So I know that, for the most part, this blog has been solely about movies and films, but I am also an incredibly huge fan of good television. I’ve absolutely gone crazy over shows like Breaking Bad, House of Cards, and Dexter. Recently a friend mentioned the British crime-drama Broadchurch, which unfortunately has gone by relatively unnoticed in America, so I decided to check it out. After the first episode I was hooked, and actually ended up binging through the entire first season in only two days. This show has quickly risen to the top of my totally imaginary “favorite shows list,” and I simply can’t wait for the second season.

Set in Dorset, England, Broadchurch centers around the murder of an 11 year old boy, found dead on the beach in the small town of the same name. Scottish Detective Inspector Alec Hardy, played by David Tennant whom many may know from Doctor Who, is put in charge of the investigation, only weeks after he was unable to solve a case of a similar nature. As the investigation progresses, deep secrets are revealed about different inhabitants of the town, weaving the narrative around different perspective as a witch-hunt unfolds in the town. But unlike other shows of this kind, Broadchurch takes and in-depth look into the mental and emotional toll of this murder on not only the victim’s family, but on the investigators and citizens of the town alike. In only eight episodes, you truly feel for the characters, sympathizing with the struggles they’ve been through.

Another brilliant aspect of the series is the ability to combine elements of crime dramas with aspects of the “whodunnit” genre, perhaps like AMC’s The Killing or the classic 80s film Clue. Right from the start the viewers only have as much information as Hardy and his team, so new conclusions are made with every episode. And not until the very end of the season do you find out who the killer really is. But as with other shows of this nature, Broadchurch really opens itself up to speculation, and right from the start I found myself making predictions as to who was involved. And then even when I thought I had it figured out, new information would turn up showing me just how wrong I was.

There’s something truly special about this show that makes it stand out among every other crime drama. It’s absolutely incredible how it can revolve around such a dark, grisly subject matter, yet remains oddly beautiful. If you ever get the chance, don’t hesitate for even a moment to watch Broadchurch. Apparently FOX has expressed interest in making an Americanized version of the show, but I see no way it could live up to the perfection that the original series is.

I’m curious, what are your favorite, underrated shows? Are there any shows or movies that you believe are absolutely perfect?

For the past few weeks I’ve been going through a bit of a sci-fi phase; I really have had a craving for good science-fiction films. One of the films that I watched during this time was Moon, a film by Duncan Jones. Now this was my second viewing of this movie and, without a doubt, it has to be one of the most under-rated science fiction films of all time. The brilliantly unique plot, combined with the absolutely incredible acting of Sam Rockwell makes this a truly fantastic watch.

The science-fiction genre has always been known for its ingenuity regarding storylines. The ability to create plots in universes that (yet) exist has been a staple in the genre for decades. Despite this, Moon finds a way to stand out. The entirety of the film takes place well into the future on our moon, where minerals are harvested to be used as fuel back on earth. Main character Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is stationed here, tasked with keeping all operations running smoothly. At this “moon base” Bell is completely alone, with only a highly intelligent robot named GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey!) to keep him company. As his three year stint at the station is finally ending, he gets in an accident in a lunar rover and awakens back at the base. When he goes back out to the crash site he finds “himself,” and brings his clone back to the base to recover from his injury. When the original Sam recovers a bit, the two of them discover that they are both clones, created by the mining company to work and then be killed off, only for another clone to take their place. The rest of the film deals with the psychological and emotional effects on both of these Sams as they realize that their entire lives, all of their memories and experiences, are completely fabricated, only implants based on the original Sam Bell. And as they struggle to cope with this new information, they are also determining a way to get off the moon alive. [So I realize this description was pretty terrible, but the plot is somewhat complex, and writing about clones is not easy. If you really want to understand it, watch the movie!]

Like I mentioned before, another huge draw of this film is the stellar presentation Sam Rockwell gives. The storyline of the film pretty much required him to interact with only himself, so his incredible performance on-screen is no small feat. Despite technically being the same person, each “Sam” emphasized their own personality, which also allowed Rockwell to display the range of styles he can play. Also, several times throughout the film one of the Sams has a sort of emotional breakdown, and the seeming authenticity of them depicted by Rockwell is stunning. I really enjoyed Sam Rockwell in other films like Seven Psychopaths, but his performance here in Moon cemented my respect for him as an actor.

The science-fiction genre tends to have a pretty narrow target audience, but Moon transcends this definition. The compelling performance by Sam Rockwell and the unique storyline make this an attractive film for all viewers, while still remaining sci-fi at its core, asking about what it truly means to be human. I know that I’ve said this on several posts before, but I truly can’t recommend this film enough. It really hasn’t gained that much attention, but it is certainly worth your time.

Almost everyone can probably think of a movie that they don’t really understand, but they know they really like. For me, this film is Donnie Darko. Made in 2001, but set in the 1980s, Donnie Darko starred Jake Gyllenhaal and pretty much launching his acting career into what it’s become today. Other notable parts in the film include Drew Barrymore, Patrick Swayze, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Jena Malone. At this point I’ve probably seen the film about ten times, and although I still have no idea exactly what happened or what it’s about, I know that it’s one of the best films I’ve ever seen.

This truly is a film that everyone must see for themselves, so even though this blog is titled “Spoiler Alert,” I really don’t want to go too in-depth with the story. But without giving too much away, Donnie Darko tells the tale of high school student Donnie, a troubled teen with some psychological troubles. One night, Donnie wakes up to a man wearing a giant rabbit costume calling himself Frank, who tells him that the world will end in roughly 28 days. Over the next few weeks leading up to the end of the world, Frank pushes Donnie into committing a series of crimes. Through this time, Donnie starts seeing inexplicable phenomenon, weaving the story around the concepts of destiny, time, and our perception of reality.

I think the reason that I really appreciate this film is because it was solely made for the sake of art and storytelling. You see everyone involved in the filmmaking process knew that it would only attract a very specific audience; the film simply didn’t have a very wide appeal to various demographics. And although it has found some success as a cult-classic (estimates claim the film has grossed just over $1 Million), it was never made for the money. Writer and director Richard Kelly made Donnie Darko to simply tell a meaningful story and provoke some philosophical thought from viewers. In a business as lucrative as the film industry, it’s refreshing to see a project made with no monetary aspirations.

Another really attractive feature of Donnie Darko is that it can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. Kelly obviously had an intended direction for the meaning of the story, but he has long been silent on his original thoughts. Instead, he encourages viewers to dig into the work and tease out any deeper meanings they feel are prevalent. Like I said before, I’ve seen this movie many times. And although I can’t say I fully understand everything that happened or what it stands for, I’ve been able to form my own conclusions on what I think it was about.

Compared to the typical, big-budget Hollywood film, Donnie Darko is pretty open ended. In fact, on the first viewing, the film may ask more questions than it answers. But if an adventure into symbolism and deeper meanings seems like something that interests you, I would highly recommend taking a look at this film, just don’t expect complete clarity after your first, or even second, watch.

When discussing film and television most people often neglect the documentary genre. Though personally I’m not a huge fan of documentaries, these two films in particular have stood out to me.

Jiro Dreams of Sushi

After a recommendation from a friend I recently took a look at the 2011 documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi. Initially, I was somewhat turned off by the film, not only because it is entirely in Japanese with English subtitles, but also because I hate sushi. But after only a few minutes, I found myself enthralled.

The film follows Jiro Ono, a small, old Japanese man who has made it his life’s work to perfect the art of sushi. Most of the documentary takes place in his restaurant, consistently considered the best sushi establishment in the world by food critics and everyday individuals alike. Eighty-six year old Jiro has been working at this trade for nearly seventy years, and has trained both of his sons in the art of making sushi.

What’s great about this film is that while it centers on a sushi restaurant, it has nothing to do with sushi. Instead, it depicts a great story of dedication and the pursuit of perfection in the Japanese culture. It also examines the nature of Jiro’s relationship with his sons, which was strained due to his absence from their lives when they were young. Drawing from that, the film highly emphasizes the sacrifices that one has to make when you devote your life to your work.

The Endless Summer

This classic surfer flick, The Endless Summer, was the first documentary I saw that I actually enjoyed. Made in 1966, this film followed typical Californian surfers Mike Hyson and Robert August as they follow the summer season around the world in search of the perfect wave. Through their journey, they travelled to countless cities in five different countries, including South Africa, Tahiti, and New Zealand. Not only has the Endless Summer left it’s mark on the film community, but Hyson and August are also credited with introducing the sport of surfing to many Polynesian Islands they visited during their travels.

Like Jiro Dreams of Sushi, this film sticks out to me, not because of the explicitly stated subject matter, but because the aspect of surfing doesn’t really matter. The entirety of the film centers on two guys who have found a way to make a living following their dream, and dedicate almost every waking minute to it. Though the movie follows these two surfers, it really is a story about passion and the pursuit of happiness.

What’s so special about these two films is their ability to inspire. Unlike traditional, story-based movies, these documentaries show real people in real situations, with real feelings and struggles. In this way, these films can connect to audiences more than traditional films ever can. Regardless of if you wish to make sushi like Jiro, or surf like Hyson and August, these documentaries point out the importance of pursuing your true passions in life.

Based on the novels of Ian Fleming, the James Bond films have now been around for almost fifty years and compose what is probably my favorite movies series of all time. Throughout the twenty-three films that have been made over this time, eight different actors have taken on the role of Agent 007 himself. Among these eight, five have stood out as the truly classic Bonds: Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig. With these five actors, we have seen five different styles of Bond, with each exaggerating a different trait to really make the character their own.

Sean Connery – “The Classic Bond”

This Scottish actor was the first to take on the role of Bond and would set the precedent for what was to come for the series. Compared to the other four major portrayals, Connery is often considered to be the best James Bond there was. He perfectly captured the “gentleman spy” persona that became incredibly popular in the 1960s, with a captivating, sometimes a little misogynistic, personality. With his suave, charismatic nature and his ladies-man charm, Connery actually portrayed a far more promiscuous Bond than Fleming had intended. Nevertheless, Connery remains the most iconic actor to have portrayed Bond. He played Bond from 1962-67, but reprised then reprised the role twice, in 1971 and 1983.

Films:

Dr. No – 1962

From Russia with Love – 1963

Goldfinger – 1964

Thunderball – 1965

You Only Live Twice – 1967

Diamonds Are Forever – 1971

Never Say Never Again – 1983

Roger Moore – “The Goofy Bond”

After Sean Connery left the role of James Bond in 1971, the torch was passed to Roger Moore. Though Connery may have had some cheesy lines throughout his tenure, Moore takes the cake. Mostly, he is known for his classy nature but intentionally cheesy lines. For example in Octopussy, this dialogue unfolds:

Magda: “He suggests a trade. The egg for your life.”

Bond: “Well I heard the prices of eggs went up, but isn’t that a little

high?”

These goofy quotes brought a little more lightheartedness to the series, acknowledging the ridiculous situations Bond gets himself into. Though he came to be known as a more well mannered Bond than Connery, Moore still found a way to tease the line between comedy and action.

Films:

Live and Let Die – 1973

The Man with the Golden Gun – 1974

The Spy Who Loved Me – 1977

Moonraker – 1979

For Your Eyes Only – 1981

Octopussy – 1983

A View to Kill – 1985

 Timothy Dalton – “The Darkest Bond”

The first major iterations of Bond, Connery and Moore, were both somewhat womanizing and both incorporated a bit of humor into their dialogue. The next Bond, Timothy Dalton, however, only worked in two 007 films, but still pushed the character into a darker area. Unlike his predecessors, Dalton’s Bond did not concern himself with woman had no humor in his lines, coming across as less of comical spy and more of a serious killer. While initially this received a little pushback from fans of the series, many came to respect Dalton as Bond, because he was more like the character Fleming had written about.

Films:

The Living Daylights – 1987

A Licence to Kill – 1989

 Pierce Brosnan – “The Swiss Army Knife of Bonds”

Following Dalton’s departure Pierce Brosnan was picked up for the role in GoldenEye and combined characteristics of the first three Bonds. Like Moore or Connery, Brosnan’s Bond was suave and charming, always having a beautiful companion by his side. However, he also drew on influences from Dalton, maintaining a more violent and combat-intensive 007. What’s most notable about Brosnan’s interpretation of the character is how his films the changing of the times. Because his films were made in the 1990s, not the 60s, Brosnan’s Bond was not as womanizing or misogynistic as Connery’s. Brosnan was also the first bond to not actively smoke cigarettes, a reflection of changes in views toward smoking. Many fans appreciate Brosnan for his ability to combine traits of his predecessors, while still adding his own style to the part.

Films:

GoldenEye – 1995

Tomorrow Never Dies – 1997

The World is Not Enough – 1999

Die Another Day – 2002

 Daniel Craig – “James Blonde”

Daniel Craig, a short, blond-haired actor, seemed to be quite a departure from the tall, dark appearance that had been prevalent in the series. This caused some criticism initially, but after three films Craig has far exceeded expectations. His style is mostly characterized through his brutal violence, which seems to be motivated by significant patriotism, an aspect none of the other actors truly displayed. Craig was also the first to delve into the emotional side of Bond’s character. This was mostly shown after the death of Vesper (Eva Green) in Casino Royale, a woman that Bond had fallen in love with. Her death and the emotional toll on Bond come up in some of the more recent films. Out of all the actors that have played Bond so far, Craig is a personal favorite, simply for the depth of his character.

Films:

Casino Royale – 2006

Quantum of Solace – 2008

Skyfall – 2012

 Three other actors have played the role of James Bond (George Lazenby, David Niven, and Barry Nelson), though they really didn’t contribute much to the series. The five above are the only actors considered the “classic” Bonds.

This past Sunday night the 86^th Academy Awards took place, honoring the many fantastic films of this past year. Just in case you were unaware, 12 Years a Slave took home the award for Best Picture, Cate Blanchett won Best Lead Actress for her role in Blue Jasmine, and Matthew McConaughey won Best Lead Actor for Dallas Buyers Club. While none of these awards were particularly surprising, many film fans were disappointed that yet again, Leonardo DiCaprio received nothing more than a nomination for his work in Martin Scorsese’s, The Wolf of Wall Street.

Unfortunately, this disappointment is quite familiar to DiCaprio, as this year marked his fourth nomination with no award. While many have blamed these losses on biases within the Academy Awards, many just chock it up to bad luck. Regardless, many simply want to ask why DiCaprio has not yet won.

Leonardo’s road of disappointment began in 1994, when he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. Only nineteen years old at the time, the film industry was blown away by his performance of Johnny Depp’s handicapped brother, promptly leading to a nomination. However, that same year, Tommy Lee Jones took home the award for The Fugitive. Even if Jones had not won, the award would have undoubtedly been given to Ralph Fiennes for his incredible role in Schindler’s List. 2007 brought new hope, after DiCaprio was again nominated for Best Lead Actor. Despite a seemingly inauthentic South African accent, Leo put on a stellar performance. This time, it was Forest Whitaker who would take home the award for his role in The Last King of Scotland, a decision few would argue with.

Finally, we get to the most recent Academy Awards of 2014. This year Dicaprio was nominated for The Wolf of Wall Street, playing protagonist and real-life criminal Jordan Belfort. Unfortunately for Leo, Matthew McConaughey, who is actually played Belfort’s boss in The Wolf of Wall Street, stole the spotlight for his performance in Dallas Buyer’s Club.

Leonardo DiCaprio is a fantastic actor who has played in some incredible roles; there’s no arguing that. But the truth of the matter is, for every one of his nominations, there was always someone just a bit better. I suppose it is important to note that DiCaprio is not a total loser in regards to the Academy Awards. Seven of the many films he has been in have been nominated for Best Picture, two of which, Titanic and The Departed, won. In the end though, Mark Twain perfectly sums up my thoughts about the situation. He says, “It’s better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.”

Out of all the filmmakers I can think of, I don’t believe any has caused such divisions as Wes Anderson. It seems that for all the movies he’s made, you either love them unconditionally or hate them with a passion; there is no middle ground. Notable in his films like Rushmore, The Life Aquatic, and most recently, Moonrise Kingdom, Anderson tells his stories in a realm that is neither reality, nor absurdly unreal. And while to some, this work often come across as pretentious or haughty, to me, each and every one of his movies represents film as an art in its simplest form. Anderson finds a way to present a unique story through great looking cinematography, which time and time again captures my interest.

The biggest attraction of Wes Anderson’s films is the unique worlds in which his stories take place. While most writers and directors choose to tell their stories through realism or the drastically unreal, Anderson walks some line between the two. The alternate worlds that he creates are clearly different from ours, and yet they contain parallels that still allow us to connect with his films. Everything in his movies, from the screenplays to the set designs, is fabricated in his imagination and play out in this space between the real and unreal. Ultimately, I feel as though his films perfectly capture the bittersweet feeling of life as a whole, displaying both the ups and downs and the good and the bad.

Another notable feature of his films are dynamic, but peculiar characters. Someone once said that Wes Anderson’s films are all comedies that focus on miserable people (I read this somewhere, probably on reddit, a long time ago, and I can’t find the exact quote to cite), which resonates with a lot of people today. This isn’t to say, however, that his storytelling accurately reflects humans and our behavior. Instead, reality is downplayed, and other uniquely human aspects are exaggerated, perhaps in an effort to highlight them. For example, Edward Norton’s character in Moonrise Kingdom is unusually chipper and high-spirited, to an unrealistic extent. Bill Murray’s character, on the other hand, is exceptionally downtrodden and depressive. These two each exemplify different human traits, highlighting the dichotomy of the two character types.

In my opinion, Wes Anderson is one of the best filmmakers America has produced. The whimsy and emotion of his films are unlike anything I’ve experienced before, not to mention the unique cinematography or storylines. From my experiences, watching a Wes Anderson film is like taking a two hour excursion through his imagination. And while many may disagree, I believe it is certainly worth the trip.

So I didn’t really talk about films he’s made that much, so here’s a list of some of his best!

• Rushmore (1998) – Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray
• The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) – Gene Hackman, Gwenyth Paltrow, Ben Stiller, Bill Murray, Owen Wilson
• The Life Aquatic (2004) – Bill Murray, Anjelica Huston, Owen Wilson, Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe
• The Darjeeling Limited (2007) – Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, Adrien Brody
• Moonrise Kingdom (2012) – Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Tilda Swinton, Jason Schwartzman
• The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) – Pretty much everybody ever.

Since this blog is titled “Spoiler Alert,” I thought that I would take a moment to talk about some films I could actually spoil. The best way to do this is to tackle some movies with killer plot twists.

Throughout both film and literature, plot twists have been utilized, almost to the point of overuse, to engage audiences and provide complete surprises. If done poorly, like so many unfortunately are, the plot twist can cripple a film’s story; but, if done well, surprises can make a mediocre film great, and a great film a masterpiece. There are many great examples of films that properly utilize a killer plot twist: The Sixth Sense, Cry Wolf, The Departed, or Planet of the Apes just to name a few. Among all of the greats, the following three films stand out as my favorite plot twists to date.

Psycho – 1960

            Perhaps the “mother” of all plot twists, this 1960 film by legendary writer and director Alfred Hitchcock seemingly spawned Hollywood’s craze with dramatic story turns. Two major twists were present in the film. The first being Hitchcock’s employment of a “false protagonist,” Janet Leigh, an A-list actress, who in the iconic shower scene was killed within the first half-hour. The killing of Leigh caused outrage among moviegoers, as they felt cheated that her death came so soon. The other major twist of the film was in the identity of the actual killer. The entire film led the audience to believe the murderer was Norman Bates’s mother, but in reality, she had been dead for quite some time, and it was Norman himself who had done the killings. Though by today’s standards, these twists seem somewhat tame, they were revolutionary in the 1960s, and completely changed the way storylines are written.

The Usual Suspects – 1995

This highly detailed film follows a band of criminals as they take on jobs and avoid the police and FBI from New York to California. What’s unique about the movie though, is that the plot is advanced through both flashbacks and narration by Kevin Spacey’s character, Verbal Kint, taking place entirely during an interrogation. Being one of the only survivors after a shootout and explosion on a boat in LA, Kint retells his story to the FBI, allowing him to tweak details where he sees fit. His stories contain references to a powerful mob boss, Kaiser Soze, who, somewhat predictably, is revealed to actually be Kint all along. Perhaps the biggest draw of this film is not the turns in story, but in the incredible cast. As mentioned before, the film centered on Kevin Spacey, but Benecio Del Toro, Stephen Baldwin, Giancarlo Esposito (who would later play Gus on Breaking Bad), Gabriel Burn, and Chazz Palminteri all held important roles. The Usual Suspects, which pretty much made director Bryan Singer’s career, is still regarded as one of the best films of the 1990s.

Fight Club – 1999

The movie we’re not supposed to talk about is probably my favorite of these three, solely because the twist completely surprised me on my first viewing. Despite astonishing foreshadowing, I still couldn’t predict the ending of the film. The film follows an unnamed protagonist working a typical, boring office job. Dissatisfied with his life, this narrator befriends Tyler Durden, a soap maker and salesman who seems to be the complete opposite of him. Together they form an underground boxing club, which eventually evolves into an anarchist, antiestablishment-focused movement that gets out of control. In dramatic series of personal revelations, the narrator discovers that Tyler Durden is just a figment of his imagination, an alter-ego, and that he, alone, was the one who built fight club from the ground up.

What’s great about this plot twist in particular is the protagonist and the audience make connections at the same rate. Akin to The Sixth Sense, the narrator is just as surprised as us, the audience to find out he is Tyler. This twist alone makes for a great film, not to mention the brilliant performances of Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonham Carter, plus the major role of 1970s rocker Meat Loaf.

These are only a few of the films that exemplify intense plot twists. What are your favorites? Do you generally like to piece together and predict the plot like in The Usual Suspects, or do you typically prefer to be blown away, like in Fight Club?

British filmmaker and director Danny Boyle has had an incredibly successful career. His resume encompasses both box office hits like Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours, as well films that gained a more cultish following, such as Trainspotting or 28 Days Later.  However, his latest film, Trance, released last March, seemed to have almost no coverage, and made only a little over two million dollars in its time in theaters. Those who did find out about the film had completely mixed reviews, some saying it was a masterpiece, others claiming it was a complete waste of time. After watch the film a couple of times over the past year, I am convinced that this is one of Danny Boyle’s best.

Without revealing too much of the plot, the storyline focuses on an art auctioneer named Simon (James McAvoy) who, in order to pay off gambling debts, works with club owner Franck (Vincent Cassel) to steal a Goya painting. However, during the heist, Simon hides the painting to keep it for himself. After sustaining a head injury he awakes with no memory of the event, including the location of the painting. Simon must then work with Franck on threat of death to locate the work of art. To do so, they enlist the help of a hypnotherapist named Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson) who works with Simon to overcome his amnesia. (Ok, that wasn’t very brief, and may have given away a lot… Sorry)

The main reason I think I liked this film so much was the incredibly unique storyline. Many films, Memento for example, have dealt with the topic of memory loss and amnesia, yet Boyle’s approach to the subject is unlike any other. The hypnotism/dreaming aspect really adds a certain level of depth and intrigue to the story, because the audience has no clue what is real and what is just in Simon’s mind. This works well because it means the audience can only piece the timeline together at the same rate as the characters, making it difficult to tell who is being genuine, and who is just using other characters. This deception and constant worry that nobody is who they say they are, allow for some truly great plot twists and dramatic reveals.

On top of this fantastic storyline is a film that simply looks great. Fully embracing both neon and pastel colors, as well as unique environments and buildings, each scene looks incredible, transmitting a very “modern” feel. Every scene has the perfect blend of color and darkness and it is quite clear that each shot was intentional. In the area of aesthetics, I think this is truly some of Boyle’s best work.

If you’re a fan of Danny Boyle’s previous films, or maybe you are just looking for something new, I would highly recommend giving Trance a try. It asks a lot from the audience to follow the plot, but it’s certainly worth the effort.

*As a bit of preface, there will most likely be some spoilers in my posts for these films (I mean, just look at the title of my blog), so I’d probably be wary if any future posts were movies you were interested in seeing!

I thought for my first film discussion I’d start with a pretty controversial movie from this past year, Only God Forgives. Directed by Nicholas Winding Refn, this film received reviews from both completely different ends of the spectrum. At the Cannes Film Festival over the summer it was booed at one showing, and received a standing ovation at the other. While known for his quirky, niche films, reviews for Refn’s previous movies have generally been positive, this film, currently holding a 39 percent rating on RottenTomatoes, has been a sort of outlier.

The film stars Ryan Gosling as the protagonist, Julian, a drug smuggler using his muay-thai club as front. After his brother is killed, Julian seeks revenge on behalf of his mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) against Police Captain Chang, a unique character of his own. Storyline aside, the camerawork of this film was absolutely stunning, providing beautiful and meaningful shots throughout the whole movie. The film was shot entirely in Thailand, which truly allowed for some incredible sceneries and backdrops, only adding to the highly stylized cinematography.

The most important thing to realize about this film is the metaphor for religion and God. Julian plays a god-less man searching for religion in Bangkok, while Chang plays the role of god. Before even meeting Chang, Julian sees him in visions, similar to some biblical characters. Later in the film, after officially meeting Chang, Julian challenges him to a boxing match. He lands zero hits and takes a good beating instead, exemplifying what happens when a human tests a god.

I think that this was the moment where the extended metaphor of religion becomes clear. Even though Julian can somewhat tell Chang is a god, he challenges him and is completely destroyed with almost no effort on Chang’s part. I believe this reflects Refn’s idea that humans, despite being told to do otherwise, often defy religion and “challenge” God. Whether Refn intended for Chang to be perceived as an actual god, or simply a god-like character, is unclear. However, the metaphor for religion remains straightforward.

Overall I absolutely loved this film. I think Refn’s storytelling is unique, and his cinematography is unmatched. I really felt for Gosling’s character throughout the entirety of the film, trying to fully understand his struggles between family and his morals. Having said that, I still think there are some problems with this movie.

My number one complaint is the lack of clarity on Julian’s relationship with his mother. While it is clear that they have a unique, for lack of a better word, past, this idea is never truly expanded upon, and Julian’s contempt for his mother and brother remain unclear. There is also a torture scene in a bar that I had a bit of a hard time getting past. At times it literally made me cringe. The scene certainly helped uphold the metaphor of a vengeful god, but it still seemed a bit too much.

In spite of what critics have said, I maintain that Only God Forgives is a solid film that deserves much more credit. If you typically enjoy watching surface level movies, films that don’t require much effort from the audience, this is most definitely not for you. However, if you’re willing to dig a little deeper into the meaning, I think you will truly appreciate Refn’s latest film.