Tenet

       

         Tenet is a new film from the critically-acclaimed director and writer, Christopher Nolan. We haven't gotten a movie from Nolan since Dunkirk which was three years ago. Actually, I think he puts out a movie every three or so years generally. But in any case, it's a Nolan film which means a couple of things: its high budget, it's intellectually challenging, and there's creative fast paced action sequences scattered throughout. This film, however, benefits from an incredibly unique mechanic to its plot. If you've seen the trailer, you'll have surmised that time is a factor. It's time travel, but not in the way you might initially think. It finds a new way to utilize time travel and it has to be one of the best aspects about Tenet.

        It almost feels like Nolan knew people would be seeing this after a long break from theaters, cause the film wastes no time in jumping to its action. We start off with an action sequence that takes your breath away. We don't even know who the main character is or what he's there for, but it's a great way to introduce us to him. I don't think he's ever given a name come to think of it. If you look at the IMDB credits, you'll see that John David Washington's character is only labeled as 'The Protagonist', but he is also given the label Tenet. That's not a spoiler, it's in the trailer, but we never learn his name. In fact, we never really learn anything about The Protagonist. We see his forte is in combat and espionage suggesting that he has a military background, but little is offered beyond that. This can be worrisome, however. Because we never really learn about his backstory (or any other traits for that matter), the film risks having no connection between him and the audience, making him uninteresting. Luckily, the film saves itself from this. While we don't know anything about him, we know him through the people he interacts with. We see deeper sides to this character particularly because of the dynamic he shares with one other character. Keeping it vague, this dynamic offers some speculation as to how his life may have been before going on this big, world-saving mission. I have other speculations about him, but those are more in the realm of analysis and not critique.

        Let's come back to the opening sequence. We see The Protagonist in the midst of an operation that's obviously high stakes and it sets the tone for the whole movie. One thing leads to another and he wakes up in a bed with a guy telling him "welcome to the afterlife." You would think that because we just got done with an intense opening that we would get a chance to breathe, but nope. Here's where I almost have a problem with the movie. The fast paced nature of the opening carries over into basically the rest of the movie. From the events of him getting recruited as 'Tenet' to the Plane crash that's shown in the trailer, this film absolutely does not let up. You BETTER be in full focus on everything that's happening and every piece of dialogue cause if you look away even for a second you will be left in the dust and there's no hope of catching up. This can be risky because an audience might get tired or bored of playing catch up and just check out completely. I almost did. While I was interested in the inverted time mechanic and we are introduced to it in the beginning, the film waits till a certain point to really start using it. Before that I was ready to clock out, but at that certain point my gears completely switched and I became hooked again. From there, as the visuals and concepts get gradually more complicated, the film manages to find a way to give you a second chance of catching up. While you'll still be confused as to who certain characters are, you know who the bad guy is and you know why he must be taken down. The motivations for the villain can seem vague or just kinda dumb, but I don't think so. It's really just an example of the dangers of letting one guy have too much power, especially with time travel involved. It's almost a similar experience to Inception. 

        Here's where I've seen some people complain. While the film revolves around its unique "inverted time" mechanic, how it affects the plot and where it takes it supposedly has a lot of similarities to Nolan's 2010 film Inception. It's been a while since I've seen Inception, but after thinking about it, really the only thing I can think of is how both film's climax's play out. There might be more, but I think people are using this "loosely-based sequel" idea as a way to call the film lazy. In my opinion, it's anything but. It's extremely complicated, but one deals with time and the other with dreams and each presents their own critical thinking challenges. It's another mind-bender in the same way that Inception was, but that doesn't necessarily mean some of its ideas were borrowed. 

         When thinking about it more and more, I've sort of come to realize that there is one tiny aspect that might be present: its predictability. Not in how the story plays out and how it ends, but there's certain moments and certain pieces of backstory that are kept unexplained or a secret. Because of the inverted time mechanic, some aspects can be guessed sooner than the film would like you to. However, maybe I'm clouded. Things are only obvious now because I've seen it. Not to say that I wasn't shocked by its revelations, but I do think there are people who will be able to guess what's going on sooner than expected and maybe that says something about the rate of information given to the audience. 

        Nolan has provided us with another complete mindf*** of an entry into his filmography. I think this film stands well on its own without being compared to other Nolan films. He has a knack for making his audience think and engaging them in the best possible way. While Tenet may be more intense in that aspect, it's still extremely entertaining. Much like Inception or Interstellar, Tenet will probably require multiple viewings in order to comprehend it fully. I may have some problems with it, but I'm craving a second viewing and I think that says something. If  you're itching to start going back to theaters again, this is a great first film to come back to. Granted you follow all the sanitary precautions of course. Don't go for a casual experience. Then again, it's a Nolan film so you probably already know what to expect. 8.5/10

The New Mutants

        Finally. I mean, let me start off by saying that I feel bad for Josh Boone, the director and writer of The New Mutants. I'll get to that in a sec. The New Mutants is a story that, if you don't know you might be surprised, takes the X-Men universe in a completely different direction. It decides to go the horror route while also giving us five new mutant superheroes. Dani wakes up in a hospital to find out that she is the sole survivor of a tornado that rampaged over her home reservation. Dr. Reyes, seemingly the only doctor there, tells her that she probably survived because of her similarities with her fellow peers at this institution. From here we get introduced to 4 more mutants. Some of their powers are kept a secret for later and others are shown pretty early on and Dani doesn't get along with all them instantly. 

        Here's where the film will probably have the most recognition: its time spent in post-production hell. If you don't know much about this movie, you more likely know about its journey just to get into theaters. This film first got pitched all the way back in 2014 as Josh Boone was enjoying the success of his teen-flick The Fault in Out Stars. He wanted to take his knack for appealing to the younger demographic and apply it to something bigger. He got approval from Fox to start working on a screenplay for the New Mutants and filming began in August 2017. That's right, principal photography took place THREE years ago. The film was slated for a 2018 release. From here, it got pushed back numerous times due to a number of reasons. Amidst plans for reshoots that never happened and other successful Fox/ X-Men films getting released, the film looked like it was never going to be released. When Deadpool was a success, The New Mutants got pushed back for the first time so as not to be shadowed by the irreverent character's success and then it got pushed back again and again for other reasons including touching up special effects, the release of Dark Phoenix, and the Disney/Fox merger. The fifth release date was slated for April of this year, but this was because of outside circumstances since COVID-19 forced the shut downs of practically all theaters. Ever since June, theaters, at least in my area, have slowly started to open back up again with numerous new limitations in place, but this poses a problem as to whether theaters will be able to pull themselves out of this. Either way, three years after principal photography the film has finally been released for theaters. This film will no doubt be remembered because of its post-production legacy, but how is the actual film? After waiting so long for another movie in the X-Men universe, it's disappointing that it turned out to be just 'meh'.

        Will Ashton from CinemaBlend states that the original plan for this movie was going to be "Stephen King meets John Hughes" and, well, I think it succeeds on that front. It's coming of age aspect delivers nicely for Dani's character as we learn about the deeper psychological aspects of her mutant abilities. Granted, the resolution we get might have been a little too, for lack of a better word, easy. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, it just felt like it sort of undermined the growth she experienced throughout the film.

        Speaking of growth, the film also did an okay job of introducing the other new characters. They all have backstory and they're all there at the hospital cause of how their uncontrolled powers have affected normal people, but it ultimately only scratches the surface of the psyche of these characters. They're explored just enough to keep them from being one-dimensional, some more than others, but it isn't really enough to get me invested in them more. Although, shrouding a characters backstory in mystery can be interesting, we never get to learn more about them other than the one key event that traumatized them. Maybe they were planning on fleshing these characters out more in future movies, but the possibility of seeing these characters again in a future film is very slim since Disney merged with Fox.

        Although the characters were a bit uninteresting, some of the relationships they made with each other were well done. It makes sense that the 4 mutants, before Dani got there, would be so close to each other and I think these dynamics were well executed. It's that John Hughes aspect that does pretty well. As for the horror part, well, it's not the best even though it has all the ingredients. There's demons and themes of childhood trauma, and an abandoned looking hospital as the setting. Despite all this it still doesn't manage to deliver on this front and it's because of one thing: tone. Trying to mix King and Hughes into one movie I think is a great idea and while it does do a decent job at recreating a Hughes vibe, it puts a little more focus on creating that particular tone and the horror elements suffer as a result. It's more drama and suspenseful than horror is anything.

        Even though I think Boones did the best he could, the film just suffers from being painfully mediocre. However, there was potential. Everything was there for this film to be better than how it turned out. Even Disney executives were "unimpressed" with it after the two companies had merged. This was originally planned to be the first in a trilogy of movies, but those plans are in limbo and so we have no choice but to absorb this film as a stand-alone feature. This film will probably be remembered for a long time, but not how the producers intended. Ultimately, this film's complicated journey to release is more interesting than the actual film. 5/10

WR: Portrait of a Lady on Fire

          Because there are no movie theaters open and there probably won't be for the foreseeable future, I've decided (should've started weeks ago) to write reviews of movies that have been on my watch list for the longest time. Some of them will be classics for which my naivety has been shamed and others will be ones more under-the-radar that look like they might deserve more recognition. It makes sense, for me, to start this series with a film that released last year that I so anxiously awaited to be available in my area, but then when it was available I was too busy to see it. It's now on Hulu so I was finally able to watch it.

          Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a French foreign film, directed by Celine Sciamma, that takes place on a remote beachside abode where Marianne (Noemie Merlant) is commissioned to paint a portrait of a woman who is having an arranged marriage. Heloise (Adele Haenel), the soon-to-be bride, is grieving over the recent loss of her sister and drove out the previous painter with her stubbornness. Because of this, The Countess (the mother) asks that Marianne paint Heloise in secret and that she interact with her and absorb her phonetic details by being a companion for walks. The walks are the only reason that Heloise thinks that Marianne was brought on staff. Marianne finds some struggle in this request, but the two women start to become closer and this delicate look on these two women's developing relationship is something that only a woman could've translated to film.

           This movie released last year in the festival circuit and actually won Best Screenplay at Cannes. It's really a shame that it didn't go on to win anything big after that. Many in the community were in disbelief that France decided to submit Les Miserables as their entry for Best International Feature at the 2020 Oscars instead of Sciamma's masterpiece. But I digress. Let's actually talk about the movie.
           My favorite quality about this movie is that it's so controlled and held back that it makes the moments of release shine. The dialogue is executed very quietly. No one raises their voices, but because of this the moments where there is tension between the two characters are more effective. You can clearly hear it in their voices. You also appreciate the moments where there is something more than the silence that pervades the majority of the film. The sound of the ocean stands out more and each stroke of the paint brush has a life to it. One moment that really stands out is a scene where the three women (there is a maid that lives at the abode that has also become very acquainted with the two women) attend a feast where the rest of the women there break out into a folk tune. It starts out hauntingly dissonant as each woman slowly glissandos up to their notes and finally there is consonant harmony and two of the women break out into clapping and lyrics and the rest follow suit. It's a moment that stands out because there has been no score up to this point. The only other moment of music comes at the end and it's a classical piece that most people have heard before, but in context it's very emotional.
          When I said that waves and singing stood out more, that includes other things. One of them is the cinematography. This film was shot in 8k, but you don't need a high-tech screen to view it in its full glory. The technical choices bring out the colors immensely. The beach sand looks way more soft and the costumes are more elegant. The color of things like the ocean and fire and even the painted walls of the house are more vibrant. So much so that I stepped outside after watching this movie and found a new outlook on the colors of the world. The trees looked way more green than they did before and the sky looked like the ocean. It's one of the most beautiful looking films I've ever seen in my life.
          I mentioned earlier that a lot of the movie feels controlled and treads along in a quiet manner, but this can come off as incredibly boring. There is no action at all and it may feel like nothing happened once you reach the credits, but I implore you to think about it more. It's more than two women falling in love. It's exquisite and incredibly well-crafted. 10/10

Little Women (2019)

          A new adaption of the iconic Louisa May Alcott novel brings together an all star cast including Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Timothee Chalamet, Laura Dern, and Meryl Streep with newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the sister Beth.  Jo, Amy, Meg, and Beth (Ronan, Pugh, Watson, and Scanlen in that order) are all sisters who live with their mother as the country comes to its resolution on the Civil War. Their father is deployed at the moment so it's just the ladies around the house. Neighbors Laurie and his grandfather. The "domestic struggle" aspect is definitely present in this adaptation although I will admit that I am not familiar with the original story and can not articulate the differences between the book, film, and past film adaptations. As much as I would like to go more into depth about these differences and why this new version proves its existence, I'm not familiar enough with the story to do so.

          Right off the bat, I'm going to start off with my favorite aspect about this film: Greta Gerwig, the writer and director. I thought Lady Bird was a perfect movie and was so stoked to see that she was making another film. Little Women, in my opinion, has something that wasn't as present in Lady Bird: a feminine touch. Not to dispose the femininity of Lady Bird, or put the two on a hierarchy, but everything from the camera movements to Gerwig's take on the characters has something different about it. God, just the scene where Jo and Laurie are dancing on the porch amazes me. I was touched by this film, not really on an emotional level, but on a cinematic appreciation level. I'm not saying there weren't any heart-tugging moments, but the obvious craft that went into every aspect of this movie is what amazes me. 

          From what I've gathered on the Internet, the film really did need to do something different with this story to distinguish itself from other adaptations and it does. The book is a linear narrative, but the film divides the story into two separate timelines. One sees Jo, Meg, and Amy going back to their home to spend time with their ill sister, Beth, while the other is 7 years earlier that shows the 4 sisters during their childhood mostly during the time their father was aiding in the war. They chaotically get along with each other as they go through their 19th century middle class style childhood. The film successfully finds a way to keep important events in both timelines lined up so that, even though the narrative is mixed up, they both still come together to form a cohesive conclusion.

          Another difference I've come to find out, without having read the source material, is that the film is told with Jo as our main narrator. The film begins by having us meet her as she goes into a publisher to convince them to publish one of her stories. I was already enticed just by the opening shot with Jo's silhouette standing in front of the publishers door. These are the only differences I have come to find out without having read the source material. 

          I will say that the flashback narrative is a strong quality of the movie, but I felt like it was a bit messy and unbalanced in the beginning. It took a minute for me to get used to jumping back and forth and the first half of the movie spends most of its time in the past. We'll occasionally get a couple of minutes in the present narrative, but it's a very short time until we are put back into the past. We get to spend more time in the present in the second half and the film keeps a steady pace as both timelines reach to their conclusions. 

          Gerwig proves her talent once again in this amazing new take on the classic Alcott story. I think that Little Women does a wonderful job in revamping the original story while also cementing the fact that this story and these characters really are timeless. With an all-star cast such as this one it's hard to see anyone really hating this. If you're the type of person who hates it when movies get "preachy" then Little Women will annoy you, but I think the film does a good job by finding a way to not be pretentious about its feminist morals. I'm not one of those "down with the liberal Hollywood agenda!" people (those people kind of annoy me to be honest), but if it something that bothers you then here's that warning I guess. Other than that, this movie and its wonderful womanliness is one of the best movies to come out this year and will for sure be grabbing a couple of nominations come Oscar night. It's an adaptation that only a woman such as Gerwig could've done. 9/10

Marriage Story

          Charlie is a theater director who comes from nothing while Nicole is a loving mother to their child Henry. Nicole started out as being an actress in L.A. and then moved to New York to support Charlie while also being a prominent member of his theater company. Their marriage isn't in the best place however because they are in the middle of getting a divorce. What they agreed was going to be an easy process eventually turns into a nasty legal fight that brings out suppressed thoughts and huge amounts of tension. The probable sole reason for the inclusion of the legal system? Custody over their child. 

          The film starts out with monologues about what each character loves about the other. Charlie loves how Nicole is so kind to everyone and how she listens while Nicole loves Charlie's overall independent and fatherly qualities. It's such a sweet moment to have as the opening for a film, but you're immediately pulled out of that almost romantic-comedy fantasy as we see Nicole and Charlie in a therapy session in the next shot. You can tell that the sweet tones suggested by the opening is not what the film is going to be cause there is a huge amount of tension between the two characters during this scene. Starting out the film like this is great because having that starting point of where they used to be makes the journey down to divorce all the more heartbreaking. 

          The opening monologues also ease the audience into its dual narrative structure. The film spends time with both characters and we get to see both sides of this marriage and why it doesn’t work. In the beginning we spend a lot of time with Nicole and we see her feelings about Charlie, but as the film progresses we get to hear Charlie's side. While I don't think the goal of the film is to force the audience to make a decision on who was right and who was wrong, I do think that maybe the film struggles a little bit to disassociate from bias because we don't get as much time with Nicole as we do with Charlie. While we do see Nicole's perspective and how this process impacts her, we see more of the process through Charlie's eyes. The legal meetings and the time spent with Henry are spent with Charlie as our conduit more so than with Nicole. Maybe the film could be a little more balanced if we got to spend just a little more time with Nicole and her mom and sister. 

          I can think of maybe one reason the film is this way. Most of the legal battle takes place in L.A. and since Nicole is from there she has a support system with her family and friends. From what the film discloses, Charlie is no longer in contact with his parents so he pretty much has to go through this divorce alone with an old, retired lawyer as the most comfort he gets. The financial and emotional struggle this has on him is probably more engaging for an audience than watching Nicole having a little bit more convenience. However, I'm not implying any sort of bias towards Charlie. I do think the film does a great job in showing this process and how there really are two sides to every story.

          Marriage Story's objective commitment to its characters and authenticity are what make it a wonderful experience. The only thing that could bring this full circle is the acting, and unsurprisingly, it's amazing. Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver are fantastic to watch and the film does something that I don't think a lot of films do. Yes, they are getting a divorce and their relationship does dwindle down throughout the film, but there are many moments where they are so civil with each other. Nicole still offers Charlie a haircut, Nicole kisses him when he comes to her mom's house, and they do make a decent effort to work things out despite their lawyers acting otherwise. They understand that there is no future for them and there are moments, especially one, where the tension rises to fighting, but nothing is exaggerated. Even with no over-dramatization, although it's not necessary, the film still finds a way to foster an emotional reaction between the audience and its characters. Particularly in its last moments, the film helps you realize that no matter how many years pass, it will be almost impossible for the two to un-love each other. It's the most authentic story I've experienced this year. 10/10

Doctor Sleep

        Based on the novel written by Stephen King, Doctor Sleep is about Dan, an alcoholic who ends up in a New Hampshire town for a fresh start. Ever since his childhood which includes a traumatic event with his father, he's had a special gift. Magic doesn't feel like the right word, but he can telepathically communicate with people and transport his conscience wherever. Instead of calling it magic, he calls it 'the shining'. Oh yeah, this movie is a sequel to The Shining. He meets a young girl whose "shine" is the most intense he's ever seen, but there's an inhuman cult called the True Knot on their way to kidnap her and feast on her shine (or 'steam' as they call it). While dealing with past issues rooted in childhood, he helps Abra, the little girl, in stopping the True Knot to make sure that people with varying amounts of 'shine' are not feasted on again.
        Let me put a disclaimer here first before I get into my thoughts. I, Derek Curtis, have never seen The Shining so this review is coming from someone who...hasn't...seen The Shining. I was going to watch it and then write this review, but I figured I should write while the sequel is still fresh in my brain.
        I sort of knew what to expect going into this film. While I don't really know the plot of the original, I have seen enough snippets to understand a lot of the homages and references. For example, the iconic green bathroom, the hole in the white door where Nicholson swung his axe and said one of the most iconic lines in film history, and of course the twins at the end of the hallway. I probably would've caught more of them if I knew the original film, but sadly I don't. These homages and references, however, walk a very fine line between paying respects and lazy writing. Mostly towards the climax of the film, these references are used for suspense and scares in similar ways to how the original film used them. Maybe they thought they were killing two birds with one stone, but it just seemed more lazy in some parts than others.
        Doctor Sleep is also longer than The Shining by about ten minutes. Does it justify this runtime? Unfortunately no. We spend a lot of time in the beginning just watching Dan put his life together while the True Knot does whatever it is evil powered cults do: recruit and hunt. You could argue for the necessity of the density in the first half, but I think a lot of it could've been shortened. Abra doesn't even become important enough for the plot to actually start until halfway through the film. Pacing, I think, is this film's biggest issue.
        Overly dense or not, Ewan McGregor as Dan is marvelous. The same goes for Rebecca Ferguson as Rose, but I enjoyed Dan's character arc more. He's not too complex, but, considering the character and its origins in the original film, it's a satisfying narrative. Watching him struggle with alcoholism was, in my opinion, one of the more successful horror aspects of this film. We see him struggle with temptation in crucial moments where taking one sip could jeopardize his mission. I writhed in my chair as I watched Dan hold a bottle of alcohol, but it makes his reluctance to give in all the more satisfying. In a way, his struggle with alcoholism almost parallels the True Knot. Temptation and the True Knot's constant hunt for Abra and Dan are, in a sense, allegorical to his inner struggle.
        On a more technical note, this is well crafted. The cinematography is beautiful which is one of the mediums where the film takes opportunities to pay homage. When you ignore the pacing issues, it's an easy story to get invested into. Granted, the film does expect you to have seen the original film. It's ideas about people with special abilities and the cult are jumped right into with no explanation, but its not entirely difficult to follow along. I was also a little surprised at how much time was spent with the True Knot. Not that I really needed to know what they're doing besides being the bad guys, but I love it when a film spends more time with the villains than usual.
        To summarize, Doctor Sleep is an interesting watch. I'll probably re-visit this once I've seen The Shining. I definitely think it serves as a nice companion piece to the original film, but the pacing and the almost unoriginal utilization of its references and homages are sort of making me dread the re-watch. I almost had the same reaction as I did with another King adaptation that came out his year: Pet Sematary. I was so bored with that entire movie right up until the last maybe 20 minutes or so. It finally picked up and became something more, but I hated the journey there. Doctor Sleep refrains from this by having an investing character. It's also beneficial that this was based on an actual sequel written by Stephen King and not some lazy cash-grab sequel you see these days. It's a very dense film and it will please some more than others. For me, I enjoyed it, but it took the first half to get there. I liked it enough to relive the journey soon so I would say this is one of the slightly better King adaptations we've had in the past couple of years. 7/10

Parasite

        Because I'm afraid to give away too much and spoil your experience this plot description is going to be extremely vague. Kim Ki-woo and his family reside in a rural area of South Korea. They struggle to get by as they accept any form of income that happens to come their way. The film begins with them complaining about their cellular data being shut off and their upstairs neighbor putting a password on their wifi. They fold dozens of pizza boxes to make some money, but an interesting opportunity comes along. A friend of Ki-woo's, who's had more academic achievement, comes by for a visit and as they share a drink outside of the apartment, Ki-woo is offered an English mentoring position. His friend is traveling abroad for a year and wants Ki-woo to replace him as the mentor for his student. This particular student belongs to an incredibly wealthy family which interests him and his family, but he's going to have to convince the mother that he is as good of a fit as his friend. That's all I give for plot. The story becomes more complicated as Ki-woo's whole family becomes involved, but this job offering is how the film starts. Don't be fooled though. This film, halfway through, takes a shocking turn where the stakes only get higher.
        I don’t know if you’ve already seen advertisements on your end, but on my end this is the most advertisement I’ve seen for a foreign film. All my social media walls have sponsored ads for this film and I think that's a good thing because EVERYONE should try to see this movie. It’s one of the best directed and one of the most original of the year. It’s written and directed by Bong Joon-ho who also made Snowpiercer and Okja. Those are his only English films, as far as I know, as he has many more films in his native Korean language. If you’re not a fan of subtitles then I don’t know what to tell you. I strongly recommend that you trudge through them because the movie is worth it.

        One thing I think I've learned  this year from seeing film after film is that directing is really important. Not that I ever perceived it as something that wasn't it's just that I used to never know how to tell the difference between good and bad directing. It's starting to become more clear to me nowadays and I could definitely tell that a lot of care went into the craft of this film. The pacing is steady and it reveals things to you at a strategic momentum so that everything maintains its shock value. The film dangles a hook in front of you for the first half as it slowly lures you into the lives and story of the two families and how they start to become more intertwined. At some point though, you don't even know you're caught on the hook and the film rips you out of the water. Motives and actions are questioned and secrecy couldn't be more difficult to maintain.
        If there's any advice I could give before going into this movie is to avoid all marketing. I think the trailers are fine, it's just that they are, in my opinion, a tad bit misleading for the tone of the film. I won't say how, but just avoid them if you can. Like, I said, as blind as possible. As far as issues go, I don't really have any. Because I watched the trailers beforehand, I was a little bit amiss when the product I got wasn't what I was expecting. I'm glad I got something unexpected, but it took some time for me to disassociate from those expectations and accept what was there. Once that happened, I immediately got more invested.
        This movie also demands to be discussed. It presents an intense dichotomy between the upper and lower social class, providing a foundation for what eventually becomes an observational and almost satirical look at class structures and how they view each other. It's interesting to see the juxtaposition of these two mindsets even if one may be a tad bit exaggerated but that;s just part of satire.
        On a larger scale, this film is a personification of the upper and lower class. What happens when one attempts to leech itself into the other? Is it inherently malicious or is it simply out of survival? You might find yourself questioning why your feeling a certain way towards the two families. I found myself switching between caring about both and hating both. This films plays with you and takes you on a thrilling ride. I only hope that this masterpiece isn't overlooked throughout the current awards season. 10/10