A SOAP MOPERA: a review of "Joy"

"JOY"
Story by Annie Mumolo and David O. Russell
Screenplay Written by David O. Russell
Directed by David O. Russell
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

Now this is much more like it!!

To faithful readers of Savage Cinema, you are more than aware of my loathing of Writer/Director David O. Russell's "American Hustle" (2013), so I will not burden you with any re-hashings. That being said, I hated that film so very much that it made even the idea of seeing his latest effort a possibility. No, I didn't wish to give up on Russell as I have long admired his purely idiosyncratic nature as a filmmaker. But even so, the quality control of his entire output has been wildly uneven.

From his strong, early independent features like "Spanking The Monkey" (1994) and "Flirting With Disaster" (1996) and his truly great films like "Three Kings" (1999) and "Silver Linings Playbook" (2012), we have also been given the highly ambitious but outright messy "I Heart Huckabees" (2004) and overrated and surprisingly pedestrian "The Fighter" (2010). I suppose that as I look over Russell's filmography, I have enjoyed more than I have not. But, when he misses...

Anyhow, and now that both my cinematic trips to Quentin Tarantino's old west and certainly, J.J. Abrams' wonderful journey to that galaxy far, far away are behind me, I felt it was time to take the plunge back into David O. Russell's film universe. Thankfully and surprisingly, "Joy" is easily one of his finer efforts. With a rich storytelling canvas that is exploratory, complex, unorthodox and complete, Russell, like Tarantino and Abrams, has delivered a movie filled to the tip top with story and a collective of characters so involving, the end result felt akin to reading a terrific novel. Additionally, he has proven that his cinematic relationship with Jennifer Lawrence was no fluke, as "Joy" marks their best collaboration to date.

Loosely based upon the life of inventor/entrepreneur Joy Mangano, "Joy" stars Jennifer Lawrence as Joy, a divorced single Mother of two young children, living in an increasingly dilapidated house on the South Shore of Long Island. While employed as a booking clerk for Eastern Airlines, the threads of Joy's life are gradually and rapidly being stretched thinner and thinner as she also cares for her depressed, shut-in, soap opera obsessed Mother, Terri (Virginia Madsen), as well as her ex-husband Anthony (Edgar Ramirez), who lives in the basement, her supportive Grandmother Mimi (Diane Ladd) and now, her Father, Rudy (Robert DeNiro), newly divorced for the third time, now contentiously sharing the basement with Anthony and running a failing auto repair shop at which Joy also performs duties as an accountant and book-keeper.

After a short spell from his third divorce, Rudy soon begins dating Trudy (Isabella Rossellini), a wealthy widow who possesses a strong head for business. On a wintry afternoon as the family takes a boat ride with Trudy, a spill of red wine on deck inspires the ever inventive Joy with an idea to create what would eventually become the Miracle Mop. But the road from idea to lucrative success is a long, complicated, arduous one with fraudulent deals, increasing to the point of nearly devastating financial costs, endless needling from her bitterly competitive sister Peggy (Elisabeth Rohm) to even attempting to find a home upon the fledgling QVC network at which she feverishly tries to win the favor of QVC Executive Neil Walker (Bradley Cooper).

While Joy remains intrepid, are the qualities of intense tenacity and innate creativity enough to achieve her dreams of financial stability and ultimately, her independence?

As previously stated, David O. Russell's "Joy" is a veritable feast of a film with more than enough story, twists and tuns of the plot and a rich band of characters to weave into a sumptuous whole. Like Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight," Russell's film is not in any bit of a hurry to get anywhere (a quality that Russell unfortunately does not handle as well as Tarantino as there are some bits here and there that drag). But Russell does indeed continuously and consistently ups the stakes and increases the personal turmoil for Joy, making her a protagonist that you not only root for vigorously, you truly feel the grueling nature of her odyssey quite effectively. When she hits a wall, you definitely feel the fall and sense of failure. But when she scores, the lift is unquestionable.

While Jennifer Lawrence, now at the age of 25, has been criticized for perhaps being too young to take on this role, I felt that she once again exhibited a tremendous sense of command and empathy. Often, as I watched, I found her to be almost a spiritual cousin to cinema's long beleaguered George Bailey from Frank Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life" (1946) as Joy is presented to be a genuine, decent person who tirelessly gives of herself for the betterment of her family, regardless of how dysfunctional and maddening that they all happen to be. Often at the expense of her own well-being and sanity, Joy accepts these people for whom they are and without judgement, even when she has more than enough rights to feel judgmental and even resentful of those who consistently make her life difficult to the point of misery, exhaustion and at times, psychological despair that invades her dreams.

For some, the towering high level to which David O. Russell places obstacles in front of Joy may feel to be excessive, but here is where I thought that Russell displayed a certain creative touch that makes his film stand out. Yes, there is a certain sense of heightened reality at work, as if Joy's journey from rags to potential riches, which admittedly, Russell presents as nearly Sisyphean, is essentially the fable of the American Dream where that can-do, steadfast attitude can ultimately reward with a wellspring of fortunes. Now, we know that sort of concept is entirely relative but even so, that framework does sit at the heart of "Joy."

But for me, I felt that David O. Russell had even more fanciful ideas with this story and the level of trials and tribulations that our bruised yet undaunted heroine would undertake. To me, "Joy" often felt to be cut from the same cloth as a film like Tim Burton's "Big Eyes" (2014), which possessed a certain adult fairy tale quality. Who else is the character of Joy but a modern day version of Cinderella, the perpetually put-upon heroine on which the stars will ultimately shine? But, even further, "Joy" feels to be David O. Russell's real world version of nothing less than the soap operas Joy's Mother is addicted to, a story where our unstoppable heroine is beset by all manner of pitfalls from which she will hopefully overcome.

Yet unlike fairly tales and soap operas, Joy, and powerfully so, is never waiting for her Prince (or anyone for that matter) to rescue her. In fact, any potential suitors never arrive within this story, an element that was indeed strongly refreshing. Joy is the sole heroine of her life and this film spins a tale where we witness how her ingenuity, her cunning, her integrity, her accessibility, her uncompromising nature and pureness of heart and spirit will combine to be her sources of strength in an unforgiving world where life owes none of us even one single thing. Unlike in "American Hustle," where I felt that Russell left Lawrence completely stranded, with "Joy," the two are working in lockstep rhythm. It is as if Russell is throwing the absolute perfect pitches for Lawrence to always hit that grand slam and their collaboration is so tightly focused that it makes me anxious to see what they come up with next time.

Most of all, I admired "Joy," the film and character, as we now have another film where the female lead is the one who exists as the full engine driver of the story, much like we have seen this year with Charlize Theron in George Miller's "Mad Max: Fury Road," Rebecca Ferguson in Director Christopher McQuarrie's "Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation," Daisy Ridley in Director J.J. Abrams' "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and even Jennifer Jason Leigh in Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight." Yes, most of those films exist within the fantasy realm where "Joy" is a real world drama, but the intent is precisely the same. The stories of all of those aforementioned films, and now "Joy," cannot exist without any of those actresses and their respective characters and none of them are ever defined by their sexuality and or prospective love interests. These women are ONLY defined through the content and actions of their characters. Certainly, this should not be a novelty but sadly, and eve in 2015/2016, it pathetically remains. But these roles are indeed a source of progress, and "Joy" does indeed make a very strong statement.

I suppose that this is how it is going to be with David O. Russell. Prolific, inventive, restlessly creative and consistently inconsistent. Whether I find his next feature to be great, or a failure or something in the middle, "Joy" is one that is not to be missed.

GREAT VENGEANCE AND FURIOUS ANGER: a review of "The Hateful Eight"

"THE HATEFUL EIGHT"
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
**** (four stars)
RATED R

8 for 8!!

"The Hateful Eight," proudly and brazenly announced as the 8th film from Writer/Director Quentin Tarantino in the opening credits, continues the controversial filmmaker's cinematic winning streak and then some!

Uncommonly gifted as a writer, storyteller and filmmaker, Quentin Tarantino's track record is essentially nothing but peaks and absolutely no valleys--the only difference stemming from how high each particular artistic peak happens to be. For my personal tastes, his latest film sits at the very top, right alongside the brilliant "Pulp Fiction" (1994), the orgiastic "Kill Bill" (2003/2004), the revisionist history revenge fantasy of "Inglorious Basterds" (2009) and especially, the astounding howl of moral outrage that was "Django Unchained" (2012).

His own body of work is a seriously tall order to follow to be certain, and yet here is Tarantino, once again, defiantly marching unafraid (or is that a swagger?) to his own beat, creating one distinctly idiosyncratic feature after another and his latest film, another Western, filmed in stunning, glorious 70 millimeter Panavision and displaying a cast of all stars including the inimitable Samuel L. Jackson, is one of the very best films of 2015 hands down. Naysayers may complain about Tarantino's public persona, his devotion to his own skills which could be read as insufferably arrogant. But let's face it. If you could write and direct a film like Quentin Tarantino, you have more than earned the right to be a bit arrogant. And with "The Hateful Eight," Tarantino has written and directed the hell out of his movie.

Set a few years after (yet still dangerously close to) the end of the Civil War, "The Hateful Eight" opens on snowy day somewhere in Wyoming as we meet the stranded war veteran turned bounty hunter Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson), adorned with three bodies of outlaws he plans to turn in upon arriving at Red Rock. After flagging down a horse drawn carriage occupied by bounty hunter John "The Hangman" Ruth (Kurt Russell) and his captive, the feral, viscious and racist Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh), to whom he has handcuffed himself, Warren is trepidaciously welcomed aboard, as is also another stranded war veteran, this time a Confederate, and the supposed new Sheriff of Red Rock, Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins).

Due to a rapidly approaching blizzard, the collective is forced to hunker down at Minnie's Haberdashery, a stagecoach lodge, for a few days, an obstacle that only increases the already powerful tension between the foursome. Yet, inside the haberdashery rest more individuals that complicate the proceedings. In addition to the surrogate proprietor Bob "The Mexican" (Demian Bechir), we meet the elderly Confederate veteran General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern), the reserved writer Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), and the officious, British and new Red Rock hangman Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth).

Over the course of one long, frigid night, stories are shared, suspicions are risen, and distrust is rampant before everything explodes into a voluminous bloodbath.

Quentin Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight" is a splendidly handsome production. Armed once again with his peerless dialogue and storytelling gifts, and stupendously aided by his stellar cast, longtime collaborator the legendary Cinematographer Robert Richardson, and even boasting Composer Ennio Morricone's first Western film score in 40 years, the film fully stakes its claim into your local cineplexes as a wide screen experience that demands to be first witnessed within a movie theater, not a flat screen television.

To that end, "The Hateful Eight," in actuality, is Tarantino's most theatrical production, something that could easily work upon the stage as so much of the film takes place within the haberdashery. To some, this decision may make the usage of 70mm film stock seem unnecessary, but on the contrary, the tactic works brilliantly as we are given the opportunity to study the complete span of space within the haberdashery, as Tarantino slyly wants us to watch what is happening in the background as well as the foreground, ratcheting up the intensity of his Agatha Christie/Alfred Hitchcock styled mystery which unfolds at a deliberate pace.

Yes, "The Hateful Eight" is a slow burn of a film. It is not in much of a hurry to get anywhere and for me, that was also a brilliant approach as we are then able to have as complete pictures of this multi-layered band of baddies as possible, to luxuriate ourselves within the stunning dialogue and also, as with the characters, we can embark upon the overall mystery as to what is or is not true, who is indeed who they claim to be or not. "The Hateful Eight" therefore is Tarantino's most interior film--even moreso than his calling card debut feature "Reservoir Dogs" (1992), the film to which this one mostly resembles. But, trust me, the interior nature is much grander that location, for within this film, Tarantino goes philosophically and psychologically deep, for his characters and frankly, the country itself.

Alongside "Inglorious Basterds" and "Django Unchained," I feel that with "The Hateful Eight," Quentin Tarantino has unleashed his largest, most wide-sweeping political statements to date. From the title, you already know that we will be dealing with a group of irredeemable characters. Yet, as we are subjected to the punishing verbal and physical brutality on display, the endless overt racial and sexual epithets hurled back and forth, and furthermore the fear of retaining some supposedly lost ideal of the United States plus the self-righteous and rage based idea of utilizing increasingly cruel vigilantism and vengeance as some sort of bastardized version of justice (labeled here as "frontier justice"), all of this sounds precisely like life in the 21st century doesn't it?

"The Hateful Eight" represents not only America's past but its precarious present and even exists as Tarantino's warning of its future should we continue to carry onwards from our current position, which as far as I am concerned is decidedly backwards from any progress that has been achieved over the 40 plus years that I have been in the world. In fact, I am wondering to some degree, if Tarantino himself is fearing that any progress made has actually been cancelled out due to the vitriol on display in our political discourse, the gun violence epidemic fueled by the (NRA financially backed) misreading of the 2nd Amendment, the consistent murders of African Americans at the hands of corrupt police officers and the institutionalized racism that offers no justice, the rampant racism that has pervaded our political speech from hopeful political leaders and especially, in the cowardly realms of social media where faceless individuals anonymously spout off the most inconceivable diatribes this side of the Nazi party's "Final Solution."

"The Hateful Eight" (with "Django Unchained" as its equal) offers Tarantino's most vehement cultural critique of America as well as a rightfully vulgar and merciless mirror to hold up to ourselves. In fact, both of the characters of Mannix and Warren utter perceptions that could easily be said today. For Mannix, he openly states that Whites are safest when Blacks are scared while Warren attests that Blacks are safest when Whites are disarmed, two views that represent the racial divide that has truly yet to be crossed, let alone healed. And returning to the metaphorical location of the haberdashery, we have to get deep and go downward into the basement, the ugliest basement to confront our country's darkest sins and monsters in order to have any hope of achieving some sense of release and ascension rather than endless retribution.

In fact, some of the film's greatest conflict is housed inside of Marquis Warren, the only Black character in the film, the one to whom I philosophically could understand the depth of his trauma and rage as being once a product of slavery, then a war veteran for the country that enslaved him and to then still confront the rampant racism of a country that never welcomed him. Armed with the intellectual brilliance of the finest detective and a letter that may or may not have been personally written to him by President Abraham Lincoln, Warren could be seen as a virtuous figure. But this is "The Hateful Eight" and no one is let off of the hook as Warren is also a man of pummeling cruelty (as especially witnessed during an especially nasty tale--that also may or may not be true--he weaves for the Old Confederate General) and he is indeed a figure consumed by blind retribution.

If you think back to "Pulp Fiction," and that climactic restaurant sequence set between hitman Jules Winnfield (beautifully played by Samuel L. Jackson) and would be criminal Pumpkin (also played by Tim Roth), where Jules, armed with a choice to murder in retaliation to Pumpkin's attempted robbery of him, ultimately relents. That is a level of personal evolution to which Warren has not even begun to find in himself, and frankly, how could he at a time so close to the literal end of a war that has only in fact, figuratively continued until this day.

There are charges of supposed sexism launched against "The Hateful Eight" as well regarding Jennifer Jason Leigh's manacled but no less ferocious character of Daisy Domergue. This woman certainly does take a severe beating throughout the course of the entire film but again Tarantino lets absolutely nobody off of the hook and the ironically named Daisy, in particular, is indeed profoundly reprehensible. She gives it even more than she takes it and Leigh goes full throttle, even in long stretches of the film where she has no dialogue. But, watch her body language at all times. She is as rabid as a caged wild badger.

Even so, I was curiously struck by audience reactions with the sexual and racial nature of the film. Whenever Daisy was punched or beaten by Kurt Russell's character, the audience often made audible gasps and recoiled in the horror of seeing a woman beaten so ruthlessly. Yet, whenever Samuel L. Jackson's character was forced to endure the stream of racist taunts and being addressed constantly as a "nigger" (which is again on massive display throughout the dialogue), there was silence throughout the audience.

To charges of Tarantino's perceived sexism, I reject those views as this is the man who gave us such full blooded heroines and anti-heroines in "Pulp Fiction," "Kill Bill," "Inglorious Basterds," "Jackie Brown" (1997) and "Death Proof" (2007). I think we can be able to handle a female villain as sadistically bloodthirsty as any of his male characters. But, you know, it was as if with "The Hateful Eight," Tarantino is playing a social game with all of us as to what we find acceptable or not. For if we are able to accept the humanity of a White woman regardless of how cold-blooded she is but not the humanity of a Black man no matter how cold-blooded he is, then how far have we really advanced as a society. Food for thought...

And now, we again come to the film's violence which is HARD R RATED extreme, such as it is for a Tarantino film. But trust me again, I found all of it, as gory as it becomes, to be as story driven as with any of his other films and he is a master of knowing what to display for effect, when to hold back and when to push hard. Frankly, I saw some trailers before this film that were more vulgar and recklessly violent than anything on display within "The Hateful Eight," because Tarantino takes the violence very seriously, and it is horrific to view...purposefully so.

That being said, this is a three hour film and it is nearly 80 minutes into the film before the first gunshot--to which there has been some of the criticism that we have essentially a 75 minute film elongated to an unjustifiable length. Yes, I guess it could be a 75 minute film--that is if you ejected all manner of story and character development just to get to the blood and bile. But this is a Quentin Tarantino experience, one that unfolds over six exquisite cinematic chapters and leaves no stones un-turned, giving you a film that is mesmerizing and explosive culminating in yet another towering achievement for this most unique filmmaker, who clearly  has much more on his mind than horses and bullets.

Saddle up, dear readers. For Quentin Tarantino's brilliant and brutal "The Hateful Eight" is one of 2015's very finest films.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JANUARY 2016

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!

Welcome to 2016, everyone!!! I am very excited to begin a new year at the movies with all of you and I hope that you are all ready to take the journey along with me. But first, there is some unfinished business from 2015 to attend to. 

In addition to my annual four part Savage Scorecard series, which wraps up the cinematic year of 2015 into a nice, big package, there are still some titles that I am compelled to see before tallying up my final lists.

On the last day of 2015, I saw Writer/Director Quentin Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight," so that review has yet to be written and posted for you. To hopefully join the ranks this month, will be the following features:

1. Director Alejandro G. Inarritu's "The Revenant" will have its wide theatrical release this month and I am hoping to see that one in about a week or so.

2. Writer/Director David O. Russell's "Joy," his third collaboration with Jennifer Lawrence, opened Christmas Day and I have yet to get to that one. If you have been keeping track on this site, you will remember that I loved "Silver Linings Playbook" (2012) while I loathed "American Hustle" (2013). Let's see where this one falls.

3. Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa," his first film since the singular "Synecdoche, New York" (2008), and animated as well...that one is very high upon my must see list. There have been no rumblings in my city concerning that film, so I may have to inquire as I do not wish to miss this one.

With that, I have more than enough to keep myself busy for the month, and perhaps a much needed new year's resolution for myself is to ensure that I get myself more rest so I am able to better keep pace with my own ambitions. We'll see...so, wish me luck...

...And I'll see you when the house lights go down!!!!!

SAVAGE CINEMA DEBUTS: "THE CHILDREN'S HOUR" (1961)

"THE CHILDREN'S HOUR" (1961)
Based upon the play by Lillian Hellman
Screenplay Written by John Michael Hayes
Directed by William Wyler
***1/2 (three and a half stars)

You know, this one took me by surprise.

Dear readers, I typically do not find myself in the habit of watching old movies. Not for any sense of prejudice I may or may not hold towards films older than myself, although I will admit to feeling that "old movies" do tend to read as "corny," a reaction that is nothing more than knee jerk and has often been proven wrong to me once I do actually sit down to watch. Director William Wyler's' "The Children's Hour" from 1961 is just such a film. While it was one that was undeniably hemmed in by the restrictions of the time period, it undoubtedly packed a hard, emotional punch, conveying ugly truths about our humanity that sadly still ring truthfully and loudly within the 21st century.

William Wyler's "The Children's Hour," based upon the original 1934 play of the same name by Lillian Hellman, and also a cinematic remake of his own "These Three" (1936), tells the sad, dark and infuriating tale of Karen Wright (played by Audrey Hepburn) and Martha Dobie (played by Shirley MacLaine), lifelong friends who have embarked upon their dream to open and run a private school for girls.

Martha's eccentric Aunt Lilly (played by Miriam Hopkins), also an aging actress, teaches elocution at the school, while additionally keeping somewhat dowdy Martha under her constant derision. The more elegant Karen, meanwhile, has been involved in a lengthy engagement to respected obstetrician Joe Cardin (a sharp James Garner), an engagement to which she has at long last accepted, and unfortunately,becomes another seismic element that only adds Martha's sadness as she fears Karen's marriage will take her away from their school, potentially leaving Martha alone.

Yet none of those day-to-day stresses compare a whit to the trauma caused by the relentlessly conniving, bratty and malicious Mary (played by Karen Balkin), a student prone to lying, stealing and even blackmailing her classmates. When Mary undergoes one transgression too many, leading her to be punished by Karen, she enacts her revenge by spreading a spiteful, vindictive, and wholly untrue rumor about Karen and Martha to her classmates and finally, to her wealthy, deeply influential Grandmother Amelia Tilford (played by Fay Banter). The rumor rapidly sends shock-waves throughout the school, threatening to inflict irreparable damage to both Karen and Martha.

Just by that description, I am certain that you are already able to guess what precisely the rumor Mary spreads in "The Children's Hour" happens to be. In fact, just as the movie was beginning (and even before the end of the opening credits) my wife happened to guess 100% correctly. To that end, knowing the contents of the rumor ahead of time will do nothing to spoil the actual viewing of the film. In fact, I think having the knowledge beforehand actually enhances the drama, making the film feel like that proverbial and unavoidable car crash that you are unable to do anything to stop from happening.

As I started watching, I do have to admit, that I was initially distracted by the old fashioned tenor of the piece, a certain chasteness of the times, I guess. But, very soon, jointly due to the often pointed nature of the dialogue as well as the performances overall, I found myself settling into the story. By the film's final sections, where the sense of melodrama increases greatly, the level of histrionics that would normally cause me to turn away rather revealed a powerful truth about human nature, the pain of love, an individual's existential crisis and the honest sense of tragedy that can so easily occur through just one person's unrepentant cruelty. Here is where William Wyler's "The Children's Hour" ceased to be just some "old movie" and transformed itself into something transcendent. And truthfully, I haven't been able to shake this one since having seen a few nights ago.

Both Audrey Hepburn and especially Shirley MacLaine were wonderful in the leading roles. While Hepburn's coquettish charms are initially upon display copiously, as the film continues and the lives of Karen and Martha begin to unravel, I was certainly impressed by Hepburn's subtle resolve and hard stoicism (especially during the film's emotionally brutal final moments). But mostly, I found myself very impressed with the various levels Hepburn approached her character of Karen, ultimately displaying a complex portrayal that really forces the audience to think about what exactly a "woman's role" in society could actually be.

To begin, let's take her reluctance to marry Joe, a quality that contains growing tension between the two and even makes their very first scene together crackle with a bit of frustration fueled nastiness on Joe's part. On the one hand, Karen is deeply focused upon her career with the school she has created alongside Martha and that is completely understandable that she would not wish to leave it all behind, essentially being forced to choose between her chosen career and marriage that she may not even fully desire in the first place. Even when she does accept Joe's proposal, throughout the remainder of the film, I always had the feeling that she wished that she hadn't succumbed to Joe's (rightful) pressure. (In Joe's full defense, he wished for nothing but to marry her and if she did not feel the same, then she owed it to him to reveal her intentions rather than keep him on deck, but I digress...)

Now, my feelings concerning whatever Karen's truest motives happened to have been do not strictly lie with her allegiance to her career and business relationship with Martha, I think we are meant to wonder if there are some other undertones to her feelings towards Martha. Just watch Hepburn from scene to scene, especially during the later sections of the film when life has fallen apart for both Karen and Martha. Watch how Hepburn wordlessly moves through sequences featuring just herself and MacLaine and I believe that you will find yourself questioning to what degree does Karen actually love Martha.

With regards to Martha, as played by Shirley MacLaine, the motives are crystal clear and provide "The Children's Hour" with its greatest sense of pathos. Yes, some of MacLaine's scenes are more on the melodramatic side, but I'm telling you, she floored me. Where Hepburn obviously carried the more glamorous appearance in the film, MacLaine was obviously geared to be more of the young, introverted, lonely spinster type. For me, she possessed a fragile beauty, as she carried a quietly devastating power that unearthed itself in sharp bursts in some of the film's early scenes and then exploded into a wrenching, painful, existential fury by film's end as she is forced to confront not only her deepest feelings for Karen but her entire concept of herself.

And herein lies the tragedy of "The Children's Hour," the paradox that occurs when a lie eventually is found to contain a level of truth, but a truth people are forced to confront completely not on their own terms or within their own specific time table. The character of the vitriolic Mary is despicable. Believe me, you will wish to reach inside of your screens and throttle the little beast because she is portrayed somewhere between exaggeration and reality. Honestly, there are some children this side of Damien skulking around in the world wishing for nothing but to make everyone share their misery.

What made me feel an increasing amount of anger as I watched "The Children's Hour" was not necessarily the bratty Mary herself but the ease in which she found herself able to lie for nothing else than her sense of childish self-preservation at the expense of anyone and everyone else around her. In fact, as I watched her, I found myself looking to events from my own life as a preschool teacher as well as events within the current political landscape where words are hurled around without thought of any sense of consequence whatsoever, especially when it comes to pervading prejudice and living through one's own fear of others different than oneself.

That fear based mentality combined with a wholly reckless behavior serves to cut wide and unforgiving swaths through individual's lives, a tragedy that is so sadly commonplace within our collective humanity and therefore, "The Children's Hour" is easily utilized as a parable, a means to hold up that much needed mirror to ourselves if we are to ever begin to understand the damage caused when we become piously judgmental. But the even greater tragedy for me remains as I think back to Martha as portrayed by Shirley MacLaine. I think of how everyone's journey of self discovery is so primal, personal and individualistic that it is nothing less than a crime to force another person to undergo lifelong transformation upon when they are not yet ready to acknowledge certain characteristics and qualities about themselves.

No, the film never announces "homosexuality" outright at any point but this is indeed the topic we are dealing with throughout the film and just imagine being a young woman in 1961, or rather anyone right now in 2015, who is entertaining questions about themselves and their sexuality. Shouldn't it be the right of each, individual person to be able to explore themselves when they wish to, if at all? With Martha, the rumor and the damage it ultimately causes for the school, Karen's impending marriage plus Joe's career (purely by association), brutally forces her to engage in her inner odyssey at a time when she was not ready, when she maybe wasn't even certain if she even had to embark upon such a journey anyway. It was a shock to the system. Too fast, too powerful and too soon and the effect was nothing less than an existential cataclysm. Again, the film's final scenes do indeed play to the melodrama of the time, and certainly didn't do the concept of addressing a person's homosexuality any favors as it does delve into the stereotypes of the time as well (lonely, never experiencing love, doomed to depression, etc...) but that being said, MacLaine delved deeply, unearthing the struggle poor Martha was not equipped to handle so rapidly and certainly within a public forum, where she is shamed, scorned, blamed and has soon become a public oddity or nasty curiosity.

How do we treat one another, acknowledge each other's similarities and differences, accept and admonish each other and especially based upon nothing but conjecture sits at the heart of William Wyler's "The Children's Hour," a heartfelt tale of love, lies and morality that is as essential to revisit in 2016 as it was to explore in 1961, 1934 and 1809, the year during which a real world event at a Scottish school involving two female teachers was the inspiration for the original play. Frankly, I would actually like to see a revival of this material for the 21st century but with people so divided, politically, racially, socially and spiritually, would anyone even take the time to listen anyway?

Yet, we should. So, for now, I invite you to place this film within your personal queues and settle in and I really think that when you experience the power of this film, and especially Shirley MacLaine's full performance, which equally moves from quaint and reserved to furious, shattered oblivion, may it remain housed inside of each of you just as it has for me.

HAPPY 6TH BIRTHDAY TO SAVAGE CINEMA!!

I will never be ceased to be amazed or thankful.

While I pledge to do my very best to keep my comments brief, I sincerely hope and wish that any sense of brevity upon my part is not misconstrued as being ungrateful. For honestly, how could I be ungrateful, when I owe so very much to all of you.

Six years ago, while vising my parents in Chicago over the holidays, I took a giant leap in my life by beginning this blog which I christened "Savage Cinema," based upon an ancient high school nickname that I have continued to utilize here and there. Now, six years later, I am sitting within the study (such as it is) inside of my own house as my wife and cats are sleeping soundly in the next room, and I am stunned to realize how much time has passed, how much I have written and most importantly, the wonderful support that I have continued to receive from all of you to keep pushing ahead and pursuing my dreams of writing about movies, an art form which I will forever cherish.

THANK YOU so very much for taking the time out of your busy lives to spend reading absolutely anything that I have written regarding movies that I have watched. Believe me, it is not lost upon me whatsoever that the world does not need any more film critics and that the internet specifically, does not need even one more voice chiming in about anything at all. But that said, I am humbled more than I can ever tell you about how endlessly appreciative I am if you have ever felt that anything I have contributed has been worth your time, and that you have found some sense of value.

It remains of the utmost importance to me to keep Savage Cinema a positive place for you to visit. Even when a review is negative, and even harshly so, I continue to pledge to not devolve into mindless vitriol. My greatest wish is to just be a good writer and in doing so, I always keep at the forefront of my mind that there is always a way to say something. I'm not writing to try and score points. I'm just writing because I love writing and I am hoping that if you  have been a frequent visitor over the years, you have been able to see some sense of growth amidst the purity of intent.

THANK YOU for all of your kind words and support, all of which propels me to the next review, the next month, the next year, the next...well, anything! Your kindness gave me a bit more courage than I ever could have mustered all by my lonesome. Your encouragement gave me the strength to not only keep pushing along with Savage Cinema, it gave me the strength to give birth to my music blogsite Synesthesia and to even begin releasing my creative writing upon a third blog devoted to a long gestating novel entitled Tales From Memorial Union. It is because of you that my creative life has taken such flight and as always, my gratitude is bottomless.

And now, I am about to begin Year Seven!! I still cannot believe it. And always know that I never could have achieved this feat without you.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!!

AMERICAN HUSTLE: a review of "The Big Short"

"THE BIG SHORT"
Based upon the novel The Big Short: Inside The Doomsday Machine by Michael Lewis
Screenplay Written by Charles Randolph and Adam McKay
Directed by Adam McKay
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
RATED R

I felt as if I was sitting at the kid's table all over again.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: star ratings are arbitrary. Yes, a quick glance at the amount of stars I award a film on a scale from zero to four would certainly give you a certain tenor to the way a film has affected me. But even so, stars do not give the entire picture. At this time, I turn your attention towards "The Big Short" from Director Adam McKay, who is primarily known for helming the likes of "Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy" (2004), "Talladega Nights: The Ballad Of Ricky Bobby" (2006), "Step Brothers" (2008) and "The Other Guys" (2010) as well as his comedic partnership with Will Ferrell as the co-creators of "Funny Or Die." 

While there are comedic moments sprinkled throughout "The Big Short," the laughs this time around come with a painful sting and truth be told, McKay has delivered his first drama, a social political diatribe against the rampantly corrupt financial system that caused the nearly cataclysmic crisis of 2008. Surprisingly and pleasantly so, McKay proves himself to be up to the challenge as his sense of moral outrage is palpable and it is clear that he wants to have audiences become equally as infuriated as he. But, the problem is that something got itself lost in the translation...or at least for me.

I am not sure, dear readers but there was something about "The Big Short" that kept me firmly at arms length despite all of the obvious skill of the writing and direction and the excellence of the performances from top to bottom. Frankly, I was confused. I was tremendously confused. With all of the financial terminology and jargon flying around from beginning to end, I found myself confused to the point of being lost over and again and nearly to the point of checking out of the experience altogether. "The Big Short" is by no means a bad film. Quite the contrary, I could easily find myself watching it again in the future. Going even further, I am willing to concede that it just might even be a great film, whose values have just been hidden from me during this initial viewing. But, all I am able to do at this time is to report to you about what I saw and how I feel right now, and to that, whatever successes "The Big Short" may possess has fully eluded me.

Opening in 2005, "The Big Short" introduces us to unorthodox hedge fund manager Michael Burry (Christian Bale), one of the very first individuals to discover the severe instability of the housing market due to the prevalence of high risk subprime loans that produce fewer and fewer returns. After predicting that the market will crash sometime in 2007, Burry also realizes that he just might be able to profit from this situation by betting against the housing market.

After catching wind of Burry's proposal, which has been accepted by the banks, a slick investor named Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), realizing Burry's predictions are true, wants in on the action. Soon, trader Mark Baum (Steve Carrell) and his team of business partners follow suit to profit at the public's expense, fully and frighteningly convinced of the inevitable collapse of the economy.

Additionally, we are also introduced to Jamie Shipley (John Magaro) and Charlie Geller (Finn Wittrock), two young investors who enlist the aid of retired banker Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt) to get a piece of the action, all of whom become increasingly horrified that they will each make out big winners by the time of the economy's apocalypse.

Adam McKay's "The Big Short," on the surface, may seem to exist as a completely engaging tale of a band of misanthropic outsiders who all figured out the financial doom to come and how they each profited from the crisis as well, as it is a vibrantly directed, fast paced film whose rightful and righteous anger only continues to rise to a furious boil over the course of its running time. McKay proves himself to be a strong dramatic filmmaker with a passionate outlook over seismic world events that is fueled through a feral inventiveness as well as the high quality of performances from his entire cast, including Steve Carrell, who again showcases his considerable dramatic chops with a furious indignation combined with a melancholic sorrow that was deeply impressive to view.

All of that being said, and again, I was lost, confused, and at times frustrated with the film (and quite possibly myself) for not being able to follow all of the financial and therefore Mathematical twists and turns. Truth be told, even in providing the plot description for you, I needed to perform a small bit of research as it is something that I would have been unable to explain to your extemporaneously.

For all of the talk of housing bubbles, subprime mortgages, credit default swap markets, collateralized debt obligations (CDO), synthetic CDOs, plus all of the deals, counter deals and so on, I have to admit that it was just all Greek to me as comprehension of these concepts is not my strong suit in the least, a hefty problem considering the entire film is loaded end to end with dialogue concerning nothing but these particular topics. To the film's credit, McKay seems to understand (somewhat) that mainstream audiences may be seated within the same boat as myself regarding the difficulties of digesting such complicated and confusing material and he addresses those concerns in a couple of very clever sequences where pop figures like Selena Gomez, seen at a gambling table, and Margot Robbie from Director Martin Scorsese's "The Wolf Of Wall Street" (2013), seen luxuriously in a bubble bath, each engage the audience directly to explain subprime loans.

Yes, very clever, sharp and indeed funny and informative. But even so, even as they were explaining, demonstrating, and eventually returning to the main action, I found myself lost all over again, realizing not only that the extra effort really did nothing to illuminate the proceedings but that possibly, the stunts were more self-serving to McKay than necessary. Trust me, dear readers, it's not as if I necessarily required McKay to "dumb down" the content for me. I just needed something to hang onto. Something that could be utilized as a "through line," to aid me through the constant morass of terminology that would therefore give greater weight to the main conceit of the film, which is that the country was intentionally screwed...and frankly, we're setting ourselves up to do it all over again.

On the one hand, I have been here before with other films in recent years. I remember vividly sitting in the theater watching Writer/Director Stephen Gaghan's political thriller "Syriana" (2005), casually peeking around the theater wondering if any of my theater patrons were as dumbfounded as I with the intricacies of petroleum politics and the oil industry. And there was also Writer/Director Tony Gilroy's adult corporate thriller "Michael Clayton" (2007), where its dense legal concepts which were filtered through a plot involving toxic agrochemicals also left me behind...only to catch up with me in a subsequent viewing sometime later. Like I said at the start of this review, in both of those cases, I felt as if I was sitting at the kid's table.

Even so, I am feeling that Adam McKay clearly has a message that he intensely wishes to convey to the general public about what has happened to us within the recent past and it did rub me the wrong way that he did not accomplish what seemed to be his primary goal: enlightening, and even enraging, the audience while also creating a strong film. Perhaps if McKay had approached the material from the heightened reality of satire, for instance, a greater connection would have been fused with me. But, "The Big  Short," for all of its aggressive, vitriolic energy, and breaking of the fourth wall by Ryan Gosling, is indeed fairly straight-forward film, yet so far inside, that the film began to feel more than a little impenetrable.

Yes, I can see this is precisely where quite a lot of McKay's rage filled incredulity is stemming from: the fact that the system and the wheelings and dealings grew to the point of such mass confusion, even within the main players, than how could the general public even catch on to the tragedy that was about to happen in the first place? These were concepts that were never meant to be understood! So, there was no way to gain a grasp over concepts that may as well be foreign. And still, I contest that somehow McKay could have devised a way to make his message understood as successfully as possible, something that truly is not impossible.

I think back to films like Director Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" (1987), which housed at its core a morality play and Father/son dynamics to help assuage the financial terminology on display throughout. Or even Director Michael Moore's excellent, infuriating satirical documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story" (2009), which also accomplished its hefty goals through his distinctly personal touch and political outlook.

But, Adam McKay's "The Big Short" unfortunately didn't operate on either of those high levels, try as it did. Again, I cannot hep to wonder if it was just me. But what if it wasn't? And honestly, what is the point of making a film designed for the masses if the masses are unable to understand?

FEEL THE POWER OF THE FORCE: a review of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens"

"STAR WARS: EPISODE VII-THE FORCE AWAKENS"
Based upon characters and situations created by George Lucas
Screenplay Written by J.J. Abrams & Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt
Directed by J.J. Abrams
**** (four stars)
RATED PG 13

I am overwhelmed. Powerfully overwhelmed.

Dear readers, as with so many millions of people around the world, the cinematic universe of "Star Wars" completely changed my life. I was 8 years old in 1977 and with eternal thanks to my Father, I saw the very first "Star Wars" film on its opening day, the very movie that made me love the art and artistry of the movies, as well as gathering the communal richness of having a shared experience in a roomful of strangers. "Star Wars" creator George Lucas instantly became one of the heroes of my life via the texture of his imagination, ingenuity, talent and creativity, and he remains so to this day, through all of the universally heralded sequels and the excessive--and I firmly believe--unfairly maligned prequels.

The stories that took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away with its heroes, villains and overall mythology has existed as some of the purest and most immersive cinematic storytelling that I have had the privilege to regard. The films have sustained me for so much of my life, that I honestly count this fact as nothing less than a blessing to have been there at the very beginning, when absolutely nobody knew what it all was and we all discovered it together with mouths held agape, minds completely blown and imaginations expanded far beyond anything we could have previously conceived.

Now over these past 35 years since the release of "Star Wars: Episode V-The Empire Strikes Back" (1980), the idea of the "Star Wars" universe consisting of a series of trilogies has been the source of excitement and confusion, entrancement and disappointment over and again. When I was a kid, the word was that there would be three trilogies, of which Episodes IV, V and VI made up the middle section. Yet by the release of "Star Wars: Episode VI-Return Of The Jedi" (1983), Lucas, unquestionably weary from over ten years of creating the films, declared the series finished.

By the time the controversial prequel trilogy was resurrected and began to arrive in 1999 and concluded in 2005, Lucas again declared the series finished, even proclaiming that there never were more than six films in the first place...a statement even challenged by Mark Hamill himself who explained that Lucas even once expressed that there would be twelve films in all. Regardless, the possibility of seeing Episodes VII, VIII and IX felt to be even more remote than ever and I actually began to put the idea out of my mind altogether as I was more than satisfied with the six we have been given and due to Lucas' advancing age, a new trilogy seemed highly unlikely.

Until now...

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens," officially Episode VII in the series and featuring the return of the iconic trio of Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia and Han Solo, is the installment I really felt would never see the light of day under any circumstances and I have to say my personal feelings on its road to fruition have been mixed at best. As we all now know, George Lucas has sold the rights of his creation to Disney, an empirical conglomerate if there ever was one. But, Writer/Director J.J. Abrams was put in place as the first to helm a "Star Wars" feature film without Lucas' direct involvement in any capacity, and to that, my excitement and interest grew. Because if there was any filmmaker that I could think of to pass this specific torch along to, it would be Abrams as his deep passion for "Star Wars" and his superior gifts with filmmaking and storytelling made him the perfect fit. Yet, as I have said throughout the making of this film, I trust J.J. Abrams. I do not trust Disney, especially as their plans to create "Star Wars" movies until the end of time smacks of nothing but the most shameless greed that I could think of, especially for material that is sacred to so many, and part of its magic rests in the fact that its cultural presence is not ubiquitous. Frankly, all I could hope for is for Disney to just leave Abrams completely alone and let him make the movie.

Thankfully, they did.

Picking up approximately 30 years after the events of "Return of The Jedi," which saw the destruction of the second Death Star, the end of the Empire and the redemption of Anakin Skywalker a.k.a. Darth Vader before his death, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" finds a new evil known as the First Order, risen from the ashes of the Empire, now underway to overtaking the galaxy, and partially led by the insidious and nearly unhinged dark side of the Force/Vader disciple Kylo Ren (Adam Driver).

This new intergalactic conflict finds its way to directly influencing the lives of Finn (John Boyega), a conflicted First Order Stormtrooper who defects to assist the Resistance, including ace X-Wing fighter pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), and most crucially, Rey (Daisy Ridley) a scavenger from the desert planet Jakku, whose chance meeting with a small, rolling droid named BB-8 sends her on a life altering odyssey that brings her face to face with Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Resistance General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) and the last Jedi Knight, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), figures she thought only existed in mythical tales of old and gone.

After so much wonder, worry, cautious curiosity and anxious anticipation, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is undeniably wonderful and I believe that J.J. Abrams was not only the perfect individual to bring the series back to the big screen, this was the film he was born to make. Remarkably, Abrams has devised a way to not only adhere to everything that has come before, as well as treat George Lucas' creation with the respect and reverence it deserves, Abrams also somehow made a film that the feverish fan base will eat up with a spoon while also possessing a personal stamp and artistic integrity. It is an impossible feat and like the best magicians, J.J. Abrams has essentially pulled the rabbit out of the hat, spun ten revolving plates and made an inanimate object disappear all at the same time!

Yes, this is a film that sits more comfortably with the pace, style and more tactile experience of the original trilogy rather than the synthetic dream worlds of the prequel trilogy. While I never had an issue with the massive usage of CGI technology in the prequels as I felt them to represent Lucas' vision in the most unfiltered fashion, there is also something to be said with viewing a world that does indeed feel to be more tangible, approachable and much less ephemeral. There is a weight to the objects, ships and characters that can be deeply felt within the film, therefore making the proceedings seem to be even more realistic despite their fantastical nature. The sands of Jakku almost feel as if they are settling within your pores even in a comfortable theater seat. The feeling of flight and the impact of interstellar combat is also powerfully noticeable. And having locations that are built by hand rather than machine does indeed infuse a you-are-there quality that has been missing in most feature films for quite some time, and the feeling, also vigorously present in Writer/Director George Miller's "Mad Max: Fury Road," is definitely welcoming.

In addition to those state of the art and seamless special effects, most importantly, J.J. Abrams ensures that with "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," the story and themes that have made the series what it is remain firmly intact, while also beginning to display some new threads, and the effect is possibly the most emotionally resonant in quite some time. Just as the previous two trilogies have contained echoes that play off of each other, Abrams has beautifully crafted some connective tissue between his film and the previous six episodes masterfully. While again, a lot of visual flourishes and touchstones contain primary references to the original trilogy, it is within the thematic elements where the connections exist at their most profound, and I would also argue, makes this film a particularly dark entry.

As with the past six episodes, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" continues George Lucas' amalgamation of Samurai films, Westerns, 1930's science fictions serials, Nazi propaganda images, and Arthurian mythology more than handsomely--a certain lightsaber possesses a most overt nod to Excalibur, the sword in the stone which can only be released by its rightful bearer. But, it is in the themes present in both the inaugural "Star Wars: Episode IV-A New Hope" (1977) and "Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace" (1999), where Abrams provides significant nods--the concept of the most unlikely individuals who find themselves caught within an extraordinary situation where they have the chance, or are forced, to become heroic.

While the pilot Poe Dameron is already aligned with the...ahem...forces of good, it is through the figures of Kylo Ren, Finn and Rey, where the eternal "Star Wars" questions of good and evil as they relate to the grander concepts of destiny and free will come into play and form the heart and soul of the film in the process. There have already been some minor criticisms that "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is too derivative and reverential to the original 1977 film, and to that I can understand, yet I disagree with that assessment. For me, the effect is entirely purposeful and essential to the larger existential themes of the series and the characters who populate this film universe. The questions are always variations of "Who am I?" and "Who am I destined to become?" and how the power of choice is crucial within the conflict between free will and destiny. With this installment, Abrams has successfully helmed a chapter that serves as a complete story while also setting up the larger, longer arcs of Kylo Ren, Finn and Rey and their ultimate destinations. Family legacies are paramount once again as are the revelations, triumphs and tragedies our characters face, and as far as the "Star Wars" universe is concerned, Abrams has given his characters a tougher, darker road to travel from the outset, and his cast rises to the occasion perfectly.

Much has been made about the new and more overt sense of diversity contained within the casting of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," and to that J.J. Abrams must also be applauded, as it not only serves the characters beautifully, it also serves the diversity of the audience who loves these films as much as anyone else. As the conscience stricken Stormtrooper Finn, John Boyega wonderfully portrays a figure who emerges from Orwellian/Lucas based enslavement a la "THX-1138" (1971) to emancipated galactic freedom fighter. And while it meant the universe to me to see a Black man wield a lightsaber (Samuel L. Jackson notwithstanding), it meant even more to see a Black man at the epicenter of the film's story. Not as a sidekick or supporting character but as a central figure for whom this new trilogy will surround.

Going even further is the marvelous Daisy Ridley as Rey. Like Charlize Theron in "Mad Max: Fury Road" as well as Rebecca Ferguson in Writer/Director Christopher McQuarrie's "Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation," Ridley OWNS the Force as this latest installment is her movie without question. Unlike the heroines of the past films, Rey eclipses both Princess Leia and Padme Amidala by having a trajectory that fully mirrors those of both Anakin and Luke Skywalker, the nobody desert dweller who unwittingly becomes the central figure within an intergalactic conflict and odyssey of transformative self-discovery. Ridley is a natural fit within this cinematic universe with her fully organic performance that surges from areas of abandonment and pain yet fuels them into a character who is resourceful, feisty, compassionate, inventive, resourceful, bemused with her own growing abilities and seemingly possesses a sense of hopefulness that is bottomless. For all of us, this is indeed the heroine we have been looking for and I am already anxious to see where her journey extends in the next chapters.

For all of the emotional heft that is contained within the new story and characters of "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," I have to remark upon how primal it was to re-visit the characters and iconography of the original trilogy in a new context and after all of this time. Aided superbly by Composer John Williams' gorgeous score, I found myself often spontaneously finding tears in my eyes with just the sight and sounds that are nothing less than old friends. The iconic theme, the opening title crawl, the first sight of the Millennium Falcon and so on, like Han Solo and Chewbacca, I too felt as if I was home again. It is an inexplicable feeling certainly and I honestly have no idea of how J.J. Abrams captured and harnessed that quality so beautifully. But he did and I thank him.

As the elder statesman with the most screen time, Harrison Ford, who has always maintained a certain difficult relationship with this series, turns in a lovely performance that adheres to all we have ever known and loved about our favorite intergalactic mercenary turned Rebellion leader while also displaying growth and even gravitas. Make no mistake, Han Solo is still a scoundrel but he is a more informed scoundrel, one who has weathered some deep storms over these past 30 years, therefore giving him a wider sense of understanding of the universe he exists within...and to say anymore would produce spoilers, so I'll just stop there.

When "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" concluded, I again express to you that I felt overwhelmed, and I remain so as I write to you now. J.J. Abrams produced a wholly satisfying work of top-flight excellence, that instantly left me desiring Episode VIII, which will be written and directed by Rian Johnson with filming to begin early 2016 for a May 2017 release. And just as when I was a kid awaiting the next chapter, the new adventure cannot arrive soon enough!

That said, the new film did not give me that same feeling as seeing the original for that very first time, and truthfully, it couldn't and I could never have expected it to. However, the feeling I had the most once "The Force Awakens" concluded was extremely similar to the one I had when I first saw "The Empire Strikes Back."

J.J. Abrams has delivered an opening installment of this new trilogy that does not possess the innocence of either Episodes I or IV, but the turbulence and emotional upheaval of Episode V, and possibly "Star Wars: Episode III-Revenge Of The Sith" (2005). "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" gives us a galaxy where darkness rises with constant TIE Fighter air raids, Stormtrooper led exterminations of villages, and with the arrival of the solar sucking, planet sized Starkiller Base (essentially the Death Star on copious steroids), our heroes are constantly on the run or disillusioned or have abandoned the fight altogether.

But also with "Star Wars," hope remains, as does friendship, honor, love and self-sacrifice and the glorious sense of wonder and discovery that can be found in endless possibilities. There is a lot to digest but I was completely enthralled.

To George Lucas, with J.J. Abrams, your creation has been placed in the very best of hands. "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is one of the very best films of 2015.

SAVAGE POSTSCRIPT
This is for those of you out there who happen to be parents of small children and are wondering if you should take your child to see this film. Well, I will begin with this...

While our film ratings system is highly problematic, as a parental guide, I do think it does serve its purpose very well. This is the second "Star Wars" film to be rated PG 13, and I do feel it to be deserved as this is one of the darker entries in the seven films, as described in the main review . Yes, the action and violence in the film is intense yet essentially bloodless, save for a blood stained hand print on Finn's Stormtrooper helmet and there are a few really frightening monsters to boot.

But, for me, your friendly neighborhood film enthusiast who happens to be a preschool teacher, I have always felt that the "Star Wars" movies, while essentially fairy tales and fables for children, are not designed for children under seven, and definitely not for children 5 years old and under. It is rated PG 13 for a reason, and I feel the over-stimulation of the entire film in a dark movie theater for an extended period of two hours and fifteen minutes is inappropriate for very small children.

That being said, if you are going to allow your children to see it anyway, I urge you to see it first for yourselves as you know your children best with what they are able and not able to handle.  For kids 7 an up, they should be fine, depending upon their individual dispositions. But for those under seven, I highly recommend that you wait until the DVD/Blu-Ray release so the film is not too overwhelming and you have the ability to pause and stop if the experience proves to be too intense for your little ones.