Author: Donald Joseph Molosky

REVIEW: 1917

Donald Joseph Molosky Leave a comment

If you’re a fan of gritty movies, then be sure to check out 1917 while it’s still in theaters. As my fellow history buffs know, World War I was an exceptionally brutal conflict of epic proportions, and this film does a fantastic job of portraying that reality. From a tactical perspective, the movie didn’t really miss a beat, although the faceless Germans, as in just about every other WWI film, were characteristically inaccurate with their M98s. The military realities depicted in 1917 moved beyond the battlefield: while scenes of chaotic gunfights and mortar shellings provided an honest look into the face of the conflict, 1917 managed to capture the thankless nature of life as a soldier. Unlike most war films, which seemingly always leave the audience feeling somewhat warm and fuzzy, as the hero eventually receives some sort of well-deserved recognition in one form or another, 1917 leaves even the casual viewer feeling hollow. I was stunned by the way in which the film managed to trivialize the unbelievably heroic actions of the protagonist. While it felt like the film was underselling the gravity of the hero’s actions, it seems like this choice was deliberately made in an effort to more accurately tell the story of Alfred Mendes, the director of the film’s (Sam Mendes) grandfather. In this way, 1917 does great justice to the genre and avoids the trappings of the fairy-tale war film.

1917, while maintaining a strong essence of realism, is also incredibly entertaining from a purely dramatic perspective. Many war films, in my opinion, foreshadow with disappointing ham-handedness, resulting in a relatively boring plotline for people who pay closer attention. 1917 almost completely avoids this issue, as the entire picture is excitingly unpredictable; the dizzying camerawork makes you feel only slightly less disoriented than the soldiers themselves while somehow managing to keep the central narrative clear. 1917 is one of the most unique films that I’ve seen in quite a while, as it delicately weaves scenes of high-octane action into a broader tapestry of depressed sensibilities. Again, if you’re a person who detests leaving the theater feeling ethically unsatisfied, then steer clear, but if you enjoy utterly intense emotional rollercoasters, then give 1917 a shot.

Lastly, I thought that the film, although it lasted 120 minutes, needed more time. After only about ten minutes, the main sequence of events began, leaving me desperate for more background information on the protagonist’s family and life away from war. Additionally, after the climax of the film, we’re given only about ten minutes of downtime before the credits, so again, an extra fifteen minutes of background footage could have significantly increased my emotional involvement. Overall, 1917 delivered a bit more than what I’d hoped for, even though my expectations for it were quite high.

 

8.5/10

REVIEW: Black Christmas (1974)

Donald Joseph Molosky Leave a comment

Before seeing Black Christmas (1974), I thought that the market for Christmas-themed movies was already saturated with titles. Having seen this film, I’m convinced that Christmas scripts face far less scrutiny than their non-holiday affiliated counterparts. Scary Christmas? You got it. Action hero Christmas? Easy. Low budget Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Years romcom with live action reindeer flights and pyrotechnics? Why not. As far as holiday movies go, Black Christmas, without a doubt, is one of the strangest and most unique titles that I’ve ever seen.

Initially, I decided to see the movie because I was very, very curious to see how Bob Clark blended two seemingly opposed themes: slasher violence and Christmas cheer. I didn’t really expect a masterpiece in Black Christmas, but the film pleasantly surprised me. Instead of getting the wacky, shocking-for-all-the-wrong-reasons hodgepodge that I’d thought the film would be, Black Christmas turned out to be a palatable slasher film with great acting and thoughtful set design.

Although the title of the film is Black Christmas, the character of the picture is truly that of a horror movie, as the plot could absolutely stand on its own legs without the help of holiday synergies. Further, the film truly embodies the spirit of the classic 70’s Slasher: the deranged killer constantly calls the landline to make threats to his victims, the murders are overwrought with gore, and the real identity of the maniac is concealed throughout the entire film. If you enjoy the unsophisticated rampages of Jason Voorhees and Freddy Kreuger, then you’ll surely appreciate Black Christmas.

Additionally, the film contains a few genuinely hilarious moments that occur at very well-timed intervals: the script actively provides for moments of levity, usually using supporting characters, while retaining the emotional gravity of the situation. As such, the movie has a great balance of different character types: instead of relying on the protagonist or the antagonist to provide moments of emotional color outside of their respective arcs, the supporting characters Black Christmas are able to provide humor without compromising the suspense of the plot. I especially appreciated the film’s usage of mischievous characters and painfully cringey situations.

While Black Christmas didn’t disappoint, it didn’t really impress. No single aspect of the film fell short of my expectations, but the overall lack of originality in the movie served to significantly constrain my opinion of it. I was hoping that Black Christmas would have integrated more “Christmassy” paradigms into its plot, but essentially, the movie is a standard Slasher-horror film neatly wrapped in gingerbread wrapping paper. Instead of drawing inspiration from both thematic centers to create a completely original idea, the film just, albeit cleverly, mixes the two distinct film styles. It’s weird, kind of scary, kind of funny, and a great conversation starter. If you have time, give Black Christmas a go, but if you don’t, you’re not missing out on a whole lot.

 

6.3/10

REVIEW: Get Out (2017)

Donald Joseph Molosky Leave a comment

For me, the name Jordan Peele will always be synonymous with clever sketch comedy. In the early stages of my adolescence, Key & Peele (2012-2015), a Comedy Central series created by Jordan and his frequent collaborator, Keegan-Michael Key, was held, amongst the likes
of South Park and Family Guy, in the highest echelon of my pantheon of teenage television. However, in 2017, Peele left behind his comfortable niche in the realm of buddy-comedy shorts and made his directorial debut with Get Out, a psychological thriller neatly wrapped in astute social commentary. The film has been met with a significant amount of positive attention from a diverse pool of critics (98% on Rotten Tomatoes), and for the past two years, I have waited eagerly to see Get Out for myself. Unfortunately, I left the State Theater a bit
disappointed.

 

From a purely cinematic perspective, Get Out falls flat on a number of fronts, but most glaringly, I found that the film was far too stylistically ambivalent. Over the course of 104 minutes, Get Out oscillates between moments of dramatic tension, over the top slasher violence, sci-fi absurdism, and yes, nostalgic, Peele-esque humor. Independent from one another, the scenes of Get Out are strong, but the way in which the greater project incorporates the footage is detrimental to the emotional gravity of the film. Additionally, the thematic elements of the film are focused mostly on the serious and relevant issue of camouflaged racial tensions between Black and White Americans, and with such a dynamic narrative structure, some of the film’s more nuanced messages are greatly obscured by the spectacle of it all. Again, Get Out was Jordan Peele’s directorial debut, and at times, the film feels like a somewhat disjointed string of shorts – eerily reflective of Key & Peele.

 

My concerns about the stylistic coherence of Get Out aside, I found that the dramatic climax of the film was set far too early in the story. The first hour of the film is fantastic, but after the second act, the previously riveting tension of the film felt, well, cheapened and manufactured, and as such, the third act of Get Out features far more moments of the stylistic inconsistency that I took issue with in the previous paragraph. From the perspective of the viewer, it almost seems as if Peele directed two entirely separate films: acts one and two of Get Out were bold, chilling, and intellectual, whereas act three felt slightly unbelievable, goofy, and rushed.

 

All things considered, Get Out is slightly above average, but the film’s narrative structure was somewhat flawed. On a positive note, I thought that the cinematographers and set designers of Get Out made exceptional use of both dark and light landscapes, props, and clothing to highlight and reinforce some of Peele’s more abstract messages. Similarly, I also thought that the audio mixing of Get Out was remarkable, as the occasional interjection of shrill, dissonant violin strokes sent my fellow moviegoers out of their seats in fear.

 

6.2/10