Hello, this is a redirect to a review I wrote for The UCSD Guardian about the new Andrew Dominik film Blonde.

You can read it here.

Thank you.

Hello, this is a redirect to a review I wrote for The UCSD Guardian about the new Paul Thomas Anderson film Licorice Pizza.

You can read it here.

Thank you.

This article was originally published on the independent publication Sciberr News.

The 93rd annual Oscars premiered Sunday night in LA’s Union Station with no host this year. Instead of being delivered remotely, awards were received in front of a small crowd of nominees with music curated by Questlove.

Nomadland proved to be the night’s sweeper, winning three out of its six nominations. Not only did it win best picture, but Frances McDormand won best actress in a leading role for her performance in the film.

Director, Chloé Zhao, won best director for her work on the film, making her the first woman of color to take the category.

The only other woman to win best director was Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker in 2009.

Anthony Hopkins, who won best actor in a leading role for his performance in The Father, also made history by becoming the oldest person to win an Oscar.

This year the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award was given to Tyler Perry, who received an entire segment covering his humanitarian work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

You can find all nominations and wins on the Oscars website.

It was recently announced by Deadline that, beloved Marvel character, Spider-Man would no longer be present in the MCU due to legal issues with Sony. Since the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spider-Man films back in the mid-2000s Sony has owned all film rights for the usage of the Spider-Man character. However, in order to include Spider-Man in the MCU, Disney, who owns Marvel Studios, made an agreement with Sony. Up until now that agreement had long stood and carried them into Spider-Man: Far From Home.

The deal was simple and went something like this: Marvel would only attain 5 percent of first-dollar gross. So that initial box office day Sony receives an overwhelming amount of that. It seems like a bad deal until you realize that their agreement also meant that Disney would get one hundred percent of all merchandise sales. Which if Frozen was any indicator means that Disney would receive adequate compensation for the usage of the Spider-Man property.

Now after the release of Spider-Man: Far From Home and the announcement of the fourth phase of the MCU, Disney came back for a new deal which ultimately shook their creative ties with Sony. Disney’s new deal entailed a fifty-fifty co-financing arrangement between the studios. However, seeing that Spider-Man: Far From Home had just become Sony’s highest-grossing film of all time, they obviously declined the offer entirely. So now it would seem that all future MCU endeavors would have to continue without Spider-Man and any film using that IP would no longer include Kevin Feige as the lead producer.

However, this isn’t the only messy part of the story. Sony Pictures took to twitter to tie up a few loose ends and explain their thoughts on the matter specifically about Feige. The internet wasn’t ecstatic about it, to say the least. The hashtag “SaveSpidey” is now trending on twitter guided by a large group of people that have no idea what they’re actually talking about. Many are quick to villanize Sony for their apparent lack of understanding but simply just taking a step back to analyze the situation further will make the situation more clear.

Firstly, its about money for both sides. Many are claiming Sony is greedy simply because they didn’t want to extend the deal toward Disney more than they already were but one has to understand that this deal has stood for as long as Spider-Man has been in the MCU. That’s a three-year deal Disney was trying to completely flip on its head right after Spider-Man: Far From Home became Sony’s top-grossing film since Skyfall back in 2012. It’s astonishingly obvious why Sony would be hesitant about sharing their most valuable property.

Secondly, Sony has always owned Spider-Man. The Sam Raimi trilogy of Spider-Man films is essentially what kicked off the superhero film craze that has since become an industry standard. They got to the property first and did it playing square. It is their property which they are licensing out to another company. What they’re doing isn’t slimy or corrupt, it’s business.

Thirdly, it was Disney’s decision not to continue the deal and Feige’s to leave. There were plenty of negotiations that could have been met but Disney was simply not interested in that. It was reported in the Deadline exclusive that, Sony representatives did attempt to make configurations to their original deal, likely ones that would have accommodated their already established agreement. However, those were declined as well. So they reached an impasse and Disney ultimately dropped out and Feige severed ties with Sony himself. All due to the fact that they couldn’t take half of a property they never owned, to begin with.

It’s incredibly easy to shift the blame on to an unpopular company. Sony, who completely failed with their Spider-Man reboot back in 2012 and 2014, hasn’t received the best press since and isn’t the only offender in this situation. I implore everyone to look at the finer details before judging the two companies. Is Sony the lazy money-hungry entity trying to take credit for another company work or are they simply trying to take control of a property they own from an industry powerhouse that already owns many others? Well, that’s really up for you to decide, because with great power comes great responsibility.

Euphoria is another one of those, teenage centric, celebrity produced, originals that, in the same vein as 13 Reasons Why, attempts to capture the true wonder and mystery of adolescence. Over the span of a few months, its garnered a very large fanbase and many are calling it one of the most brutally honest depictions of teenage life on television. While I beg to differ since this show was created by a man who hasn’t been in high school in 16 years, beneath all the dramatization there are a few painful truths that lie beneath.

Based on an Israeli series of the same name, Euphoria was created by Samuel Levinson, an American actor, screenwriter, and director.  Much of the show was based on the original series as it prominently features teens struggling with a life that mainly consists of drugs use and sex. However, Levinson’s personal struggles with drug abuse during his formative years also served as inspiration for those sections. That is the main crux of the story. The drug abuse, the misery that is bound to come with it, the struggles of attempting to quit, and the despair of failing several times.

When asked by an ATX representative about what separates Euphoria from the ongoing slew of dark, teenage melodramas, Levinson gave a non-commital answer saying he believed it was up to the audience to find their own answer. While this isn’t necessarily false it’s definitely unsatisfactory. So in an effort to defend a show I genuinely enjoyed, I will attempt to answer this question as well as how it holds up against actual contemporary highschool.

Firstly no, Euphoria is not the most realistic depiction of teenage life. It nails some things, completely misfires on others, and at some points just barely misses its mark. I will always maintain that the most realistic depiction of teen life is one that will actually cast teens as its lead actors. However, what Euphoria manages to ger right are typically what matters most to its central plot. Let’s discuss that first.

The drug addiction elements are right. The main character, Rue, throughout the show faces the ongoing challenge of substance abuse. The pain her family, friends and fellow NA members feel are very much indicative of how their real-life counterparts feel. Most people around me ended up falling into drugs during my high school life and along with them, I was forced to suffer the consequences. It’s the most gripping part of the story and therefore is most informed by real-life experience. I was never stupid enough to fall into such tendencies so my experience was very similar to Maude Apatow’s character Lexi Howard.

Lexi is a bystander, silently watching, and sometimes subject to the antics her drug-crazed, hormone influenced friends and family often find themselves getting into. She’s the one with the least amount of issues on the show and is also my favorite character. One may call her lazily written but there are a lot more Lexi’s out there than one would think. In the last episode, her character starts to get deconstructed which is all too real. She is mainly seen interacting with Rue despite the fact that her older sister, Cassie, is another prominent character in the show.

Cassies struggle has to do with her reputation and how her life is affected by it, which is another pretty realistic part of the show. During the show, she dates another character Mckay who just so happens to be in college. This is pretty common in high school but the most faithful facet of it has to do with how Cassie is typecast. She has to deal with the “slut” stereotype and because of that, she is treated differently by most men in the show. It’s somewhat painful watching this character interpreted. The only other couple on the show is Nate and Maddy which encapsulates the on again off again abusive couple. From their relationship derives the internal struggles between both of them characters which are pretty real in themselves.

I suppose if there was one thing that the show really struggled with it was with its writing. Toward the last stretch of episodes, the writing really begins to unravel and reveal awkward plot elements and holes. What Euphoria fights with the most is a classic case of “people don’t talk like that” or in this case “teenagers don’t talk like that.” While it may sound like I’m generalizing a lot here there really are some moments where the kids don’t really talk like kids.

I understand that there are some liberties that have to be taken as an adult writing for youths. However, some moments are utterly uncharacteristic. I do like that each character has their own level articulation, in the sense that some are very clearly more eloquent than others. However, in some cases, this has put Levinson into a corner and at times he’s had to make some characters more rational than they should be. Personally, I think Rue shouldn’t be as intelligent as she is in the show. She’s a drug-addicted teenager who as far as I know never excelled in school. While that doesn’t necessarily inform social ability as far as I’m concerned she should be grunting to communicate. It’s especially annoying during her moments of narration, she speaks like she’s reading off a script and not like she’s coming up with these thoughts herself.

I understand the initial question I posed was what made Euphoria stand out among its contemporaries however I wanted to explain those things before I answered it. I think what sets Euphoria apart from other shows like it, is that unlike them it doesn’t feel like a product. 13 Reasons Why has a commercial purpose, it attempted to jackpot off the current trivialized view of depression society has. On the other hand, Euphoria is very much a story personally tied with Samuel Levinson. Yes, it’s based off another show but Levinson purposely parallelled his life to it in order not to muddle its artistic integrity.

Euphoria isn’t a cautionary tale about drug abuse, although one could certainly take it that way. It’s more so telling the story that’s gripped its creator since their childhood. Look at the artistic choices in the show, its cinematography and focus on spectacle rather than the message. Even the last episode, despite being structurally faulty, the very final scene is so stylishly flared that its impossible to not recognize the passion and heart behind it. Euphoria is this surreal package that is just as confusing as the point of your life that it focuses on. It’s a good illustration of the simple fact that for as long as time continues to tick, the mystery of adolescence remains a mystery.

Homecoming was better, but at least they improved the CGI.

Inspired by a recent breakup Ari Aster has unveiled the follow up to his directorial debut film; Hereditary with an equally disturbing cult horror film simply titled: Midsommar. The film treads slightly different ground from his previous focusing entirely on an unsettling cult hidden deep within the Swedish forest. It’s in a similar vein to the cult seen at the end of Hereditary except they’re much more gruesome and frightening.

The film tackles themes of grief and the many struggles associated with a relationship. The film itself is very much as Aster describes it, “a breakup movie.” Whereas Hereditary focused on the horrors associated with family Midsommar takes a much more personal approach and focuses on two characters who are dating.

Once again, much like Hereditary Aster uses these dynamics in order to deconstruct them as a whole and for a second time, every young character seems to be really into drugs.

Throughout the film, the main couple, Dani and Christian, struggle with their intrinsic differences. The audience watches as their relationship slowly unravels before them all culminating into an astonishing climax and ending.

It’s everything you’d expect from a cult horror film but much more. Ari Aster’s cinematography and writing sensibilities seem to only get better with everything he sets his mind to. Lucky for cinema his time of filmmaking has only begun.

Midsommar is playing in theaters right now.

In many ways, Tony Stark and The Mad Titan Thanos are very similar people. However, in many other more significant ways they are fundamentally different. There was a popular meme that circulated that posed the question of six children and three chairs. Many famously said that Thanos would rather kill three of them while Tony would build three more. While it’s certainly meant to be more humorous than anything else, this also perfectly demonstrates the crucial disparity between Tony and Thanos. Regardless of their similarities, they will always be marked by one stark contrast, pun intended.

The battle between Tony and Thanos is one of the few solo battles any avenger gets with the mad titan. Its purpose is instrumental to the overarching character progression of Tony and the overall tone of the film. Infinity War is very much about Thanos rather than the Avengers. The story is about his journey, to achieve what he believes is a perfect balance. Throughout the film, the audience is constantly reminded through his misadventures that behind almost every villain is a person who truly believes they’re right. Recall that once confronted about his heinous actions by his daughter Gamora, Thanos claims he’s the “only one that knows” that the resources of the world are finite.

The battle between Tony and Thanos is as much about brains as it is about brawn. The power of Tony’s sheer intellect has surmounted itself into his nanotech, armor that can literally morph itself into anything he desires. Thanos’ infinity gauntlet is the epitome of his endeavors he spent who knows how long meticulously planning. It’s abundantly clear both of these men are intelligent. Thanos himself claims that they’re both “cursed with knowledge.”

While the audience has been aware of the underlying similarities between the Mad Titan and the Ironman this is the first time we’ve been made overwhelmingly aware of it. From this, its clear Thanos considers Tony and equal in some respects. Tony refuses to accept their similarities and in his usual snarky fashion responds to Thanos with, “my only curse is you.” Then, the fight ensues.

The fight itself is rather short, at only a minute and a half long. However, much is shown in that battle that adds to both characters. Tony was the first Avenger to make Thanos bleed, a feat that is made much grander once you realize the Russo Brothers have gone on record to say that Thanos has invincible skin. This truly shows the extent of Tony Stark’s power and intellect and, on the other hand, how even at his most powerful, Tony still couldn’t win. Even so, Thanos is impressed if not a bit patronizing. When he tells Tony that he has his respect it almost sounds completely genuine. This line also serves as a reinforcement of the duality between the two.

The battle between Tony Stark and Thanos is one of the most important of the MCU. It’s defining, climactic and most of all, entertaining. These are two larger than life characters bought together by what seems like fate finally meeting face to face. It’s as grandiose as it sounds, and a true spectacle. If only it didn’t end so bitterly.