some One Direction pretty boy found his way onto the set of a dramatic Christopher Nolan production, Styles actually did an admirable job in the role he was given. However, while the performances were solid all around, I will say that the characters themselves in this movie were weak in that they were given very little to do in terms of character development. They had plenty to do and deal with from an action standpoint, but in terms of intriguing dialogue, conflicting and changing motivations, moral conflicts, and personal stakes created from interesting characterizations, the pickings were rather slim in this script. The story, instead, focused on immersing the audience in a particular moment in history that defined 300,000 plus people's lives and an entire nation through grand spectacle and suspenseful action. This is all well and good, but to ignore the characters and their thoughts, values, who they are, and why it's important to them, and by extension to us, to get off that beach seemed to be an unwise choice from a storytelling perspective. I don't even know anyone's name in this movie, for goodness sake!

Does that mean Dunkirk needed to fall prey to worn out war movie tropes like the ol' "Brooklyn Soldier #2 saying 'When I get home, I'm gonna...'" bit, or the the classic "My wife gave birth today; it's a baby boy!" line, right before the new father tragically dies in the next scene? No, but in order for me to attach the visceral sense of dread that the movie excellently generates to anything meaningful, I need something that allows me to care for the characters undergoing peril and hardship. That's what separates a motion picture from a documentary, however superb that documentary may be. 

My other main gripe with this flick is the use of nonlinear plot structure. It took me about halfway through the movie to realize that a scene I was watching had already happened about 20 minutes prior, but instead of seeing it from the perspective of the pilots, it was from the Mark Rylance's character's point of view on the boat. Knowing Nolan's films pretty well, I know that fluid timelines and nonlinear storytelling is right in his wheel-house as a director. The difference is that in most of his other movies in which he employs this technique, he has a very deliberate reason for doing it. Whether it's to withhold certain information from the audience until just the right moment or to completely re-contextualize a previous scene and change the entire meaning of the movie, Nolan is a master when it comes to playing with time in his movies. In Dunkirk, however, it just didn't accomplish anything for me. It seemed as though he felt obligated to do it for Dunkirk just because he has done it so many other times and that's just what he does. The result was a muddled plot that left me a bit confused at times, and not in a good way. It just disrupted the whole flow of events for me and took me out of the movie for a little while. If the movie had played out more chronologically, I think the tension and suspense that it had already built throughout would have been more intensified and satisfying. 

Don't let these script and plot issues distract you from the fact that this is a beautifully made war film that captures a moment in the history of World War II of which I had no prior knowledge. Dunkirk provides an inspiring snapshot of what unwavering patriotism, duty to a cause greater than oneself, and commitment to your fellow man can accomplish in the face of insurmountable odds. 

This is an expertly crafted war film from a director who has a tremendous respect both for the medium as well as the historical events he portrays. Thrilling from start to finish, Dunkirk unfortunately suffers from a confusing and, ultimately, misguided plot structure that detract from the tremendous action sequences it displays and the suspense it creates. It also struggles with generating tangible character development, or characterization of any kind, really. Luckily, the true to life situation created and the action depicted in the film fully immerses the viewer in the events of Dunkirk with an unmistakable sense of realism that, at the very least, allows the viewer to understand the desperation, fear and triumph felt by its characters. Although far from perfect, Dunkirk proves that Christopher Nolan continues to impress and amaze audiences with a diverse repertoire of filmmaking techniques and tools few filmmakers possess. I'd definitely recommend seeing this film in theaters if you get the chance. 

My score: 7.2/10