REVISITING THE TEENAGE DAYS

It is often a mixed bag to go back and revisit the movies we loved as teenagers. I certainly have had a number of different experiences. Some, I have fallen in love with more than when I was young: The Mummy, Scooby Doo on Zombie Island, Ghost in the Darkness. Some, have been complete and utter disasters: King Arthur (2004), The Quest for Camelot, Van Helsing. And some, like the titular film of this article, are no better or worse just much different than you remember.

I suppose that isn’t completely accurate, many aspects of 300 are exactly as I remember but there was one major element of the story I didn’t pick up on at the age of 15; just how ridiculously American Zac Snyder made his Spartans.

ANCIENT GREECE ACCORDING TO TOBY KEITH

I mean this subtitle as no insult. I was a big fan of the unabashed oorah blind patriotism of Toby Keith’s country music. I am as big a political critic as the next guy, but there is a time and a place for some star-spangled beer drinking and when that time hits Toby is the man to play. 300 gives very similar vibes to the memorial day boating parties blasting Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue.

But Travis, this movie is about the Spartans not Americans, how could you possibly compare Zac Snyder’s action extraordinaire to Toby Keith?

Well the comparison is pretty easily made when you realize that Snyder’s Greeks aren’t very Greek.

Firstly, the digs at Athens and disrespect of the Greek gods. There is a small line early in the film when Leonidas is talking to the messenger from Persia and calls the Athenian’s ‘boy lovers’. This is presented in the movie as a dig towards those sissy Athenian citizens and their non-macho habits. The problem is the practice of older males taking on a younger male pupil as both a student and lover wasn’t an Athenian thing it was a pretty wide Greek practice. But not Snyder’s Spartans, no, they have to be the modern men elevated beyond any ancient problems such as ‘boy loving’.

In a similar vein, a large driving force of the plot focuses on Leonidas disobeying the ‘irrational’ mystic priests who listen to the oracle and instead follows his rational brave ideals without acknowledging those silly gods. This representation of a Greek king is ridiculous. Every historical document we have points to the existence of the divine being very common and very much taken for granted all across Greece.

Secondly, Synder (or perhaps more accurate to say Miller who wrote the comic), plasters modern western conservative virtues very heavily onto his interpretation of an ancient Greek tale. I do not cast any political judgement on this only judgement of inaccuracy. The movie is abundant with sweeping speeches about freedom, honor, and not becoming slaves to the terrible tyrannical rule of the evil disgusting Persians.

I don’t blame the creators for making their heroes more heroic to the audience they were creating for, but there is a level of eye-rolling that cannot be avoided when Leonidas’ Spartan wife is talking like a modern American senator. No, the Spartans (to the best of our limited historical knowledge) were not fighting for ideals like ‘freedom’ and ‘preservation of democracy’. They were fighting (again to the best of our limited historical knowledge) for the safety of their city state and to die in battle because being a great warrior was an Ancient Greek virtue.

My primary gripe is the same I have with many movies set in antiquity and I will put this gripe in bold letters because it drives me up the wall:

WE DON’T NEED TO AMERICANIZE ANCIENT STORIES TO MAKE THEM ENTERTAINING THEY ARE ALREADY ENTERTAINING ENOUGH!!!! STOP REMOVING THE GODS AND SUPERNATURAL ELEMENTS AND JUST TELL THE DAMN STORY!!!

ALL CRITIQUES ASIDE SLOW MO ACTION SCENES ARE COOL

Once one gets past the eye-rolling speeches, corny one-liners, and ridiculous washboard abs, this movie still deserves some praise which brings me back to Toby Keith.

Is Toby Keith a genius lyricist or even crazy dynamic musician? No, certainly not but I’d be a liar if I didn’t say Red Solo Cup is a party anthem for the ages. The same goes with 300. This movie certainly is no ‘masterpiece’ worthy of awards talk for the ages but when the cinematic time capsule opens in the future I think there is a place for the level of unashamed action-slop that Snyder brought to the screen in 2007. 300 captured the American audience for a very good reason, its fun as hell.

For every ridiculous scene of Queen Gorgo sounding insanely modern we also get Michael Fassbender smiling maniacally cutting down demonic looking soldiers. For every weird freedom speech, we get Gerard Butler blue-steeling toward an epic looking CGI ocean of wrecked ships. This movie fits somewhere between John Wick and Fast X and that is just fine with me.

FINAL THOUGHTS

There was actually a much cooler (in my opinion) battle in the Greco-Persian war than Thermopylae, the naval battle of Salamis. Now, I want you all reading this to say these words with me: “They never made a 300 sequel about the naval battle of Salamis, it doesn’t exist. If I think I have seen it that must have been a hellish nightmare.” Great, now that we have thoroughly collectively forgotten about that, I can say I am satisfied with my rewatch of Zac Snyder’s classic war action film.

POSTSCRIPT

A funny story for you all. There are a few lines in 300 that are impressively direct translations from The Histories of Herodotus such as the famous “we will fight in the shade” line.

I was taking a classics class in my undergrad English-Literature program and we had an excellent professor Dr. Morgan who would often translate latin directly from the text for us. Dr. Morgan had not seen and did not plan to see 300 but was telling us one day about the battle of Thermopylae and translating the part of the text in class. He got to the line and started reading saying, “the Persians apparently said, ‘our arrows will blot out the sun,’ and do you know what the Spartans said?”

The whole class in unison responded “we will fight in the shade” and watched as his face was utterly shocked that we all somehow knew the latin together. We had a good laugh and explained to him there was a movie and that line was a prominent part of it.

POST-POST SCRIPT

David Wenham rocks. Faramir forever.

The epic of The Iliad and The Odyssey have been retold, reinvented, reinvigorated, and retrofit over the millennia. However, only in the Year of Our Lord 2004 were we fortunate enough to see the sexiest adaptation of The Trojan War. Sure, Matt Damon and Anne Hathaway do well enough in 2024, but the cast of Troy featuring: Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger, Rose Byrne, and Sean Bean are in a league of their own.

Yet, beyond the eye-candy, we are presented with a difficult situation: enjoy the film for what it is, or critique it against the source material. What Troy has in its favor is equal to what it lacks.

So, I will tell you what I think, first by detailing what’s wrong and then reminding you why it’s so good.

Timeline

While the film doesn’t have a clear timeline, it certainly doesn’t seem like it takes 10 years. From the moment the Greeks land on the beach to the moment the Trojans cart the horse into their city feels like weeks. Some might argue that years pass in the movie without the audience being explicitly told about it, but the film doesn't effectively show the passage of time or convey it.

The characters don’t look older, more ragged, or have the look in their eyes that shows you they have seen a decade of combat. From the landing on the beach where Achilles storms the shore and takes the temple to the final moments of the city, the warriors still look fresh.

Does this affect the overall quality of the film? I would say no — we came to see battle, not the effects of 10 years of it. The latter half of that statement would turn this action film into a war drama.

The Gods

Perhaps the single most fundamental difference between Troy and The Iliad is that the gods are almost entirely absent. In Homer's epic, the Trojan War is as much a conflict between the gods of Olympus as it is between Greece and Troy. In the text the gods are integral figures that meddle constantly with the heroes and with the plot. They broker deals, assist humans, and generally have their own agenda they are trying to pursue, namely around their personal mortal champions.

In the text, for example, when Paris duels Menelaus and the fight deteriorates, it is not Hector that rescues Paris and kills Menelaus (another inaccuracy) but instead it is Aphrodite who whisks Paris safely to his bed, with Helen of Troy waiting for him.

Priam, when he seeks out Achilles to retrieve the body of Hector, is swiftly taken along the plains of Troy past the guards to Achilles’ tent with the help of Hermes.

Achilles, himself, is practically inseparable from the gods. He’s the son of Thetis, who constantly prays to Zeus on Achilles’ behalf — and Zeus honors some of those wishes! When Achilles is about to slay Agamemnon, it is not Odysseus or Menelaus who restrains him but Athena.

In The Odyssey version of the Trojan War, Athena and Poseidon are at odds with each other with Odysseus in the middle.

When Paris is letting fly the deadly arrow that will kill Achilles, Apollo is described as guiding the arrow along its course.

None of that exists in the film.

Instead of even acknowledging the gods, the film seems to have relegated them to the shadows — behind the veil — to do their bidding like omnipresent figures.

This, in the author’s opinion, is one of the biggest detractions from the film. The gods are an essential presence in the source material and to leave them out is a major deviation from what the ancient Greeks really believed.

Perhaps, since the gods are supposed to be better looking than mortals, there was no one left in Hollywood to match Brad Pitt.

By removing the Olympians, the director — Wolfgang Petersen — transforms the story from one about fate and divine politics into one where the humans are solely responsible for their failures and their successes. The gods no longer have a role in human ambition and personal responsibility. The lack of the invisible strings also detracts from the divinity of the heroes.

The Heroes

The heroes of Troy are what revolutionize this film from historical fiction into a genuinely memorable film.

Hector and Achilles show the price of war, the anger needed for battle, and the burden of being “the best”. Homer would have loved how Brad Pitt portrays Achilles: a man who values glory and immortality over a long, peaceful life. His arrogance, melancholy, and thirst for fame make him even more magnetic than his vicious combat and devilishly good looks did — even when he is difficult to like.

Hector (Eric Bana) shows the strength of a leader and the wisdom of a battle-hardened man. Unlike Achilles, Hector fights not for glory but for family, city, and duty. That contrast is what makes their duel so compelling.

Where both these heroes suffer, however, is in their armor. Yes, I am a nerd and am going there. Granted their armor looks good, but is completely inaccurate, save the clear presence of bronze. The armor they have is more akin to Greek hoplite armor from the 7th century BC, not the armor that would have been present in 1200 BC.

The famous Corinthian-style helmets and muscle cuirasses belong to the Archaic Greek period, which came about several centuries after the Trojan War. The warriors of Troy would have worn Mycenaean bronze panoplies and boar's-tusk helmets.

Inaccuracies aside, the armor fits the need for the fury of blows that are displayed and the weapons/shields used.

Dear Odysseus (Sean Bean) very accurately matches his source material in this film. His cunning, intelligence, wisdom, and leadership come across well. Being one of the few, if not only people that Achilles will listen to is an essential trait that needed to be, and was, shown. Is this the only movie where he doesn’t die?

Achilles and Patroclus are not actually cousins. In the text they were kindred spirits, and brothers-in-arms who loved each other. Some scholars infer a romantic relationship, but Homer never confirms nor denies this in the text. He leaves it up to the reader to extract what meaning their relationship has.

Whether or not the film follows Homer to the letter, it succeeds where it matters most. You believe these men could become legends. Their victories satiate our thirst for action and their downfalls remind us the cost. So when Hector and Achilles finally meet outside the walls of Troy, it feels like watching history become myth.

The Villains

Brian Cox portrays a terrifying Agamemnon. He is less of king figure and more imperial tyrant. We see that, he too, desires to have his name carved in stone for millennia. He cares not who gets sacrificed for his own glory. Homer’s version carries many similar qualities, but the film transforms this to a new level to give the audience a very clear antagonist.

Agamemnon doesn’t die at the hands of Briseis. In the myths, he survives Troy entirely, only to return home and be murdered by his wife, Clytemnestra, and her lover, Aegisthus—a consequence of sacrificing their daughter, Iphigenia, before the expedition ever sailed. The newest Odyssey gets this correct.

Troy gives him a far more climactic ending that neatly ends his greed and arrogance before the credits roll.

Paris, on the other hand, is perhaps the true villain of the story — even if the film doesn’t quite treat him that way. Orlando Bloom perfectly captures his youthful arrogance, impulsiveness, and complete inability to appreciate the consequences of his actions. One stolen queen condemns tens of thousands of men to die. Paris spends much of the film reacting to disasters of his own making and generally acting like a punk. In contrast to his brother, Hector, he does not have a sense of duty to anyone beyond himself.

Then there is Menelaus. If I got cucked by a pretty boy I would lead a righteous campaign to get my wife back too. However, the film spins Menelaus into a cruel brute that makes him too easy to dislike. We see his warmongering with Agamemnon and forget that he was seriously wronged. Why does the film take this route? Perhaps because its easier to sympathize with Helen for leaving a monster than for leaving an honorable king. However, the downside is that this strips away the moral ambiguity that makes Homer’s epic so compelling. Rarely are there pure villains or pure heroes. Everyone is flawed but the film misses this mark.

Troy instead gives us a clean dichotomy. Heroes are heroic, villains are villainous. Does this make the film more fun to watch? Yes. We did not sit down for a lecture.

Conclusion

That’s ultimately the bargain Troy makes. It removes portions of Homer’s complexity in exchange for spectacle, unforgettable performances, and one of the greatest sword fights ever put to film.

Is it historically accurate? Not particularly.

Is it faithful to The Iliad? Only in broad strokes.

But if you’re looking for a sweeping epic that captures the spirit of heroism, glory, mortality, and the terrible cost of pride, Troy succeeds far more often than it fails.

There is a reason this movie has endured for over two decades. Is it because it has one of the sexiest casts ever? Maybe. But more so, its because every generation finds something to relate to: heroes, ambition, love, rage, loyalty, and the desire to be remembered forever.

And frankly, if Brad Pitt is going to duel Eric Bana in gleaming bronze armor while James Horner swells in the background, I’m willing to forgive a few thousand years of historical inaccuracies.

WHAT MAKES AN EPIC?

The term epic, let’s face it, has lost much of its meaning. We utilize the term referring to anything from a beautiful mountain view to a beautiful mountain of nachos. These two things can evoke a certain type of emotion, but they are without argument categorically different.

So, when we call a film ‘epic’ we might mean several different things. I believe Gettysburg is an actual EPIC in the American vein. Cultures have had their epics throughout history such as The Odyssey, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Paradise Lost, and War and Peace and arguably American media has already had many epics I would say categorically Ron Maxwell’s excellent civil war drama fits in the list of American epics.

The story is incredible in length, scope and detail. It encapsulates some of the most important themes and struggles of the United States of America and it has many heroic central characters. This makes the story truly EPIC. Of all the pieces making the film great, the heroic characters truly put this film a step above many other war movies.

THE PRIDE OF LEE

The first notable performance is Martin Sheen as General Robert E. Lee. This is no easy role to fill. Lee is well known as one of the greatest generals to fight in an American military. His prowess as a strategist and inspiration for his troops is darkened significantly by his allegiances to the confederacy and the cause of keeping slavery. This role could be taken in many directions, and a lesser actor would have probably picked the easy villain route, but Sheen doesn’t back down from the challenge of humanizing such an infamous figure in American history.

There are many small moments of kindness, decorum, and respect that come from Lee in his meetings with his subordinates. Sheen exudes the air of the southern gentleman Lee was famous for displaying. He is a ‘heroic’ figure in his own right despite not being a hero of the conflict. One of the most impactful parts of the film is how emotionally heavy it feels to know these men we can see acting with such dignity are fighting on a side that does not want to recognize the inherent dignity in all men.

Lee’s darker side comes out in his conflicts with General Longstreet. Longstreet is rightfully cautious about the Gettysburg conflict. He wants the war over, he wants his men home, he has lost some of his passion for any type of cause that might have begun the conflict. Longstreet argues with Lee that a more patient approach would win the day, but Lee is determined he can win the war in one final battle. Sheen lets the small signs of pride creep into the face of Lee in all of these meetings and by the end of the film the audience knows this famous general is going to send thousands of his men into a suicide march. The crack in the perfect facade is shown with brutal and impactful honesty and Martin Sheen performs it brilliantly.

THE BROTHERHOOD OF ARMISTEAD AND HANCOCK

The relationship in this film that encapsulates the horror and sorrow of the American Civil War is that of Generals Armistead and Hancock. Hancock is the Major General of the Union Army; Armistead is the Brigadier General of the Confederate Army, and both came from the same community, same school, same world.

The film focuses less on Hancock but gives the audience many conversations between Longstreet and Armistead in which Armistead grows increasingly more anxious about meeting his life-long friend on the battlefield. Actor Richard Jordan (playing Armistead) brings a tear to the eye with his delivery of poetic lines that encapsulate how horrifying it must have actually been to meet a brother on the other side of a musket.

As the final battle builds, we want these two not to meet, but we know it cannot be avoided. Hancock will command his army, Armistead will lead his troops, and both will have to have the intent of killing the other. This tragic tale is difficult but compelling to watch and shows the bonds of brotherhood even in the worst of situations.

THE ZEAL OF PICKETT

One of the shorter storylines that is still emotionally powerful is that of Confederate General George Pickett. Another brilliant performance brings the viewer into the passion of a fighting man always ready to charge headfirst into the fray. Stephen Lang as Pickett exudes a fighting energy worthy of rousing any zealous soldier.

Pickett’s story begins with positive motivational power (though yes, he is on the wrong sides) and ends with the consequence of overzealous fighting passion. One of the most heartbreaking lines comes at the end of the film after the confederate’s final charge.

Lee, trying to find some level of hope in the disastrous defeat, looks down from his horse at a shocked Pickett and says “General, you must regroup your division.” Pickett, looking up with him as if still not understanding the reality of the situation, replies “Sir, I have no more division.”

Pickett was the most eager to charge into the fray and in the end he loses all his men.

THE DUTY OF LONGSTREET

The most screentime in Gettysburg belongs to Tom Berenger’s incredible performance as General James Longstreet. Longstreet is a contender for the true ‘tragic hero’ of this story. He is a confederate general suffering in the tired silence of lost purpose. He knows only his profession as a soldier now but has lost a clear reason as to why he is soldiering. As Berenger moves amongst his ranks, gives out orders he personally sees as faulty, and clashes with General Lee over strategy, we see the real effects of the war on American citizens turned soldiers.

Berenger is the tall, imposing, confident, yet stoic leader of men who finds himself on the wrong side of a losing battle. He is so tied to his duty for his state and his men that he refuses to leave the conflict even amongst his own loss of confidence. This tragically leads him to giving orders he knows are wrong to men he knows will die.

The one downside of Berenger’s turn as Longstreet is his absolutely horrendous fake beard.

FINALLY, THE COURAGE OF CHAMBERLAIN

Jeff Daniels is one of the greatest American actors to ever do the job. In 1993 he played this moving role of General Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, the professor turned army leader who held Little Round Top against an unceasing charge of confederate soldiers. The next year, 1994, Daniels would play Harry in Dumb and Dumber. Yeah, he’s that good.

Daniel’s performance as Chamberlain may not has as much screen time as Berenger’s, but I think he fully deserves the top billing as this stories’ epic hero. Chamberlain is everything America looks for in a hero. He is the soft-spoken middle-class man who steps up and faces impossible odds when the times call for bravery.

Daniels doesn’t just deliver a quiet nuanced performance of a truly virtuous leader of soldiers he delivers one of the best motivational speeches I have ever seen in a war film. I highly suggest you look up Chamberlain’s speech to the dissenting soldiers from Maine.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Gettysburg is a true epic: a long tale of large scope following tragic heroes in an event that encapsulates the struggles of American history. The characters make the film, and the performances do not fail on any level. I highly recommend carving out 4.5 hours to watch the extended edition of Gettysburg.

The Buffalo Hunter Hunter by Stephen Graham Jones is an astounding work that combines profound elements of the wild west (circa 1900s) with elements of thriller and horror. From here on out — SPOILERS. Should you happen to be a fan of vampires and western gothic horror, please go read this novel then return to this review.

One aspect of the novel deserves mentioning before diving into the story: please know that Stephen Graham Jones is a member of the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana. This point will return as an important one.

The Plot

Jones wastes no time on establishing the mystery. We are immediately thrown into the life of an academic woman, chasing the ghosts of her past — namely her father and then her mysterious great-great-great grandfather Arthur Beaucarne.

This dive into the past of Arthur Beaucarne stems from the retrieval of a centuries old manuscript found in a demolition site in Miles City, Montana. Etsy, as we later learn her name, is entranced by the story told in this journal, although the journal reads more like a confession.

What unfolds is the story of Lutheran pastor Arthur Beaucarne as he details life in 1912 Miles City, Montana. The story centers on the discovery of “humps”—men skinned alive, faces distinctly painted, and left naked out on the plains. At the same time Arthur is visited by a strange guest, a Native man wearing a long black Jesuit-style robe and dark sunglasses.

Good Stab, as he is called, comes to Arthur (whom he calls “Three Persons” out of association with the Holy Trinity) to confess his sins and recount the story of his life.

Since this is a Lutheran pastor those of us Catholics don’t have to worry that Arthur wrote down every lucid detail of Good Stab’s story—which would break the seal of confession. [Not a relevant plot point, just my humorous musings.]

Where Stephen Graham Jones hooks us, line and sinker, is through the exquisite attention to detail of Blackfeet life. Jones makes the reader feel as though they are riding across the plains alongside the Blackfeet with each passing line of text. The raw authenticity ties our hearts directly to the woes of Good Stab.

That is until the confession shifts from the story of a life lived... to actual sins.

Upon Chief Mountain in 1870, Good Stab encounters a pale-skinned man with large fangs—the Cat Man. After being mortally wounded during a soldier attack, the Cat Man’s blood drips into Good Stab’s mouth, transforming him into a vampire. He can only consume blood, and to remain human he must feed upon humans.

After learning of the Marias Massacre, Good Stab embarks on a path of utter vengeance.

The Twist

As Good Stab returns week after week, Arthur begins to recognize a common thread pulling all too close to his own past.

Here Stephen Graham Jones springs the trap he has been quietly building all along. Up until this point we assumed we were reading a normal horror novel.

Oh no... there was much more in store.

In Arthur’s younger life he was a soldier who helped in the wars against the Native Americans in Montana.

We stop feeling sorry the moment Arthur confesses to Good Stab that it was he who encouraged the soldiers to kill all the Blackfeet at their camp next to the Marias River.

We learn there was no coincidence Good Stab chose Arthur for his confession—nor that the family from California was murdered, as they were Arthur’s illegitimate descendants.

Arthur, knowing that his end must also be near, finishes the journal and hides it deep in the parsonage before beginning his long walk into the prairie where he hopes Good Stab will finish what he started.

But such men who perpetuate violence are not worthy of such easy deaths...

The Resolution

Cut back to the present day where Etsy finishes reading the journal. A mysterious figure wearing a real buffalo head appears in her apartment and presents her with a human-sized prairie dog before “mistakenly” leaving behind a pair of workmen’s gloves.

Etsy, longing to finally end this 200-year cycle, determines to kill her great-great-great grandfather. From her apartment in Wyoming she drives north to the Marias Valley on the 173rd anniversary of the massacre and kills Arthur Beaucarne once and for all.

Down in the valley, Etsy notices one rider on horseback wearing sunglasses, with a construction hard hat attached to the saddle.

All along Good Stab had searched for the journal and was the one who unearthed it from the construction site.

Etsy waves alone, the signal not returned. Good Stab’s refusal to return her gesture of solidarity at the end reinforces that her actions do not erase the historical atrocity—they only resolve her own relationship to her ancestor.

What Makes This Book So Good

The language used throughout completely immerses the reader such that we feel as though we are there in the dusty church next to Arthur and Good Stab on the plains of Miles City Montana. The inclusion of so many Blackfeet actions, phrases, and words adds an unmistakable authenticity to the story.

This book subverts several distinct tropes in Gothic Westerns which add to the raw feeling that comes across the page. In certain works, one might expect a clean resolution, happy or not. But in this book there is no resolution. There can never be a satisfying resolution after a massacre of this scale.

We spend the majority of the plot cheering on Good Stab in taking revenge — yet like all revenge no matter how successful, it does not right the wrong. Good Stab’s tribe, his family, friends, and his buffalo are still dead. Good Stab himself will never be whole again, nor will he ever be able to die and visit his wife and kids in the sunny plains of the afterlife. The actions of one man, and those who listened, echoed across 200 years until they reached the doorstep of a woman who had no ties at all.

Here Stephen Graham Jones reminds us of the history of the settling of the west. Through the lens of a Blackfeet vampire we are first hand witnesses to the true cost of Manifest Destiny. The use of a vampire in this period of time is brilliantly original because Jones redefines what a vampire is and what it symbolizes. Vampires live by consuming others. The same can be said for the machinery of westward expansion. The natives, the buffalo, and the soul of the land that was so sacred to its original caretakers are all consumed in the name of progress and conquest. Much like a vampire, history and trauma feed on themselves. Good Stab is a reckoning to this cycle.

History does not end because the perpetrators die. Good Stab leaves Arthur in Etsy’s hands, and she does the “right” thing by finally killing him. Yet, at that final moment on the ridge above the commemoration of the massacre, Good Stab rides away without acknowledging her — because justice and reconciliation are two very distinct things.

The Plot

In 1776, during the American Revolutionary War, Benjamin Martin (played by Mel Gibson), a French and Indian War veteran famed for his assault on Fort Wilderness and a widower with seven children, is wrapped up in the fray. Originally, he wants nothing more than to stay out of harms way and leave the brutality of war to his past. He is haunted by his actions from his more “intemperate youth”.

This neutrality does not last long.

When the British arrest Martin’s eldest son and execute another of his children in cold blood, Martin abandons any hope of remaining on the sidelines. Armed with a tomahawk, a flintlock pistol, and enough rage to fuel an entire revolution, he begins waging a brutal guerrilla campaign against British forces in South Carolina.

As his reputation grows, Martin assembles a militia that strikes supply lines, ambushes patrols, and disappears into the swamps before the British can respond. His campaign eventually helps draw the British Army into the final stages of the Southern Campaign, culminating in a climactic battle inspired by the events leading to the American victory at Yorktown.

Like many historical epics, The Patriot plays fast and loose with the facts. Benjamin Martin never existed—but the men who inspired him absolutely did.

The Hero

Featuring the ever ferocious Mel Gibson, the film’s main character — Benjamin Martin — is a historical fiction mutt. Rather than portraying one real revolutionary, the filmmakers stitched together the exploits, personalities, and legends of several extraordinary men. Martin is essentially a composite of three famous men who waged war in South Carolina and whose combined resumes sound too unbelievable to be true.

Francis Marion

Known as the “Swamp Fox” — this character is where The Patriot draws the bulk of the plot for Mel Gibson. The Swamp Fox, Francis Marion, was a brigadier general who never commanded a field unit. Drawing from experiences in the French and Indian War, the Swamp Fox immediately gained popularity (or notoriety if you were a British officer) in the southern theater of the Revolution for his “irregular warfare”. This is a nice way of saying that Francis Marion was a devious and cunning proponent of guerrilla warfare.

His tactics were so effective that they went on to form a part of the modern-day military doctrine of the U.S. Army's 75th Ranger Regiment. The Swamp Fox took one look at his troops and the method of “conventional” warfare that involved standing in a straight line and hucking lead at the enemy and said “Nah”. These tactics are recreated throughout The Patriot, where Benjamin Martin repeatedly frustrates the British by refusing to fight on their terms.

The key to Marion's success was his men. Continental Army regulars were generally equipped with smoothbore muskets, which drastically limited their accuracy and range, thus making conventional line warfare standard practice.

Marion's militia, on the other hand often carried their own hunting rifles. The word here is rifle. The rifled barrels and bullets dramatically increased both range and accuracy. Against British troops armed with muskets and musket balls, this allowed Marion's men to strike from distances where the British could barely return effective fire before melting back into the forests they knew better than anyone.

Daniel Morgan

If Benjamin Martin inherited his fighting style from Francis Marion, his battlefield presence came from Daniel Morgan.

One of the most badass characters of the revolutionary war. Standing 6’4” at a time when the average height was 5’7” — this mountain of a man was a force to be reckoned with his entire life. At a young age he fought and survived on the wild frontier in Virginia (back when this was still considered a frontier). Historians can verify his presence there because of the numerous court records of his multiple bar fights, altercations, and general rowdiness.

He then fought under George Washington for the British provincial forces during the French and Indian War. Here he turned his skills from the frontier as a tracker and all-around sneaky SOB to conduct guerilla raids against the French. These experiences would go on to hone his abilities as a scout, fighter, and leader.

He is regarded as one of the most respected battlefield tacticians of the Revolutionary War. One of the film’s most memorable battle sequences draws heavily from Morgan’s actual victory: his victory at the Battle of Cowpens. Here, the scene from The Patriot below, actually happened:

Through a brilliant combination of militia, regular infantry, and cavalry, Morgan baited British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton into a trap before enveloping and destroying much of his force. Tarleton inspired the main villain, more on him later.

The victory at Cowpens became one of the turning points of the Southern Campaign. It weakened General Cornwallis’s army and helped set the chain of events that ultimately led to the British surrender at Yorktown.

Thomas Sumter

Thomas Sumter — The Fighting Gamecock — earned his moniker through similar guerilla tactics like those displayed by our other two main characters. However, where Marion was patient and calculating, Sumter earned a reputation for sheer aggression.

His battle tactics were fierce and ferocious compared to the more chess-like strategy employed by the British. Common war doctrine at the time simply involved throwing wave after wave of men at the enemy and winning by sheer volume. Sumter was instrumental in the South, taking on General Cornwallis and the main villain, Colonel Tarleton. After the Battle of Blackstock's Farm, British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton commented that Sumter "fought like a gamecock", and Cornwallis described the Gamecock as his "greatest plague".

The Main Villain

Colonel William Tavington (played by Jason Isaacs) is loosely based on Colonel Banastre Tarleton. [1, 2] Much like our main character, this villain is a composite.

Some of the atrocities shown in the film, most famously the burning of a church full of civilians, were inspired by violence committed during the Southern Campaign. However, historians have found little evidence that Tarleton himself ordered or carried out those specific acts.

That said, this dude hardly needed Hollywood to make him terrifying.

He developed a reputation for extraordinary aggression and was widely accused of killing surrendering Continental soldiers after the Battle of Waxhaws in 1780. Whether every accusation was deserved remains debated, but the incident cemented his reputation among American troops. The phrase “Tarleton’s Quarter” became a grim rallying cry meaning that no mercy should be expected from Tarleton and therefore none should be given in return.

In military terms, this was equivalent to "giving no quarter": taking no prisoners and showing no mercy.

Conclusion

Timelines are compressed, battles are rearranged, and several historical figures are blended into one fictional family man. Yet beneath the Hollywood spectacle lies a surprisingly authentic portrait of the brutal guerrilla war that consumed the American South. This is a chapter of the Revolution that often receives far less attention than Lexington, Concord, or Washington crossing the Delaware.

Does The Patriot get plenty wrong historically? Yes.

Does it replace complex historical figures with larger-than-life people? Certainly.

Does it capture the spirit of independence that has defined this nation for the past 250 years? I think it does..

But does this movie get an American’s blood absolutely roiling on the 4th of July?

Unequivocally yes.

INDIE HORROR: A PLAYGROUND FOR ARTISTIC EXPRESSION

My favorite part of the current rise in Indie Horror’s popularity is how much space the genre provides for creatives to try different methods of storytelling. One such recent example was the beautifully produced Undertone.

The film follows a horror podcaster, Evy, (played by Nina Kiri) living in her childhood home taking care of her sick mother. Throughout the entire film Evy and her mother are the only physical characters we see on screen. The third player in the plot is her podcast co-host who the audience is told lives in Britain. We hear his voice (expertly done by Adam DiMarco) throughout the movie.

Evy and Justin (the co-host) are listening to a series of ten tapes together and commenting on the creepiness for their podcast. Evy is the resident sceptic of the show and Justin is the scared believer. It is a simple setup and promises to play off sound and empty spaces. Boy does this film deliver on its promise. Director Ian Tuason produced an incredible debut feature film that makes the audience afraid not of what is scene and heard but the empty space in between those moments.

WHAT ISNT THERE IS OFTEN WORSE

Probably the creepiest part of Undertone is how it tricks the audience into believing there is something spooky around every corner. Tuason uses the terrifying audio of the podcast recordings mixed with expertly lit dark corners to make viewers believe if they gaze long enough into the void something sinister will appear. Often times this is not the case, but often enough it is the case. He plays with an almost algorithm spacing out the appearances of real entities just enough to leave you glued to the screen.

A commonly used phrase in horror is “the scariest thing isn’t what you see but what you don’t see”. This trope has been present as long as dark fairytales have existed and is the entire basis of HP Lovecraft horror. Undertone lives in this trope and adds the effect of incredible audio to make it even more frightening. You know what’s worse than staring into a pitch black corner? Staring into a pitch black corner after hearing the audio recording of someone clearly being possessed by a child murdering demon.

ROUND IT OFF WITH GREAT PERFORMANCES

The movie’s production carries much of the scary weight with expert camera work, lighting, and sound design, but it can’t be credited for everything. I was very impressed with Nina Kiri’s performance. She is certainly not a newby to the acting scene with credits in many reputable productions, but I had not seen her on the silver screen yet so was very pleased with how much depth she brought to the performance. Behind the surface level fright of demon possession, Kiri expertly takes us into the depth of a woman struggling with her relationship with her mother and her mother’s religious beliefs.

Adam DiMarco also brings his A game as a voice actor in this production. He is believably hesitant to move forward with their podcast episode and you can sense the true concern behind everything he says.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Undertone is an underrated sleeper hit that to few people have seen. Watch it with the best surround sound you can find and turn all the lights out. You will definitely be thinking about this one long after it ends and may have trouble sleeping.

Horror vs Terror

Before embarking on a deep dive into this film, there is one point that needs to be made: this movie is a masterclass in terror. Now for the uninitiated or unfamiliar, terror is not the same as horror. Certainly this film is branded as indie horror but the distinction needs to be made.

• Horror is the physical revulsion, shock, and disgust you feel after witnessing a gruesome reality.

• Terror, on the other hand, is the suspenseful dread and anxiety that happens before something frightening occurs.

To label this movie as exclusively a horror film would be a misnomer. The terror present throughout is what I loved the most. The truly frightening scenes of this film are not ones of gruesome violence, but ones that wrap you tightly in an inescapable feeling of deep sinking dread that comes from the waiting — the palpable tension knowing that something is coming and there is nothing you can do about it.

The Plot

The 2014 film It Follows is a widely celebrated indie horror film that flips the script on your classic “chase” or “hunted” horror film. Where other films use jump scares and cheap fake blood, It Follows sits you comfortably in the seat of dread and ambiguity. This is a film without resolution. No happy ending. And the monster keeps following.

The film follows 19-year-old Jay, who, after a seemingly innocent sexual encounter, discovers she has inherited a supernatural, shape-shifting curse. “The entity”, as it is called, slowly and relentlessly walks toward her in the form of various people, and can only be passed on to someone else through sex. The mechanism of transfer is clear and non-negotiable. Even scarier, the various people that follow are sometimes unknown to the victim and can only be recognized by their slow shuffling gait — headed straight towards you… unblinking, unrelenting.

The movie thrives on a highly original and lingering sense of terror. Instead of utilizing fast-paced, shaky camera shots, the director uses steady, continuous 360-degree pans and a unique widescreen format. This forces the audience to constantly scan the background, wondering if a normal-looking person strolling in the distance is actually the unstoppable monster. The hypnotic, synth-heavy score by Disasterpeace perfectly complements this eerie, dreamlike tension.

Jay and her friends spend the film attempting various methods to slow or kill the entity, always unsuccessfully. The film closes on Jay and her boyfriend walking down the street while a figure in the distance walks behind them.

The Metaphor

Beyond the scares, the film operates on a deeper, philosophical level. Many view the entity as a terrifying, inevitable metaphor for the loss of innocence and the creeping mortality of adulthood. A key scene that demonstrates this loss of the carefree life is where Jay swims out to the boat, presumably to have sex with one of the guys there. Whether she does or doesn’t go through with it, she is contemplating spreading the curse to two strangers in order to save herself. Here, the loss of innocence hits the hardest as Jay is forced to consider the mortality of people beyond just herself.

There are hardly any adult figures shown in the film, and no real sense of any protective figures against the entity that is inevitably coming. The friends are forced to lean on each other, to understand their dilemma, and ultimately face it. In this way, we are given a glimpse, or reminder, into the terror of coming of age. The film's dreamlike setting further heightens this loss. It takes place in a disorienting, timeless Detroit suburb where old and new technologies (like 80s tube TVs and futuristic clam-shell e-readers) are inexplicably mashed together.

STDs and Adolescence

Others, like myself, see this film as a direct metaphor to sexually transmitted diseases. This “on the nose” take is driven by the mechanism of transferring the curse. A loss of innocence occurs when we have sex, but a deeper danger lurks. The one night stands and summer flings that have filled our teenage summers carry with them the terrifying potential of irrevocable consequence. In this way, the film captures a certain fear that must be overcome to have sex in the first place. You are taking a chance.

Here’s where “It Follows” gets frustratingly—but pointedly—murky: if life after sex is purgatory, does that mean sex is bad, or that sex simply isn’t a cure-all for juvenile awkwardness? The latter seems more likely given an unnamed book passage that Jay’s loyal friend Yara reads aloud later in the film. “Your soul will leave your body and you will no longer be a person,”

Every sexual encounter becomes a roll of the dice that could leave you carrying a curse you never fully escape. The excitement can be there, but once the genie is out of the bottle it cannot be put back.

In the real world we have pills and shots as treatment, but some diseases can drive you to the brink. In extreme circumstances, much like the entity, you have to spend your entire life avoiding it.

Genie out of the bottle

The genius of this film is that the STD metaphor is obvious enough to understand immediately, but broad enough to be interpreted as something larger. The entity is not just a disease; it is the embodiment of consequence.

We spend our lives relatively free from true visual representations of our poor choices. That is the terror of this film. The monster is a constant reminder of the cost of our fun, and there is no going back. As teens, we thought we could take on the world. Now we see that there is a responsibility that comes on the heels of our fun. Engaging in sex is an act of acknowledging our own mortality, whether we know it or not. Sex becomes one of the first moments in life where freedom and responsibility arrive together.

What makes It Follows so unsettling isn't that the monster can kill you. Plenty of horror villains can do that. It's that the entity embodies something we all eventually discover: there is no escaping consequence, no returning to innocence, and no certainty that the danger behind us has truly gone away. Like Jay, in the film's final shot, all we can do is keep walking and hope whatever follows never catches up.

4/5 - A very well-crafted horror about everything ‘in-between’.

THE SMALL PICTURE AND THE BIG PICTURE

I recently had the pleasure of watching the Kane Parsons horror production The Backrooms which is based on the directors hit YouTube ‘found footage’ videos that were a viral sensation in 2022. Parsons was inspired by an earlier 4Chan thread with photographs telling a CreepyPasta type story about this hidden realm of rooms with hidden horrors.1

Growing production company A24 took a chance on Parsons, paired him with Will Soodik (a writer with many television credits such as Ash Vs. The Evil Dead, Homeland, and Westworld), and gave him a 10 million dollar budget to bring his YouTube success story to the silver screen. At only 20 years old the director took the opportunity and ran with it.

The ‘small picture’ of this story is that Parsons made a pretty dang good horror film on his big screen debut. The cinematography is undeniably sharp with particular beauty coming from the camera movements and lighting. Parsons and Director of Photography Jeremy Cox use shadows and angles to constantly make the viewer anticipate what will be around the next corner of the infinite rooms. The movie seems to have an understood lore in its background even if the audience isn’t always let in on the secret I would say there always seems to be a purpose behind what rooms we see and when.

The ‘big picture’ of this film is two-fold. One, this is the second (relatively) indie horror film in just three weeks to absolute shatter box office expectations and everyone is talking about it. Backrooms and Obsession have both earned their budgets back multiple times over and surpassed the newest Star Wars entry as the number 1 and 2 movies of their perspective weekends. Both indie horrors, both young directors (Parsons being 20 and Curry Baker 27), both low-budget, and both absolutely crushing it in theaters with no sign of slowing down.

Secondly, Backrooms has been the subject of a very strange conspiracy theory surrounding Parsons that I believe speaks volumes to the reaction we collectively have for young-adult success stories. Both of these ‘big picture’ items warrant a little more discussion, but first a few more praises for the film.

WHY DOES IT WORK?

Backrooms works firstly for the reason highlighted above, it is genuinely a really well made horror film. Anyone who has been discussing it this past week has probably either heard or said the words ‘liminal space’. The movie is about liminal spaces and really shows the eeriness of the in-between exceptionally. Where Backrooms struggles (only slightly) is in its script.

The film moves along at a well-paced clip of weirdness, having Chiwetel Ejiofor’s character of Clark discover and explore the backrooms. I was engaged with the mystery and strangeness of the maze for 3/4 of the movie and even continued to enjoy the ambiguous trip of Renate Reinsve’s character Mary as she went searching for Clark. However, the pace comes to a very strange screeching halt near the final sequences when Mary and Clark sit down in one of the rooms and have a therapy session about Clark’s rage. It was a jarring change of pace and took me out of the story for a minute. Some viewers may be upset at the ambiguity of the entire film, if you go into this movie seeking definite answers you will be disappointed, but I personally don’t mind being left to question. The one problem I had was the sequence that seemed stripped from an entirely different screenplay and placed in front of the audience for, well, I don’t know what it was for.

This one pacing problem and maybe a few minor dialogue flaws are not nearly enough to hold horror fans away. Backrooms is anxiety inducing, creepy, and well-executed. I think the movie is also working so well because it caters to its audience perfectly. If you, like me, grew up being the weird kid who listened to CreepyPasta horror stories and reading books I probably shouldn’t have (looking at you Pet Semetary) than this movie is for you. Parsons tapped into a generational feeling previously enjoyed by the horror YouTube viewers.

LIMINAL SPACE: BOTH THE MOVIE AND ITS MOMENT

Though the term ‘liminal space’ is often associated with eeriness or a place of unsettling nature, the term literally refers to in-between places.2 To picture liminal spaces just think of doctor’s office waiting rooms, hotel hallways, most of the American freeway system. All of these are transitionary places we occupy when change is happening whether big or small. Change is frightening for most people so it makes sense that these empty places of change are so anxiety inducing.

Backrooms is certainly about literal liminal space. The title ‘backrooms’ are wide open spaces of transition and mystery. The movie gives many hints that the backrooms are formed by the human psyche and memory creating terrifying remnants of our own transitory lives. On the bigger picture question, however, I believe Backrooms as a whole project could be a ‘liminal space’ of sorts.

We are in a terrifying time for media. AI slop is trying to conquer the culture, ‘media literacy’ is talked about constantly, and movie studios have been scrambling to make a success out of a struggling film industry. In the midst of this came Obsession and Backrooms two indie horror films that touched on the anxieties of their time and have shown that passion projects from young artists can succeed. The problem is will the message be heard? Or will both of these films become a liminal space of change that goes nowhere?

One reason I am nervous that the message is ignored has been the conspiracy surrounding Kane Parsons. Not long after the buzz for Backrooms began to pick up a myriad of reddit threads, twitter posts, and YouTube shorts began to release claiming Parsons used a much older and more experienced ‘ghost director to make his movie. Now, this probably was just ‘shit-posting’ (as it is often referred to) for the sake of engagement, but many people probably genuinely bought it. The same conspiracy began to surface about Curry Baker after Obsession became a smashing success.

Will ‘Hollywood’ get the hint that audiences crave original stories made by young passionate directors? Or will they just hire every successful YouTube filmmaker to make the next Marvel project? Whichever way the path goes I am convinced we are at a time of change. Backrooms may be a creepy tale about liminal spaces and the human mind, but it could also be a liminal space itself. Lets see which backroom the film industry turns to next.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I highly suggest hopping on the hype train for Backrooms. You will likely be confused at times but lean into the weirdness and you will enjoy your time at the movies.

Our rating system: 1)Don’t waste your time not worth it. 2) Entertaining but hardly art. 3) Good not great. 4) Excellent worth discussing. 5) Masterpiece/Instant Classic

Hello dear readers, my apologies for the delay, this should have co…

Read more

"Sir, is a term of respect -- and you will have my respect until you abuse it."

• C.C.

A Coach Who Redefined Winning

When people talk about great fictional coaches, names from many films come up, yet Coach Carter from the film Coach Carter stands in a league of his own. His story is not just about basketball, and that is exactly what makes his impact so powerful. While most sports films focus on victories, championships, and dramatic final shots, Coach Carter shifts the focus toward discipline, accountability, and long term success beyond the court. This difference is what elevates him from a typical movie coach to one of the most memorable and influential figures in sports storytelling. Coach Carter does something that many others avoid. He challenges the idea that winning games is the ultimate goal. Instead, he presents a deeper vision of success, one that includes education, character development, and personal responsibility. In a world where athletes are often celebrated only for performance, his approach feels bold and refreshing. He makes it clear that basketball is just a vehicle, not the destination. This perspective alone separates him from many fictional coaches who are driven by trophies and recognition. Coach Carter cares more about who his players become as men than how many games they win. That philosophy resonates with audiences because it reflects real life struggles and values. It also creates a story that feels grounded and meaningful rather than purely entertaining.

Discipline Over Talent

One of the most striking aspects of Coach Carter is his unwavering commitment to discipline. From the moment he takes over the team, he sets clear expectations that go far beyond practice and games. Players are required to maintain a certain grade point average, attend classes regularly, and dress professionally on game days. These rules are not negotiable, and that is what makes them effective. Many fictional coaches rely on emotional speeches or last minute inspiration to motivate their teams. Coach Carter takes a different route. He builds structure and demands consistency. When his players fail to meet academic standards, he locks the gym and cancels games, even though the team is undefeated at the time. This decision shocks everyone, including the players, parents, and school officials. What makes this moment so powerful is that it shows true leadership. It would have been easy for him to ignore the academic failures and continue winning games. Instead, he chooses to uphold his values, even when it costs him popularity and success in the short term. This kind of integrity is rare not just in films but in leadership stories overall. Discipline in Coach Carter is not about punishment. It is about preparation for life. By holding his players accountable, he teaches them habits that will serve them long after their basketball careers are over. This focus on long term growth rather than immediate gratification is a defining trait of a great coach.

A Mentor Beyond the Court

Coach Carter is not just a coach. He is a mentor, a role model, and in many ways a father figure to his players. Many of them come from challenging backgrounds, facing poverty, violence, and limited opportunities. Instead of ignoring these realities, he confronts them head on and provides guidance that extends far beyond basketball. He takes the time to understand his players as individuals. He recognizes their struggles and pushes them to believe in themselves. One of the most memorable aspects of his character is his insistence that his players see their own potential. He refuses to let them settle for less, even when they doubt their own abilities. This mentorship is evident in the way he communicates. He is firm but fair, demanding but supportive. He does not sugarcoat the truth, yet he always speaks with purpose. His words carry weight because they are backed by action. When he tells his players that they are capable of greatness, he proves it by investing in their growth. Unlike many fictional coaches who focus only on team dynamics, Coach Carter emphasizes individual transformation. Each player has a personal journey, and he plays a key role in shaping those journeys. This depth adds emotional richness to the story and strengthens his legacy as a coach who truly cares.

Courage to Stand Alone

Greatness often requires the courage to stand alone, and Coach Carter exemplifies this trait throughout the story. His decision to lock the gym is perhaps the clearest example. It puts him at odds with nearly everyone around him, including the school administration and the community. People question his methods and criticize his priorities. Despite the backlash, he does not back down. He remains committed to his principles, even when it would be easier to compromise. This willingness to face opposition is what makes him a powerful character. He is not driven by approval or recognition. He is driven by a belief in what is right. This courage also inspires his players. At first, they resist his rules and question his authority. Over time, however, they begin to understand his intentions. They see that his actions are rooted in genuine care and a desire to help them succeed in life. This realization transforms their attitude and strengthens their bond as a team. Coach Carter teaches an important lesson about leadership. It is not about being liked. It is about making decisions that serve a greater purpose. His ability to stay true to his values, even under pressure, is a key reason why he stands out among fictional coaches.

A Lasting Legacy of Impact

The true measure of a coach is not just in wins and losses but in the impact they leave behind. Coach Carter succeeds in this regard in a way that few fictional characters do. By the end of the story, his players have not only improved as athletes but also as students and individuals. They develop confidence, discipline, and a sense of direction. His influence extends beyond the team. He challenges the entire community to rethink its priorities. He sparks conversations about education, responsibility, and the role of sports in young lives. This broader impact adds another layer to his greatness. What makes his legacy even more powerful is that it feels realistic. The challenges he addresses are real, and the solutions he offers are grounded in effort and commitment. There is no magic formula or easy fix. Success comes from hard work, accountability, and belief in oneself. Coach Carter remains one of the greatest fictional coaches because his story goes beyond the typical sports narrative. He represents a vision of leadership that prioritizes character over convenience and growth over glory. His lessons continue to resonate with audiences because they reflect values that are timeless and universally relevant.

In the end, Coach Carter is not just a character in a film. He is a symbol of what coaching can and should be. His approach challenges both players and viewers to think differently about success. That lasting impression is what secures his place among the greatest fictional coaches of all time.

Our rating system: 1)Don’t waste your time not worth it. 2) Entertaining but hardly art. 3) Good not great. 4) Excellent worth discussing. 5) Masterpiece/Instant Classic

Here We Go

This movie absolutely rocks. What? Did the article title make you thin…

Read more

4/5 Excellent

“ A man can be an artist... in anything. Food, whatever. It depends on how good he is at it. Creasy's art is death. He's about to paint his masterpiece. "

- Rayburn

A Man Lost in the Storm

Man on Fire 2004 opens with John Creasy, played by Denzel Washington, as a man who has already lived through too much. He is burned out, drinking heavily, a…

Read more

When I first saw this Steven Soderbergh movie as a teenager I was mortified—petrified even— at the possibility of a world collapse in a matter of weeks. In no way did I believe that people would brush off a deadly disease with such impunity or fail to understand how easily germs are transmitted. The movie felt like speculative fiction, …

Read more

What Glory Road Gets Right About Change

Against the backdrop of the Civil Rights movement, a true story was unfolding in the middle of nowhere Texas t…

Read more

THE PERFECT LAP

F1 recently garnered attention in many online reviews and from its Oscar nomination, but not many years ago another (I would argue superior) racing film was generating Oscar buzz online. Ford v Ferrari, the 2019 drama directed by James Mangold, centered around the famous battle of the two car companies in 1966 when Hen…

Read more

The film Warrior captured my heart in ways I did not expect. On the surface, this movie might feel like bravado incarnate and an excuse to enjoy combat from the couch. We have two brothers, MMA, a tournament, and a climactic fight. Granted, this is not necessarily the most accurate representation of mixed martial arts. Yet, at the heart…

Read more

Kent’s Rating : 4.5 / 5

Racing films have thrilled audiences for decades, yet few have ever captured the feeling of standing trackside as engines scream past at impossible speed. That changes with the arrival of F1, the electrifying racing drama starring Brad Pitt. From the …

Read more

HIGH RISK HIGH REWARD

I have lately been unintentionally fixated on movies about the dangers of ambition. Recently I watched the heart-wrenching biopic, the Iron Claw, and was pulled in by the phenomenal performances, the engagingly tragic story, and the …

Read more

“Legs feed the wolf gentlemen”

Most viewers remember Miracle for its triumphant final minutes at the 1980 Winter Olympics. They remember the scoreboard. They remember the eruption of the crowd. They remember the improbable victory over the Soviet Un…

Read more

A TRUE LOVE TRIANGLE

Demetri Martin told a rather hilarious joke once about how most ‘love triangles’ in movies and stories are actually love angles. The ‘love triangle’ is a common trope and I would argue Martin is correct with his joke. Guy loves girl, one line, other guy also loves girl, two lines, girl maybe struggles with her love of both guys, NOT…

Read more