“Midsommar” – Movie Review

“Midsommar” is the newest film by Ari Aster, acclaimed director of movies like “Hereditary” and “The Strange Thing About the Johnsons.” Now if there’s one thing about me, it’s that I’m depressed. More importantly than that, I absolutely loved both of the movies I just mentioned. I thought “Hereditary” was a perfect combination of supernatural horror and family drama, mixing the genres so well that the tragedy itself adds to and becomes a part of the horror before the actual horror even begins. With “Midsommar,” Ari Aster does something similar, starting with a family tragedy and eventually infusing it with the cultish horror that you came for.

Listen, I don’t want to give away too many plot points; this is a film that greatly benefits from you going in as blind as possible. What I will say is, like “Hereditary,” “Midsommar” looks absolutely beautiful, if not more so. From the dark, dreary opening, to the gorgeously sunlit greenery, this movie made me think to myself, “now this is why I love movies.” I mean, the opening alone, right before the end credits, was mesmerizing and had my eyes glued to the screen; I only wish my butt was glued to my seat because I had to leave every 20 minutes to pee. Rest assured however, I didn’t miss much, because luckily the bathroom was right next to the theatre.

Now you might be wondering, “just how scary is this film?” Like “Hereditary,” this movie creeps along at a slow, methodical pace, becoming increasingly more disturbing to watch. In my opinion, it’s never necessarily scary like “Sinister” or “Insidious” is, but the disturbing antics and actions that take place throughout the movie do make for an uncomfortable experience. “Midsommar” deals with real life horror. Suicide, break ups, and loneliness are all topics that are touched upon. And that’s what I love about Ari Aster. There isn’t a working director today who can portray grief so effectively. You’ve seen tragedies happen in other movies, but you’ve never seen them portrayed so horrifically. When a particular thing happens in this movie, seeing how a character reacts to it is a gut punch. I mean, it’s scary to watch because of how realistic it is. “Midsommar” blends the horror of family tragedy with the horror of a primitive pagan cult to perfection. It’s a fantastic combination, one I never thought I would see, let alone enjoy watching.

And like I mentioned, when the pagan cultic shenanigans happen, your jaw will drop. I could feel the tension in the theatre when the first “big” event happened. The suspense in the air was thick. I won’t get into exactly what happens, but it’s certainly worth the wait to get to it. Yes, this is a long movie, but it’s never boring. It’s always beautiful to look at, and there’s always something interesting happening.

A technically amazing drama, “Midsommar” is a gorgeously thought provoking film. This isn’t a movie for everyone because of its uncomfortable subject matter, but I do think it’s more of a crowd-pleaser than “Hereditary.” Unlike that movie, in “Midsommar,” my packed theatre legitimately seemed to enjoy the movie, even if they were saying things like, “that was the weirdest f**king movie I’ve ever seen.” Look, I really loved this movie. It’s not conventional, and it’s not what modern audiences will expect from a horror movie released in 2019, but I for one cannot wait to see it again.

9 out of 10


“Lolita” – Movie Review

The tagline of this film was something along the lines of “How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?” The answer to that seems to have been by making it, at least for the first half, as much of a comedy as possible. At first this unexpected tonal shift, especially when compared to the very disturbing and dramatic aura that encapsulates the novel, took me by surprise, and I have to admit I was initially disappointed; I wasn’t expecting a story about a manipulative hebephile to be played for comedy. But the film was entertaining enough, so after a while I found myself absorbed in it, and to be honest, it’s hard not to be absorbed in a film that looks this good and that is as well-acted as this one.

Kubrick is a master behind the camera, that can’t be denied. And even though “Lolita” is one of his earlier films, his skill can’t be ignored. Sure, it may not have the fluidity of “The Shining” or the dazzling spectacle of “Eyes Wide Shut,” but it is filmed with a certain meticulousness to it, where every event feels almost like it was destined to happen, a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will. Now maybe I’m reading too much into the movie, but even without this pseudo-philosophical viewpoint, the film looks good, and the acting is great.

Sue Lyon is riveting as Lolita Haze, the object of Humbert’s desires. What I found interesting about her performance is that, even though the actions of Humbert are repulsive, as a grown man should know better than to sleep with a 14-year-old girl, she is just as, if not more so, manipulative as Humbert is. Except where Humbert’s actions seem to come from a place of painful desperation, where you can see the self-hatred in his face, Lolita acts with malicious intent, somehow succeeding in taking advantage of the man who is attempting to take advantage of her; she becomes the predator, and poor Humbert the prey. Lolita plays Humbert like a fiddle in this film, and this unexpected switch of dynamics was one I found exceedingly interesting, because instead of feeling bad for Lolita, I found myself feeling bad for Humbert, who reveals himself to be just a lonely, pathetic man, in the end.

Humbert just can’t seem to stop seeking his own destruction, and from the beginning of the film we know he has come full-circle, we just don’t know how yet. Throughout the course of the film, however, Humbert makes every single wrong decision that further pushes his own life into disarray. And even though the man is, by any sensible sense of morality, not necessarily a good person, you really can’t help but feel bad for him. And I think this is a testament to Kubrick’s skill, because he not only makes you sympathize with a child predator, but he even goes as far as to turn the child into the actual predator, in a way. And when the film finally gets to its ending, and the story of Lolita and Humbert concludes, it was one of the saddest things I’ve ever witnessed. Because through it all, through the depravity and degradation, the least you can hope for is for a happy ending, but the movie doesn’t even give you that. It begins, and it ends, with desperation being channeled through destruction.

So the acting is good, the plot is riveting and plays both Humbert and us for fools, Stanley Kubrick is the best director in the history of mankind, and the movie bastardizes the book – you get it, this is the best film of 1962, but what are some negatives? Well, since you’ve asked, I’ll tell you. For one, I honestly think the film could be longer. I feel like relationship between Humbert and Lolita should’ve been more developed. I mean, he really just falls in love with her immediately, it’s love at first sight for Humbert, but that really wasn’t enough, at least in my opinion. I mean, he sees her and the next few scenes are him trying to hold her hand or look at her while she’s playing outside. I understand the concept of love at first sight (Hell, who hasn’t even experienced it for themselves?) but I simply wish there was a bit more development in this regard as to exactly why Humbert was so attracted to Lolita.

Also, I found the pacing to be, lackluster, to say the least, for the first half of the film. The movie seemed to just bounce from scene to scene to scene, at times without rhyme or reason, even incoherently. But as the second half of the movie came rolling in, the film became much more coherent, and the pacing much tighter, and the film was better for it, becoming ultimately more suspenseful as a whole.

All-in-all, Stanley Kubrick’s “Lolita” is a damn great film. There’s so much to think about, so much to analyze, that I fail to see why anyone wouldn’t like the movie, even if it is radically different from the novel. But if you take the movie as a separate entity from the novel, there’s no reason why you won’t enjoy it.


“The Girl in the Spider’s Web” – Movie Review

I’m a big fan of David Fincher’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” and I honestly think it’s a pretty perfect film. It masquerades as a murder mystery while slowly becoming a dark, depressing character study; you’ll never see people act so morally bankrupt as you will in that movie. It’s suspenseful, romantic, thrilling, horrifying, disturbing, and ultimately downright sad.

So when I saw that they were rebooting the franchise, my first thought wasn’t disappointment, but actually excitement. Because let’s face it, David Fincher was never going to do a sequel to his film, but I love it so much that any excuse to see Lisbeth back on the screen was good enough for me. And with a director like Fede Alvarez at the helm? People have called him “Fincer 2.0” (I’m the only one who called him that), so he seemed like a solid choice to direct this film, what with his stylistic, dark, and moody visual flare he adds to his other films. So when I bought a ticket to this movie last night, I was, let’s just say, sufficiently excited, you could say in a sexual way. But as the movie went on, I found myself becoming increasingly more bored, and increasingly less interested in what turned out to be a generic thriller.

Look, this movie isn’t necessary a bad film, but it is a disappointing one. People have complained that they turned Lisbeth into a superhero and this movie into an action film, but I would disagree. Lisbeth gets her ass handed to her time and time again, and there really isn’t that much action in this movie, which actually disappointed me because the 2nd act of this film is piled high with stale conversations about things that won’t keep your interest and that you won’t remember as soon as the scene ends. I was really nodding off during this movie because of how boring some scenes were, and not because I took 10 Kratom capsules (I “don’t” advocate drug use). No one enjoys technical conversations about government software, but yet millions of action films are filled with this, I guess to lend the movie some sort of realism or credibility. Worse than that though, millions of action movies have a plot that has to do with the bad guys getting some sort of software that will allow them to control the world’s nuclear weapons, turning them into a god with control over life and death. I can honestly tell you that walking into this movie, I did not think that it would take this route, but it did.

When you think of Lisbeth Salander, you don’t think of a story that would better belong in a Steven Seagal movie from the 80s, but for some reason the producers decided that to reboot this franchise they had to do so by utilizing one of the most generic plots I have ever seen. A movie with a powerhouse character like Lisbeth Salander deserves to be much more constrained, much more straightforward – why was there much pretentious convolution? When you have one of the best characters in literature and film history right in the palms of your hands, perhaps the better decision would’ve been to focus on her and build her character more, because if someone is going to see this movie, they’re going to see Lisbeth, not to see some overly convoluted plot about a computer program getting into enemy hands.

The story was by far the most disappointing part of “The Girl in the Spider’s Web.” It would be a better fit in a Bourne movie then in a Dragon Tattoo movie, but I digress, because unfortunately, the story isn’t the only thing that I disliked about this film.

There really are some gorgeous shots and sequences. The opening scene looked lovely while being very disturbing, and there are other nice shots that are literally all in the trailer. Everything you see in the trailer, those are the best-looking shots of this movie. Everything else really looked like a made for television film. Fede Alvarez is a really good director – just watch “Evil Dead” or Don’t Breathe,” both films that drip style and mood. In this film, however, he seemed to either not care, or perhaps he wasn’t allowed to do what he wanted, because practically everything looks and feels very generic and safe. There were times when he was channeling David Fincher, but for the most part the visuals were not impressive – he just played it safe, which is a good description for the movie as a whole. The soundtrack, too, was average. Nothing stood out about it, which is a shame because Fincher’s soundtrack was abrasive, a sensory overload.

By far the best part of this movie is Claire Foy, who plays Lisbeth with the upmost respect. Lisbeth is just as moody as ever, I enjoyed watching Foy eat up the scenery every time she was on screen. And honestly, her performance is the only reason why I would recommend watching this movie; she really is mesmerizing. And because of this, because of the stellar opening, and because of a few impressive action sequences (that, of course, the trailers all show), I can’t say I hated this film. I was enjoying it at the start, and there were moments that did keep my attention, but the generic plot and lack of visual flare really dissipated my enjoyment, and as such I cannot rate this movie as anything above average, because average is exactly what it is.


“The Last Exorcism: Part 2” – Movie Review

“The Last Exorcism: Part 2” follows literally every single horror movie cliché in the proverbial book. Of course, the movie has a scene of an evil priest spewing awfully written, cryptic dialogue about how the demon will win. Of course, while our somehow plain but incredibly attractive protagonist sits in a church, birds smash against the windows, killing themselves. Of course, there is a scene where our lovely, gorgeous (I am single) protagonist sits around a kitchen table with some mystic who tries to reach out to the spirits for help, and it goes wrong. Of course, there is a scene where our beautiful, 10/10 protagonist gets upset and her anger causes the person she’s upset at to convulse, collapse, and die. Of course, there are talks of a prophecy. Of course, there are scenes of masked men eyeing up our protagonist from afar (but can you blame them?). Of course, there are dream sequences, there are scenes where someone magically floats up in the air while they are sleeping, there are scenes were our protagonist thinks she’s crazy and other people are telling her to relax and that the demons and devils are all in her head, someone is at the other end of the street and they suddenly disappear whenever a car passes them by, stop me if you’ve seen literally all of this before, perhaps in the 1960s when these things were actually clever.

God damn it, I’m really an easily amused person, and I fu*king love movies. I own thousands of movies, I’ve spent thousands of dollars on DVDs, nothing, and I mean nothing, is off limits for me to watch. I’ll watch something with low scores and enjoy the hell out of it because of the sheer entertainment value, I’ll watch something with high scores and find it pretentious and boring, but I’ll still revisit it a second, a third, even a fourth time in order to pick it apart and see what I missed. For example, I gave “Blade Runner 2049” a low score, but I still bought it and watched it again to see if my opinion changed (it didn’t). The point is I. Love. Movies. They keep me going. I’ll watch anything, but horror movies especially are important to me because of the sheer amount of variety that can be displayed in them. So believe me when I tell you that I have never seen a lazier attempt at a “horror” movie then this, and this is coming from someone who absolutely adores “The Last Exorcism” part 1.

I’ve read the directors AMA on Reddit, and he seems proud of this film. Good for him, I mean it, because that guy is making movies and I’m not. But for the love of God, why, why, why did he choose to throw in absolutely nothing original and nothing creative? It’s like instead of thinking up something himself, he instead recently watched “The Omen” and decided to copy direct scenes from that film, and every other horror film ever made.

Because of that, this film is so God damn boring. I’m a patient man, but I couldn’t watch this movie in one sitting, I couldn’t do it. I watched an hour and then went to bed because of how excruciating it was to watch, and then I finished up the remaining 30 minutes the next day, first getting plastered from chocolate liquor and whiskey to prepare myself because I’d be damned if I was going to watch the rest of this mess sober.

When it comes to the chocolate liquor, I’m a 22 year old man who still lives with his mother so I had to make use of what was stocked in the cabinets. My mom enjoys mixing chocolate liquor with chocolate vodka, but I decided to not even mix the 2 and just to take shots of both separately. The liquor smelled and tasted exactly like chocolate syrup, and if that sounds gross to take shots of then you’d be right. The vodka was somehow harder to stomach. While it did smell like chocolate, it burned my insides up real good. Literally, just a sip made my chest burn, almost as if I was the one getting possessed and not Nell. Either way, after 3 shots of each I was sufficiently drunk enough to sit down and finish watching “The Last Exorcism: Part 2.”


No I’m just kidding, the movie isn’t that bad, even though it is a generic piece of studio produced trash. I have to admit that the actress who plays Nell, Ashley Bell, is undoubtedly good, playing her with enough nuance and emotion that in a better film she may have even been nominated for an Oscar. Julia Garner is also a ton of fun to watch on screen, and she has the nicest hair I’ve ever seen on anybody, I mean good God she rocks that hair, she flexes nuts. Now, I may or may not still be drunk while writing this but think about what I just said. Ashley Bell, and Julia Garner, are the only good things about this movie. Their level of dedication to this film is admirable, and their care for the material and acting ability really does shine in this. Those two women are the only enjoyment you’ll get out of this movie, and is the only reason this film is worth watching. That being said, I would never recommend this film to anyone, under any circumstance, ever.

“The Last Exorcism: Part 2” is a colossal disappointment, and it doesn’t even star Anne Hathaway. If you want to watch this movie, don’t. I should’ve taken the advice of every other critic ever, because this movie was a battle to sit through, a battle I felt like I lost because instead if giving up, I decided to watch the entire movie. If you watch this, you’ll be bored out of your mind and you’ll find yourself praying to Abalam for sweet, sweet release. Come to think of it, maybe that was the intention all along…


“Princess Cyd” – Movie Review

“Princess Cyd” is one of the most lovely LGBTQ films I’ve seen in recent memory. With all of the raw romance of “Blue Is The Warmest Color,” without the gratuitous, overly long sex scenes, “Princess Cyd” is truly a beautiful movie that’ll give you butterflies in your stomach and make you fall in love with the characters just as quickly as they fall in love with each other.

Now, was that a mildly pretentious opening paragraph to this review? Of course it was, but I really wanted to convey how gorgeous this movie is, both aesthetically as well as internally. For one thing, the cinematography is truly a sight to behold, bursting with light and color and beauty. There are scenes in this film that I’m still thinking of because of how pretty they were to look at. And of course, the romance between the two main characters was a joy to witness as well.

The movie shows Cyd, played marvelously by Jessie Pinnick, slowly realizing that she’s gaining interest in a local barista. Now I’ve had plenty of coffeeshop crushes, the only difference being I’ve never actually been successful in getting a date out of any of them. Cyd, she should be teaching day game classes because she starts dating this girl faster then you can say “I’m not gay but at this point if a guy was interested in me I’d be willing to give him a chance.” My own ramblings about my love life aside, the one thing I didn’t enjoy about this movie, or rather the one thing I found mildly unrealistic, was how quickly the relationship between Cyd and her love interest moved. It seems like within a few days of knowing her, Cyd is already talking about have sex with her, which is not a bad thing at all, it just seemed like the director kind of wanted to rush their romance instead of taking a little more time to develop it.

Also, there is some mildly cringy dialogue in this film, dialogue that I cannot imagine ever taking place in real life. For example, there is a scene where Cyd tells her love interest that she plays soccer, and she responds with, “Soccer? That’s fu*king hot!” Now maybe that’s a normal reaction to have when someone tells you that they play soccer, but I’ll be damned if it didn’t make me cringe in my seat because of how unexpectedly sexual her response to Cyd playing soccer was. There are a few other moments of uncomfortably unrealistic dialogue as well, but other than that, “Princess Cyd” is absolutely gorgeous.

If you like romance films, and if you like LGBTQ romance films, I’m betting that you’ll like this film. I really like romance movies, and I especially find LGBTQ romance films heartwarming for whatever reason, and “Princess Cyd” seemed to be just what I needed – I’m not ashamed to say that I fell in love with the film.


“First Reformed” – Analysis/Review (SPOILERS)

“First Reformed” completely threw me for a loop. I bought this film solely because Ethan Hawke it was one of my favorite actors, and I knew the movie got good reviews; besides that, I knew nothing of the film other than Ethan Hawke played a priest. So when the film started, I was intrigued and compelled by the stellar performances of Hawke and Amanda Seyfried, and I was eager to see more. Then, at one point, I thought the film was turning into an incredibly heavy-handed political commentary, and to be honest with you, this started to turn me off from the film because of how blatant it was. And then, things started, or at least I started thinking, that things were getting very ridiculous to an absurd degree. And then the ending happened and it completely changed my entire opinion about this film. Seriously, the ending was one of the most beautiful pieces of filmmaking I have ever seen – it destroyed my predictions and expectations of what the final few minutes of the film would be like. In fact, I loved it so much that after the film was over, with my newfound knowledge of the ending fresh in my mind, I immediately restarted the movie and watched it over again from beginning to end.

“First Reformed” is a film about a man’s spiral into hopelessness and depression, and ultimately, redemption. Right off the bat, I can tell you that this movie is not for everyone. It is very bleak and slow moving, perhaps can be seen as a commentary on global warming (though I would beg to differ, and I will explain why soon), and it goes to some very dark places. But in my opinion, the core of this movie deals with self-hatred, and Ethan Hawke’s struggle to set aside this hatred and instead embrace love, both his own, and the love of others.

Ethan Hawke and Amanda Seyfried give powerhouse performances that are truly worth of not only Oscar nominations, but wins. Ethan Hawke portrays a man haunted by his past, and even though that sounds as cliché as anything you’ve ever heard of before, trust me when I tell you that once you find out exactly why his character is the way he is, you’ll completely understand why this movie goes in the direction that it does. You see, at first glance, the movie really does seem like the director’s attempt to inform the audience of the dangers of global warming. But if you actually watch the entire film and pay attention to the characterization within it, you’ll quickly understand that that isn’t what the director was intending.

Ethan Hawke plays a character who wants to die. He drinks a handle of whiskey every night. He is in excruciating pain and pees blood, but avoids going to the doctor to see what’s wrong. He has a girl who is clearly in love with him, but he doesn’t pursue her, and instead even goes as far as to yell at her and leave her crying in a state of shock. And with this, there is noticeable tension between Ethan Hawke and Amanda Seyfried, tension of the sexual kind. It’s obvious that they are attracted to each other, and yet neither of them ever attempt to act upon this attraction. Instead, Ethan Hawke continues to self-destruct. So when he starts to get absorbed in global warming to a dangerous, fanatical degree, it can be seen as almost senseless. Why is this happening? Isn’t this against his character? And as you watch him spiral even further into this insane fanaticism, even going as far as to potentially turn into a suicide bomber, you’ll find yourself wondering, “Did this film go off the deep end?” I’m here to tell you it didn’t.

All of this is compatible with Ethan’s character. He is so grief stricken and so depressed, he wants to die so badly, but he can never find himself to go through with it. So he latches on to this idea of fanatical global warming terrorism because it is finally an excuse for him to die. He doesn’t really care about the environment. He isn’t really passionate about global warming. He simply wants to die, and this is the excuse he latches on to in order to finally give himself a reason to die; when you see him strap on that suicide vest and then scream in agony when he realizes he can’t go through with it, you’re seeing a man’s only perceived refuge crumble in front of his eyes.

That is as far as I will delve into the plot, because I really think that this movie is an incredible story that should be experienced by anyone with the stomach to witness it. “First Reformed” is a film I haven’t been able to stop thinking about, and I hope that you watch it, analyze it, and love it as much as I do.


“Alien: Covenant” – Movie Review

I’m a big fan of “Prometheus,” so when I saw that Best Buy was selling this bad boy for the low, low price of ten dollars, I was sold. I bought it, took it home, and put it right on my shelf for a few weeks until yesterday I figured the time was right, right to watch what I assumed would be the sequel to “Prometheus.” And it is, kind of. You see, “Alien: Covenant” is not a direct sequel to “Prometheus,” as it takes place 10 years later. However, a few of your favorite characters may or may not return, and your favorite creature may or may not be hugging some faces.

Here’s the thing. The “Alien” franchise has a very loyal audience and a deep mythos that’s easy to get absorbed in. And while watching “Prometheus” and “Alien: Covenant,” it’s kind of easy to see that Ridley Scott might be making things up as he goes along. However, that doesn’t stop these movies from being highly philosophical and exceedingly interesting. The best parts of these movies, and this movie specifically, is when it deals with the subjects of creation, God, and life. The opening scene is extremely riveting, featuring an android gaining the knowledge of immortality for him, and inevitable death for his human creator. This film deals with a bunch of interesting topics, and I was enthralled by the questions that were brought up.

But, if you’re watching a movie with “Alien” in the title, chances are you’re looking for some alien violence, and boy do you get it. The action in this movie was intense, thrilling, and white-knuckle. The very first, and very last set pieces were so exciting that my heart was actually racing, something that hasn’t happened to me while watching a movie in a long time. And the aliens are a bit different in this movie, as well. They can run, and run fast, moving sporadically and unpredictably, and in my opinion, this just added to their horrifying nature, because how can you defeat something when you don’t know what it’s going to do next?

This may get me crucified, but I think Ridley Scott, when it comes to action, is a mediocre director. For some reason, he seems to enjoy adding a lot of shaky camera to his action scenes, which I find very distracting. However, when it comes to this movie, he didn’t overdo it, and I found that the slight shaky cam actually enhanced the intensity; there were times where I legitimately found it hard to watch because of how insane things were getting. And again, I’m not saying Ridley Scott is a bad director, because when it comes to science-fiction, the man is a God. Seriously, this movie is gorgeous. There are shots and sequences that I can’t stop thinking about it. I mean, just watch the trailer and tell me that the film doesn’t look incredible. Any other director and this movie wouldn’t look as good as it does. Say whatever you want about Scott, the man knows science-fiction, and the man puts impeccable, beautiful detail into all of his movies. Seriously, this is the best-looking film I’ve seen in a long time, and simply how lovely his movies look is what makes “Alien: Covenant” as good as I think it is.

The acting was also very good by everyone, even though the characterization was lacking. I have heard that there are scenes on YouTube that were taken out of the film that expand on the characters and add some much-needed characterization, and maybe this is laziness on my part, but I didn’t watch them because I don’t think a film should require homework before I watch it. However, because I loved this movie as much as I did, I will definitely go back and watch it. And even though the characters are a bit bland, that doesn’t stop the performances from being excellent. Katherine Waterston especially was not only the most attractive woman I’ve ever seen on screen before in my life, but also gave a very explosive, emotional performance that I won’t soon forget. James Franco too was on fire in this movie, and I’ll leave it at that.

“Alien: Covenant” is one of the best science-fiction movies I’ve seen in a long time. It’s just so existential, contemplative, and thought-provoking, as well as exciting, suspenseful, thrilling, and horrifying. It’s not just a movie you can put on and enjoy because of the violence and action, but it’s a movie that brings up life-questions, a movie that deals with creation and creator, a movie that questions what it means to be a created being, and what it means to be a creator, and it’s all of these things that elevate this film to new heights. Because, being an “Alien” film, all they really had to do was rehash previous plot points; they could’ve made a 2-hour movie about people being trapped on a ship and stalked by an alien – rinse and repeat, give us money please. But this film doesn’t do that. It challenges its audience, brings up incredibly interesting philosophical questions, and leaves a ton of things open for interpretation and discussion, and I don’t have a doubt in my mind that I’ll be thinking of this movie and theorizing about it for a long, long time.