Author Archives: Arleigh

Review: War of the Worlds (dir. by Steven Spielberg)

Posted on by Arleigh

“This is not a war any more than there’s a war between men and maggots… This is an extermination.” — Harlan Ogilvy

When looking back at the vast filmography of Steven Spielberg, science fiction usually evokes a sense of sweeping wonder, starry-eyed optimism, or at the very least, a deeply felt humanism. Films like Close Encounters of the Third Kindand E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial taught generations to look at the stars with hope rather than dread. Even when things took a darker turn in Jurassic Park or the neon-drenched corridors of Minority Report, there remained a foundational thrill—a cinematic ride that ultimately leaves the audience exhilarated. However, his 2005 adaptation of H.G. Wells’ classic novel, War of the Worlds, stands as a radically different beast altogether. It is arguably the bleakest, most claustrophobic blockbuster Spielberg ever directed, operating less as an adventurous alien invasion epic and more as a raw, nerve-shredding analog for collective trauma. Emerging a mere four years after the collapse of the Twin Towers, the film strips away the romanticism of cosmic exploration and replaces it with a visceral, ground-level nightmare of sudden, inexplicable annihilation.

The brilliance of Spielberg’s approach, working alongside screenwriter David Koepp, lies in how intensely localized the narrative remains. Rather than tracking the invasion from the traditional perspective of military command centers, global leaders, or brilliant scientists, the audience is trapped inside the chaotic, deeply flawed perspective of Ray Ferrier, played with a brilliant, unheroic franticness by Tom Cruise. Ray is not a savior; he is a deadbeat, blue-collar crane operator living in a graying New Jersey suburb. He is the kind of father who doesn’t know his son’s school schedule and has an empty refrigerator when his ex-wife drops off their two children, Robbie and Rachel. By centering the apocalypse around a fractured, working-class American family, Spielberg roots the cosmic terror in a painful reality. The impending destruction of the planet mirrors the collapse of Ray’s domestic stability, forcing a man who can barely manage basic parental accountability to suddenly navigate the literal end of the world.

From a purely technical standpoint, the first act of War of the Worlds features some of the most masterful suspense and terror ever committed to celluloid, heavily leaning on a barrage of explicit 9/11 visual imagery. The sequence where the first Martian Tripod emerges from beneath a New Jersey intersection is a masterclass in modern cinematic dread, directly weaponizing the fresh, collective trauma of the post-9/11 American public. Spielberg eschews the clean, omniscient visual language of standard disaster cinema for an organic, chaotic documentary style, mirroring the sudden, disorienting informational and electronic blackout experienced by millions during the real-world attacks. The camera lingers on heavy, ominous storm clouds moving against the wind, the eerie crackle of localized lightning strikes, and the unsettling silence of a neighborhood stripped of electronic life. When the asphalt fractures and the colossal, three-legged war machine rises from the earth, the sound design hits the audience like a physical blow. The Tripod’s horn—a terrifying, mechanical foghorn groan—instantly triggers an ancient, mammalian fight-or-flight response. As the machine opens fire with its disintegration beams, turning nearby pedestrians into literal puffs of ash, the camera tracks Ray running for his life through a massive, rolling cloud of dust and debris. When Ray finally makes it back to his house, the ash of his vaporized neighbors covers his clothes and face, an unmistakable and deeply unsettling visual that explicitly echoes the horrific reality of the streets of Manhattan on September 11, 2001.

This deliberate invocation of post-9/11 anxiety is the thematic engine that drives the entire film. Spielberg does not hide these parallels; he highlights them with a devastating accuracy that makes the film difficult to watch even decades later. When the invasion begins, a terrified, screaming Rachel asks her father if it is “the terrorists,” a line that perfectly encapsulates the collective, reactionary psyche of the mid-2000s American consciousness, where any sudden, catastrophic violence was instantly filtered through the lens of domestic terrorism. The imagery of walls plastered with photocopied missing-persons flyers, crowds of refugees trudging down desolate highways with whatever belongings they can carry, and a derailed, blazing passenger train hurtling past an abandoned station all tap into a very specific, historical vulnerability. In Independence Day, an alien invasion was an opportunity for global unity and triumphant, cigar-chomping counter-offensives. In Spielberg’s hands, the invasion is an overwhelming, asymmetric slaughter that reduces the world’s most powerful military to a collection of burning tanks rolling over a ridge into an invisible abyss.

However, while the film masterfully handles the grand-scale terror of the invasion, it stumbles significantly when navigating its internal family dynamics, particularly regarding Ray’s son, Robbie, played by Justin Chatwin. I completely agree with the widespread criticism that Robbie is an intensely annoying, deeply self-destructive presence whose actions and decisions repeatedly defy basic human survival instincts. Throughout the crisis, his behavior goes beyond typical teenage rebellion and crosses into pure narrative absurdity. Instead of helping protect his traumatized, screaming younger sister, Robbie consistently sabotages his family’s safety to aggressively gawk at a hopeless war zone. His sudden, obsessive urge to join a military force that is clearly being pulverized by an unearthly power feels entirely unearned and maddening to watch. His character arc reaches a peak of irritation when he blindly runs over a burning ridge directly into a mechanical meat grinder, abandoning his family for a bizarre, suicidal patriotic impulse. This makes his miraculous survival at the end of the film a massive narrative misstep; having him casually show up at his grandparents’ pristine Boston home after witnessing a literal military massacre completely undermines the high-stakes realism Spielberg spent two hours building, turning what should have been a tragic consequence of his own foolishness into a cheap, unearned happy ending.

As the narrative progresses past the family friction, the film shifts its focus from external spectacle to the internal breakdown of human morality under the weight of existential terror. This transition is embodied by the mid-movie introduction of Harlan Ogilvy, played with an unsettling, unhinged intensity by Tim Robbins. Trapped in a dark basement while the Martians harvest the surrounding countryside, Ray and Ogilvy represent two radically different, yet entirely believable, reactions to trauma. Ogilvy is consumed by a vengeful, nihilistic madness, obsessed with digging tunnels and launching a futile, suicidal guerrilla war against an enemy that operates on a completely different evolutionary plane. Ray, conversely, is driven solely by a desperate, animalistic urge to protect his daughter. The sequence culminating in Ray’s decision to kill Ogilvy behind closed doors to keep him from alerting the aliens is one of the darkest thematic beats in Spielberg’s career. It forces the audience to confront a disturbing truth: the true horror of the apocalypse is not just what the monsters do to us, but what we are willing to do to each other to survive another hour.

The film’s visual palette, masterfully crafted by cinematographer Janusz Kamiński, reinforces this pervasive sense of rot and despair. Kamiński utilizes a heavily bleached, high-contrast aesthetic that drains the world of vibrant color, leaving behind a cold, metallic landscape dominated by sickly slates, deep shadows, and stark whites. This visual harshness reaches its zenith during the infamous “Red Weed” sequence. As the Tripods begin carpet-bombing the landscape with human blood to fertilize an invasive, crimson alien flora, the film transforms into a surrealist, gothic horror show. The Earth itself is literally being terraformed by the bodily fluids of the slaughtered, creating a grotesque, bleeding ecosystem that visually mirrors the internal rot of the surviving human populations. It is a sequence that feels closer to the cinematic nightmares of H.R. Giger than the traditional whimsy of a Spielbergian adventure.

Despite its immense strengths, War of the Worlds is frequently criticized for its final act, a critique that deserves a nuanced evaluation. The abrupt resolution—wherein the seemingly invincible Martians suddenly succumb to Earth’s microscopic bacteria—is lifted directly from H.G. Wells’ original 1898 text. While narratively faithful, its execution in a modern Hollywood blockbuster can feel jarring, functioning as a biological deus ex machina that robs the human protagonists of a traditional, heroic victory. Furthermore, Robbie’s unearned survival represents a sudden, almost desperate pivot back toward Spielberg’s traditional family-first sentimentality. This neat resolution feels somewhat unearned given the preceding two hours of unrelenting, uncompromising nihilism, momentarily fracturing the film’s gritty, documentary-like reality.

Yet, looking past these structural stumbles, the final voiceover adaptation of Wells’ text offers a profound philosophical punctuation mark to the nightmare. The realization that humanity has earned its right to survive on this planet not through military might or moral superiority, but through millions of years of evolutionary struggle alongside the tiniest microbes, recontextualizes the entire ordeal. It reminds the audience of our inherent fragility and the hubris of believing ourselves to be permanently secure in our modern, technological fortresses. Spielberg’s War of the Worlds remains an incredibly potent piece of mainstream filmmaking precisely because it refuses to comfort its audience for the majority of its runtime. It stands as a brilliant, terrifying time capsule of an era defined by sudden vulnerability, demonstrating that even the master of cinematic wonder could look into the abyss of the cosmos and see nothing but our own reflections looking back in sheer terror.

Review: Close Encounters of the Third Kind (dir. by Steven Spielberg)

Posted on by Arleigh

“Monsieur Neary, I envy you.” — Claude Lacombe

When we look back at the historic cinematic landscape of 1977, it is almost impossible not to view it through the lens of a seismic cultural shift. That was the year a young George Lucas unleashed Star Wars upon the collective consciousness, fundamentally reshaping the Hollywood studio system and redirecting the trajectory of science fiction toward space opera, galactic dogfights, and mythic hero journeys. Yet, just a few months later, Steven Spielberg quietly delivered his own counter-argument to the stars with Close Encounters of the Third Kind. While Lucas looked outward toward far-away galaxies, Spielberg looked upward from our own suburban backyards. The result remains one of the most singular, agonizingly beautiful, and intensely personal science fiction films ever made, a masterclass in atmospheric tension that manages to balance deep blue-collar anxieties with a profound, almost spiritual sense of cosmic wonder. Watching it today, stripped of the immediate historical noise of the late seventies, the film stands out not merely as a technical milestone of visual effects, but as a fascinatingly messy character study about the terrifying, disruptive nature of inspiration and obsession.

The story follows Roy Neary, a blue-collar electrician in Indiana who, during a late-night power outage, sees something inexplicable in the sky. He’s not alone—across the state, a young mother named Jillian Guiler also witnesses strange lights, and her toddler son Barry becomes eerily fascinated by them. What Roy and Jillian don’t know is that similar sightings are happening worldwide, from the Gobi Desert to the air traffic control towers of Indianapolis. The film then does something unusual: instead of cutting to a military briefing or a scientist’s whiteboard, it stays with Roy as his ordinary life starts to fracture. He becomes obsessed with a shape he can’t quite remember—a mountain, maybe, or a tower—that he begins sculpting out of mashed potatoes, shaving cream, and whatever else is at hand. His wife and kids, understandably, think he’s losing his mind. Jillian, meanwhile, faces a more immediate and terrifying version of the same mystery.

What’s remarkable is how Spielberg handles characterization. Roy isn’t a hero in any traditional sense. He’s a loud, slightly goofy family man who loves model trains and bad jokes. Richard Dreyfuss plays him with a permanent crease of confusion between his eyebrows, as if his brain is trying to process a frequency nobody else can hear. The film never explains why Roy is chosen or why the visions hit him so hard—it just shows the consequences: lost jobs, a crumbling marriage, a man who starts seeing his living room as a prison. Jillian, played with fierce tenderness by Melinda Dillon, is the emotional anchor. Where Roy’s obsession feels almost euphoric, Jillian’s is rooted in primal fear and love. She doesn’t want to meet the unknown; she wants her son back. The film wisely never pits them against each other. Instead, they become accidental allies, two people dragged toward the same inexplicable destination for very different reasons.

Then there’s the other side of the coin: the government. François Truffaut (one of the founders of the French New Wave film movement), in a wonderfully offbeat piece of casting, plays Claude Lacombe, a French scientist leading a secret U.N. team that’s been tracking the phenomena for years. We see them discover something astonishing in the Mongolian desert—a lost ship from World War II, returned without its crew, in pristine condition. Later, they find an entire tanker ship deposited in the Gobi, miles from any ocean. These scenes are brief but crucial, because they establish that whatever is happening has been happening for a long time. Lacombe and his team aren’t villains; they’re just as baffled as Roy, but with better funding. Their method of communication—a simple five-note musical phrase—becomes the film’s quiet heartbeat. Spielberg trusts you to understand that this isn’t a code or a weapon. It’s a greeting.

The film’s middle section is where most blockbusters would insert a chase or a battle. Instead, Close Encounters gives us a slow-burn portrait of obsession as a kind of grace. Roy drives his family crazy. Jillian chases rumors. Hundreds of other ordinary people—the film calls them the “paranoids”—start showing up at rural crossroads, drawn by the same psychic pull. Spielberg shoots these scenes with a documentary-like patience: a traffic jam of confused believers, a midnight roadblock, a man who just knows he has to go to Wyoming. You start to feel the pull yourself. By the time Roy finally understands what the mashed-potato mountain is—Devil’s Tower, a real volcanic plug in northeastern Wyoming—the movie has earned every ounce of that revelation. It’s not a twist. It’s a release.

The final forty minutes of Close Encounters are best experienced with as little prior knowledge as possible, so I’ll stay vague. What I will say is that Spielberg stages the arrival of the unknown as a religious event, not an invasion. There are no laser cannons, no ultimatums, no speeches about humanity’s destiny. Instead, there’s light and sound, a symphony of colored orbs and humming engines, and a sequence of hand gestures that communicates more than any dialogue could. The aliens, when they finally appear, are small and pale and oddly childlike—not scary, not angelic, just other. And a choice that Roy faces, involving whether to stay or go, lands with the weight of a moral question, not a happy ending. Spielberg doesn’t tell you if it’s right. He just shows you a man’s face, lit by unearthly glow, and leaves the rest to your own compass.

Technically, the film is a marvel of analog craft. The UFOs aren’t digital—they’re models, lights, and smoke, shot with such loving care that they feel tangible. Douglas Trumbull’s visual effects prioritize scale and mystery over menace. John Williams’s score, anchored by that five-note motif, does the emotional heavy lifting without ever feeling manipulative. And Spielberg’s direction is all about waiting—holding on a character’s face as they process something impossible, letting a shot of the night sky breathe for an extra five seconds. That patience is the film’s secret weapon. In an era of quick cuts and louder-is-better spectacle, Close Encounters dares you to sit in the dark and listen.

Does it hold up? Almost entirely, though with small caveats. The pacing is glacial by modern standards, and Roy’s family is written as shrill obstacles—Teri Garr does her best with a thankless role. Some viewers may find Roy’s eventual choices hard to forgive. But those complaints miss the point. Close Encounters isn’t about good fathers or responsible citizens. It’s about the ache of the ineffable—the feeling that something is out there, just past the treeline, and it knows your name. Spielberg made bigger hits, but he never made anything more personal. If you’ve never seen it, or haven’t since you were a kid, watch it in the dark. Turn your phone off. Let the tones wash over you. You might find yourself humming that five-note song for days. And honestly, that’s the whole point.

Hero of the Day: Marcus Fenix (Gears of War)

Posted on by Arleigh

“With all due respect, fuck you, sir.” — Marcus Fenix

Few video game protagonists carry the weight of a dying world on their shoulders quite like Marcus Fenix, the granite-jawed soldier of Gears of War. At first glance, he seems deliberately unremarkable: a muscled, armor-plated space marine who speaks in growls and commands with grunts. Yet this surface-level stoicism is precisely what makes him so compelling. Marcus rejects the quippy, one-liner-spouting action hero archetype popularized by the early 2000s. Instead, he embodies a weary, bone-deep authenticity. He is a man who has lost everything—his father, his freedom, and his faith in authority—and his silence speaks louder than any monologue. That authenticity is the bedrock of his charisma; he does not perform heroism, he simply endures.

What elevates Marcus beyond a simple “tough guy” is his profound, unspoken loyalty. His defining act before the first game even begins—abandoning his post to rescue his father, which lands him in a military prison—immediately establishes his moral code: duty to family over duty to order. Throughout the trilogy, this loyalty extends to his squad, particularly his best friend, Dominic Santiago. The chemistry between Marcus and Dom is never overstated; it lives in shared glances, battlefield tactics, and the quiet understanding of two men who have bled together for over a decade. When Dom sacrifices himself in Gears of War 3, Marcus’s single, devastated howl is one of the most emotionally raw moments in gaming history. That grief is charismatic because it is earned—it shows that beneath the armor is a heart capable of being shattered.

Marcus also subverts the typical “chosen one” narrative. He is not a prophesied savior or a supernatural being; he is a skilled, broken soldier who keeps fighting because stopping means admitting that everyone who died did so for nothing. His charisma stems from his everyman fatalism, magnified by a world of grotesque monsters. While other heroes might inspire with rousing speeches, Marcus inspires by example. He is always the first through the breach, the last to retreat, and he never asks his men to do anything he wouldn’t do himself. This quiet, grindstone leadership is deeply appealing in an era saturated with narcissistic antiheroes. He earns respect not through charm, but through competence and sacrifice.

Moreover, the game’s design reinforces his character. The Lancer rifle with its chainsaw bayonet is an extension of Marcus’s personality: brutal, efficient, and unwilling to pretend war is clean. His heavy, lumbering movement in the early games conveys exhaustion, as if every step is a battle against despair. The “active reload” mechanic, which rewards precise timing, mirrors Marcus’s own discipline—a man who cannot afford to waste a single bullet or moment. Even his trademark bandana and scruff are practical, not stylish. Every element of his visual and mechanical design supports a man who has long abandoned vanity. This cohesion between gameplay and character makes his rare moments of dry humor—like his deadpan “Nice” after a brutal execution—feel like earned releases of tension rather than forced wit.

In the end, Marcus Fenix is charismatic because he respects the gravity of his world. He doesn’t crack jokes while Locusts tear his comrades apart; he doesn’t pause for dramatic monologues as cities fall. Instead, he offers something rarer: the quiet dignity of a man who keeps moving forward when hope is a luxury. In the later games, including Gears 5, we see him as an older, scarred father figure to JD Fenix, still struggling with the same burdens of command and love. That continuity of pain and perseverance is what solidifies him as an icon. Marcus Fenix reminds us that heroism is not about flash or wit—it is about being the rock others can hold onto when the world is flooding, even if that rock is too tired to speak.

Hero of the Day

Review: Gears of War

Posted on by Arleigh

“We’re not saints. But we are gonna win this fucking war and I’d rather have you on the winning side.” — Marcus Fenix

Let’s be real for a second: trying to play Gears of War from 2006 right after a session of Fortnite or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III is a genuine shock to the system. You forget how heavy games used to feel. In an era where every shooter has slide-canceling, wall-running, and zero sprint-out times, going back to Marcus Fenix is like trying to run a marathon in steel-toed boots. The Xbox 360 classic, now almost two decades old, exists in this weird purgatory of retro gaming. It’s too young to be nostalgic pixel art, but it’s definitely too old to feel modern. And yet, here’s the thing: Gears of War still matters. Not in spite of its clunkiness, but because of it. When you revisit the ruined planet of Sera today, you realize that the “slowness” we now criticize was actually a specific design philosophy that current games have largely abandoned. It’s a fascinating time capsule—a game that feels like a rusty chainsaw, awkward to start, but terrifyingly effective once you get it going.

The first thing a modern player will notice is the speed—or total lack of it. In 2024, if your character takes a full second to slide into cover, players call it “input lag.” Back in 2006, we called it “weight.” The A-button roadie run is iconic, but compared to the fluidity of something like The Last of Us Part II or Gears 5 itself, the original feels like wading through molasses. You can’t vault over cover while shooting. You can’t cancel out of an animation. When you rev that Lancer chainsaw, you are committed to that animation, and if a Locust sneezes on you, you stagger. This should feel archaic. And honestly, sometimes it does. The middle third of the campaign, dragging through the same gray-brown mine shafts, feels repetitive by 2006 standards, but by today’s standards, it’s almost meditative in its simplicity. There’s no open world checklist. No battle pass. No weapon skins to grind for. You just shoot, move up, and shoot again. For a retro palate cleanser, that linear focus is weirdly refreshing.

Visually, Gears of War is a museum piece for a very specific era of game design: the “Real is Brown” movement. When it launched, Unreal Engine 3 was a miracle. Today, those same textures look like wet concrete. The color palette is aggressively desaturated—mixing grays, browns, and the occasional blood splatter. Current games like Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart or Horizon Forbidden West are explosions of neon and particle effects. Going back to Gears feels like turning off HDR and watching a DVD on a 4K TV. But here’s the retro magic: the art direction survives the technical decay. The ruined architecture, the massive Locust fortresses, the silhouette of a Berserker breaking through a wall—those aren’t reliant on high polygon counts. They’re reliant on good composition. Jerry O’Flaherty’s vision of “destroyed beauty” still holds up because modern horror-shooters like Scorn or Remnant II are essentially borrowing that same heavy, bio-mechanical aesthetic. You can see the pixelation, sure, but you can also see the blueprint for an entire decade of gaming.

Gameplay is where the retro vs. modern debate gets interesting. The cover system—sticky, magnetic, and automatic—was revolutionary in 2006. By 2024, it’s considered “sticky” in a bad way. Modern shooters prefer contextual cover or manual crouch systems because we hate being glued to walls. Yet, playing Gears today reveals that its combat rhythm is actually more tactical than most modern cover shooters. In The Division 2 or Outriders, you can tank a few hits, heal, and move. In retro Gears on Hardcore difficulty, three bullets kill you. You have to respect the geometry. You have to wait for the Locust to reload. That “stop-and-pop” gameplay feels slow, but it also feels deliberate. Current games are terrified of boring the player, so they constantly throw movement abilities at you. Gears forces you to breathe. It’s almost a horror game in disguise—especially the Berserker fight, where you can’t hurt her from the front. A modern game would put a waypoint marker on her head. Gears just lets you panic and run to the next door. That’s retro charm at its finest: trusting the player to figure it out without a glowing UI.

The weapon design remains timeless, even after all these years. The Lancer with the chainsaw bayonet is one of the few mechanics from the 2000s that still feels fresh because no one else has successfully copied it. Pulling off a saw execution in 2024—even with the stiff animation and the camera glitch—is still cathartic in a way that modern “finishing moves” in Warzone aren’t. The Gnasher shotgun, infamous for its inconsistent pellet spread, is a retro nightmare. Veterans will argue that “host advantage” and “wall bouncing” were skill gaps. New players will argue it just feels broken. Both are correct. That’s the beauty of this game as a retro artifact: the multiplayer is janky, unbalanced, and ruled by veteran roadies who never stopped playing. The active reload mini-game—pressing R to stop a moving bar for a damage boost—remains a tiny stroke of genius that modern games like State of Decay borrowed but never improved.

Now, let’s talk about something that happened outside the actual game but became just as legendary as anything Marcus Fenix did with a shotgun. Before Gears of War even launched, Microsoft and Epic set out to make a commercial that would break every rule of game advertising. They initially approached legendary director David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac, Se7en) to helm the project—a massive get for a video game tie-in. But when Fincher had to bow out due to a scheduling conflict, a relatively unknown young director named Joseph Kosinski stepped in. You know Kosinski now as the guy who directed Top Gun: Maverick, the $1.5 billion sequel that made the world fall in love with fighter jets again, as well as Tron: Legacy and the Formula One film F1. But back in 2006, he was a visual effects artist and commercial director taking his first big swing. And boy, did he connect. The resulting sixty-second spot fundamentally rewrote the rules of game advertising. Instead of loud rock and explosion montages—the tired template of every shooter ad before 2006—Kosinski showed Marcus Fenix walking alone through a ruined city in the rain, set to Gary Jules’ haunting, melancholy cover of “Mad World.” The ad barely showed coherent gameplay, yet it sold grief, loneliness, and the weight of a lost world. A commercial for a rated-M shooter about chainsaw guns had no catchphrase, no high-fives, no announcer yelling “Are you ready?” Just a broken man trudging through the rain while a piano played.

It was a gamble that paid off so massively that it broke the industry’s advertising brain. Within a year, Halo 3’s “Believe” diorama ads—also influenced by Kosinski’s work—traded action for elderly veterans remembering a war. Dead Island’s infamous reverse-trailer showed a child’s death set to a mournful song. The Last of Us Part II, Cyberpunk 2077, and Death Stranding all followed with slow, emotional piano or vocal covers over solitary heroes walking through beautiful desolation. Even today, when a new trailer drops with a slowed-down pop cover and a hero looking sad in the rain, you’re watching the ghost of Joseph Kosinski’s twenty-year-old masterpiece. The actual game itself is full of cheesy banter and over-the-top gore—Cole Train yelling “Wooooo!”—but that ad sold a tone the game only occasionally delivered. And in doing so, it proved that video games could be marketed as art, not just adrenaline. You don’t just remember the headshots. You remember the rain. And you remember the name of the director who made that rain matter.

So, how does Gears of War hold up as a retro recommendation in 2024? You have to adjust your expectations. This is not a pick-up-and-play title. It’s a history lesson. The story is still barebones (Locust bad, blow up resonator, Dom’s wife is in another castle), but the vibe is immaculate. The lack of a mission select screen is annoying by modern standards, and the vehicle sections (yes, the infamous “sitting on a turret while riding a train” finale) feel painfully scripted. But the co-op? That’s the secret sauce. Playing split-screen Gears today with a friend is arguably better than playing most modern co-op shooters because the game isn’t trying to sell you anything. No loot boxes. No battle pass. Just two beefy space marines sharing one box of ammo and a lot of terrible one-liners. The influence this game had—and it’s impossible to overstate—is the DNA you see in Uncharted, The Last of Us, and even God of War (2018)’s over-the-shoulder camera. Every AAA third-person shooter from the last fifteen years owes its cover mechanic to this clunky, brown, brilliant fossil.

In the end, calling Gears of War “retro” isn’t an insult. It’s a badge of honor. It is the perfect representation of the Xbox 360 era: ambitious, janky, gray-brown, and completely unwilling to apologize for its weight. A modern shooter would buff your movement speed, add a grappling hook, and turn the Locust into loot piñatas. Gears doesn’t care. It wants you to struggle against the controls for a minute, then laugh as you chainsaw a Grub in half. And somewhere in the back of your mind, as you do it, you might hear a soft piano cover. That contrast—grief and gore, slowness and spectacle—is what makes revisiting Gears of War in 2024 so weirdly worthwhile. It is a slow, heavy, dated, and utterly essential piece of gaming history. Take cover. Wait for the reload. And for the love of God, remember to pick up the Torque Bow. You’ll be fine. Just don’t expect to sprint.

Review: The Other Guys (dir. by Adam McKay)

Posted on by Arleigh

“We are gonna have sex in your car. It will happen again!” — Dirty Mike

Adam McKay’s The Other Guys feels like the moment a class clown who is secretly a genius finally snaps and decides to teach the entire school a lesson while making them laugh so hard they forget they’re being educated. Released in 2010, the film lands right in that sweet spot of McKay’s career where he was pivoting away from the pure, unhinged mania of Anchorman and Step Brothers and starting to smuggle razor-sharp satire into the multiplex under a mountain of stupidity. It is, without a doubt, one of the funniest movies of its decade, but calling it just a comedy feels like a disservice. It’s a buddy cop movie that hates the irresponsibility of buddy cop movies, a financial crisis explainer disguised as a screamo TLC tribute, and a showcase for two lead performances that should have spawned at least three sequels. If you’ve somehow managed to sleep on this one, it’s time to fix that.

The opening sequence is a masterclass in bait-and-switch. We are introduced to Danson and Highsmith, the city’s top cops, played with magnificent, self-serious swagger by Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson. They’re chasing down a minor misdemeanor in a way that destroys half of downtown Manhattan, culminating in them heroically jumping off a twenty-story building to land safely in some bushes. Except they don’t. They splatter. It’s a shocking, hilarious, and instantly iconic death scene that serves as McKay’s thesis statement: the action movie logic you’ve been fed for decades is a lethal fantasy. With the heroes dead, the spotlight shifts painfully to the guys who have to do the paperwork on their mangled corpses, forensic accountant Allen Gamble and hot-headed loose cannon Terry Hoitz. These two are, emphatically, the other guys, and when circumstances force them onto a case involving corporate financial fraud, they stumble their way toward something resembling heroism, occasionally despite themselves.

What separates The Other Guys from the pile of mediocre comedy-action hybrids that came before and after it is the chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg, which is genuinely one of the more unexpected comedic pairings of that era. Ferrell plays Gamble as a deeply strange man who has weaponized milquetoast passivity into a superpower. His complete, serene contentment with a life of spreadsheets, Grand Theft Auto grand larceny sprees where he obeys all traffic laws, and a suspiciously beautiful wife played by Eva Mendes is a hypnotic thing to watch. Ferrell dials down the bombast and delivers something wonderfully weird and controlled, a man who is simultaneously a complete dork and, as we later discover, a shockingly capable pimp named Gator. Wahlberg, meanwhile, is doing something genuinely interesting here. Terry Hoitz is a walking wound, a great cop reduced to a desk jockey and public mockery for the unforgivable sin of accidentally shooting Derek Jeter during the World Series. He’s angry, humorless, and convinced of his own greatness despite ample evidence to the contrary. Wahlberg plays him completely straight, which is the exact right call, because his deadpan bewilderment at Ferrell’s behavior, the way his voice cracks with desperate, shrill anger when trying to explain a normal scenario, ends up being funnier than almost anything else in the film. Their chemistry is a perfect storm of a guy who wants to live inside a peaceful spreadsheet and a guy who wants to set that spreadsheet on fire while learning to dance the sardine.

This is the kind of comedy where the supporting cast keeps piling on gloriously unhinged performances, which makes Ray Stevenson’s work as the heavy all the more valuable. As Roger Wesley, the corporate enforcer who does the violent bidding of Steve Coogan’s billionaire fraudster, Stevenson operates in a completely different register from everyone else. While Ferrell is weaponizing passive-aggressive politeness, Wahlberg is screaming about peacocks, and Michael Keaton is unconsciously quoting Waterfalls while running a police precinct, Stevenson remains a granite slab of menace. He doesn’t crack jokes, he doesn’t do double-takes, and he certainly doesn’t care about the absurdity swirling around him. There’s something almost old-fashioned about his screen presence here, a grim, heavy-lidded seriousness that makes him feel like he wandered in from a real crime thriller and simply refused to leave. It’s the kind of straight-man performance that doesn’t just anchor the chaos; it makes the chaos funnier by contrast. When he’s methodically hunting down loose ends while Ferrell and Wahlberg are bickering about whether a lion could beat a tuna in open ocean, the collision of tones is pure McKay alchemy.

The plot, such as it is, involves the duo stumbling onto a massive white-collar crime conspiracy led by a billionaire played with smarmy, cowardly glee by Steve Coogan. It’s here that McKay’s deeper ambitions start to peek through the absurdity. While Terry is desperate for a classic action-movie shootout and car chase, the investigation leads them to the Lendl Global offices, where the real villainy isn’t drug lords or terrorists but leveraged buyouts and pension fund looting. There’s a perfect running gag where they keep trying to get into the action, preparing for a massive gunfight against a team of mercenaries, only to find that the corrupt corporate security detail is made up of ex-cops just looking to quietly retire with their benefits. It is the funniest anti-climax, a deliberate denial of violence that reinforces the film’s core idea that the most dangerous criminals wear suits, not ski masks. The financial villain is a thinly veiled stand-in for the kind of Wall Street grift that was very much in the cultural conversation in 2010, just a couple of years after the financial crisis. McKay would later go much deeper on that territory with The Big Short, but the seeds of that interest are planted all over this film.

The comedy in The Other Guys operates on two distinct but equally brilliant levels. There is the surface-level absurdity, the kind that produces quotes like “I’m a peacock, you gotta let me fly!” and the quiet, steady domination of Gamble’s totemic Prius, which somehow survives a fireball helicopter crash without a scratch. The “aim for the bushes” jump, the lion versus tuna debate that Hoitz treats with theological gravity, and the wooden gun gifted to Gamble are all top-tier ridiculousness. Then there is the deeper, more surreal well of humor that feels distinctly McKay. The entire subplot of Gamble’s past as a college pimp named Gator is a work of deranged genius, a slow-motion, honey-dripped flashback that reveals a world of casual, elegant pimping that Ferrell plays with a straight face so absolute it circles back around to being terrifyingly cool. The relentless jokes about Gamble unknowingly marrying way out of his league, his genuine confusion over why people think Eva Mendes is attractive, is a running gag that beautifully plays on Ferrell’s ability to be completely oblivious to the reality surrounding him. Eva Mendes is admittedly underused, though the film at least has fun with the joke by leaning into Wahlberg’s incredulous reaction every time she appears, which never gets old.

Visually, the film has a blandly competent sheen that actually works in its favor. Unlike the frattish haze of Anchorman, here McKay is directing a movie that looks like a real cop film, which makes the eruptions of insanity even more jarring. The action sequences are staged with real competence. The car chases aren’t played as joke sequences; they’re genuinely well-staged, particularly the Prius chase midway through where Gamble’s calm, methodical driving commentary clashes with a panicking Hoitz. It’s legitimately exciting before it goes completely off the rails in the best way. McKay never lets the plot drag even when the jokes need room to breathe. By this point in his career he’d clearly figured out the right pace for this kind of thing, and it shows. The movie moves. The film also showcases Michael Keaton in a delightful supporting role as Captain Gene Mauch, a cop who unconsciously works a second job at Bed Bath & Beyond while peppering his police work with retail slogans. Keaton’s deadpan delivery of lines about TLC references and towel specials, only to shout the chorus of Waterfalls at a moment of high tension, is a thing of beauty. Every single one of his scenes is a gift. It’s a running joke that never explains itself, and it’s all the better for it.

Then there is the ending. For a film that spends nearly two hours being aggressively stupid-smart, the final moments make a radical pivot. As the bad guy is caught, the movie doesn’t just roll credits. It stops dead and turns into a miniature economics lecture. With animated infographics and hard statistics, McKay lays out exactly how Ponzi schemes, bailouts, and income inequality have shattered the American middle class, all while the Rage Against the Machine cover of Maggie’s Farm thrashes on the soundtrack. It’s a jarring, preachy, and completely unexpected move. On first viewing, it feels like the director violently smashing the emergency brake on the comedy train. But in hindsight, it’s the only honest way this movie could end. McKay isn’t just telling us that bank robbers are less dangerous than bankers; he’s stopping us from leaving the theater without understanding the scale of the theft. It doesn’t undermine the fun at all. If anything it adds a layer of purpose that makes the whole thing feel a little more substantial than your average cop spoof. It’s the moment the class clown pulls out a graph showing your student debt will cripple you for life, and somehow, it works because he’s been earning your trust with jokes for the previous hour and a half.

There’s something almost nostalgic about watching a comedy this confident in its own weirdness. The Other Guys arrived at an interesting moment for this kind of movie, when the mid-budget, R-rated studio comedy was still a viable commercial proposition. It made decent money even if it wasn’t a runaway smash, but more importantly, it trusts that you’re going to be on board for a scene where Ferrell and Wahlberg argue about whether they’d rather be a lion or a tuna, and it’s right to trust that. The criticisms are relatively minor. The movie is maybe fifteen minutes too long, and a subplot involving Wahlberg’s ballet background gets introduced and then somewhat dropped. The villain’s scheme, by design, isn’t particularly cinematic, and the film occasionally strains to make the stakes feel real. But these are the kinds of complaints you make about a movie you liked, not a movie you didn’t, and none of them meaningfully dent the overall experience.

More than a decade later, The Other Guys has aged into something of a classic, a revered staple of late-night cable and quotable group chats. It sits at a fascinating crossroads, holding onto the absurdist, quote-heavy DNA of McKay’s earlier work while laying the formal and thematic groundwork for what he would do next with The Big Short and Vice. It proves that the jump from Ron Burgundy to a film about the 2008 housing crisis wasn’t actually that far at all. He just needed Wahlberg to yell a little bit, Ferrell to explain why a lion would still beat a tuna, even in open ocean, and Stevenson to stand in the middle of it all looking like he genuinely wants to murder everyone in the room. Whether you come for the laughs, the surprisingly competent action, or Michael Keaton mumbling TLC lyrics under his breath, you’re going to find something to love. Absolutely worth your time.

Review: The Longest Day (dir. by Ken Annakin, Andrew Barton & Bernhard Wicki)

Posted on by Arleigh

“The thing that’s always worried me about being one of the few is the way we keep on getting fewer.” — Flight Officer David Campbell

You could be forgiven for thinking that a three-hour black-and-white war epic from 1962 about the D-Day landings might feel like homework. The Longest Day sounds exactly like the kind of movie your history buff uncle would insist you watch, and you’d brace yourself for stiff acting, dated effects, and a flag-waving tone that hasn’t aged well. But here’s the surprise: this thing still cooks. It’s massive, messy in the best way, and surprisingly modern in its storytelling. Directed by a quartet of filmmakers—Ken Annakin for the British sequences, Andrew Marton for the Americans, Bernhard Wicki for the Germans, and with uncredited help from John Wayne’s own ego (more on that later)—The Longest Day isn’t one movie. It’s five or six movies crammed into a single sprawling canvas, and somehow that chaotic energy works perfectly for a story about the chaos of June 6, 1944.

First, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: the cast. It’s absurd. John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Henry Fonda, Sean Connery, Richard Burton, Rod Steiger, Robert Wagner, Curt Jürgens, and a young Gert Fröbe (the future Goldfinger) are just the headliners. There are about forty other recognizable faces popping up for two minutes of screen time. You half expect a narrator to say “and that guy from that thing.” But here’s the trick: The Longest Day uses star power not as distraction but as shorthand. When you see John Wayne playing Lt. Col. Benjamin Vandervoort, you don’t need a backstory. You just know he’s the tough, unkillable leader. When you see Henry Fonda as Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt Jr., you read quiet dignity and grit. The movie trusts that you’ll fill in the blanks, which allows it to jump between American, British, French, and German perspectives without pausing for emotional handholding. That’s a bold gamble, and it mostly pays off, though Wayne’s scenes are a prime example of the film’s one real weakness: occasionally, it lets the star overpower the story. His Vandervoort breaks his ankle jumping into Normandy and still leads his men—cool story, historically accurate—but Wayne plays it with that trademark swagger that feels more Rio Bravo than WWII. It doesn’t ruin the film, but it does remind you you’re watching a movie star, not a soldier.

Where The Longest Day truly earns its reputation is in its structure. The film opens with a ground-level view of the German defenders—foggy, tired, complacent. Rommel (Curt Jürgens) is home for his wife’s birthday. Junior officers are skeptical of the “invasion threat.” Then we cut to the Allied side, from Eisenhower’s agonized “go” decision to the paratroopers floating down into French nightmares. The film refuses to pick a hero. It bounces between a German machine-gunner mowing down Americans on Omaha Beach and a French Resistance fighter getting captured and executed. There’s no swelling music to tell you who to root for—the score by Maurice Jarre is often tense, percussive, or eerily quiet. That evenhandedness is shocking for an early-60s war film. The Germans aren’t cackling villains. They’re professionals, some cynical, some naive, all trapped in a bad situation. One scene shows a German officer calmly reporting the invasion to higher command while another weeps because his men have no air support. You don’t sympathize with them exactly, but you understand them. That’s rare for any war movie, let alone one starring John Wayne.

The set pieces remain jaw-dropping. Because this was made before CGI, every paratrooper you see actually jumped (with stuntmen and low altitudes). Every landing craft ramp dropping on Omaha Beach is filled with real extras who had to swim ashore in cold water. The famous shot of a lone French commando running across a bridge under fire? That’s a real explosion, real bullets (blanks, but still). The production employed thousands of military advisors and actual veterans as extras. You can feel that authenticity in the grain of the film. When American soldiers fumble with wet ammunition or a British glider crash-lands through a fence, it’s not slick Hollywood heroism. It’s clumsy, loud, and terrifying. The movie’s most quoted line—“The greatest thing about the greatest generation is they didn’t know they were the greatest”—isn’t in the film, but the spirit is everywhere. These guys aren’t quoting Shakespeare. They’re vomiting from seasickness, losing their gear, and crying for their mothers. Then they get up and climb a cliff. That contrast is what makes The Longest Day so effective: it’s a blockbuster that respects the small, undignified human moments.

If the film has a flaw beyond occasional star vanity, it’s pacing. The first hour is deliberately slow—building tension through radar stations, weather reports, and a French priest’s bicycle ride. That might bore viewers raised on Saving Private Ryan’s opening twenty minutes. But hang with it, because when the invasion starts, the deliberate pace pays off. You’ve been inside the German bunkers, heard their debates, seen their confidence. So when paratroopers land behind their lines with toy clickers (the actual “cricket” device from history), every crack of a twig feels tense. The other flaw is the film’s treatment of the French Resistance and civilians. They get a few noble moments—a girl running through gunfire to deliver a message—but overall, the French are sidelined. The movie is fundamentally Anglo-American, with German scenes as the “other” perspective. That’s honest to the command structure of D-Day, but it does mean the country being liberated mostly watches from the margins.

Still, The Longest Day achieves something that most war epics don’t: it’s a genuine ensemble piece without a single protagonist, and it never loses its moral clarity. There’s a scene where a German colonel (the wonderful Werner Hinz) looks at an American prisoner and says, “We fight for a monster. You fight for your homes.” That’s the whole movie in one line. It doesn’t demonize the Germans as evil—it shows them as humans who made terrible choices and are now paying for them. And it doesn’t sanctify the Allies—it shows them as scared kids with a just cause. The final image of the film is a lingering shot of the beach, littered with bodies and wreckage, as a narrator tells you the exact number of casualties on both sides. No music. No kiss. No flag. Just the silent aftermath. For 1962, that’s audacious. For today, it’s heartbreaking.

So should you watch The Longest Day? Yes, but not as a history lesson. Watch it as a time capsule of how we used to make movies: with real explosions, real extras, and a willingness to let a story breathe across three hours without a superhero or a snappy one-liner. It’s old-fashioned, sure. Some of the acting is stagey, and the black-and-white photography might feel like a relic. But once the landing craft doors drop and the bullets start kicking up water, you’ll forget the runtime. It’s not Saving Private Ryan’s visceral nightmare, and it’s not Band of Brothers’ intimate character study. It’s a reporter’s notebook of a film—raw, sprawling, and full of names you’ll never remember but faces you won’t forget. For a movie that’s over sixty years old, The Longest Day still has legs. And for a story about the longest day, it earns every single minute.

Hero of the Day: Senku Ishigami (Dr. Stone)

Posted on by Arleigh

“I get excited, get excited!” — Senku Ishigami

n the vast landscape of shonen anime and manga, heroes are traditionally defined by raw physical power, explosive emotional outbursts, or tragic, predetermined destinies. Dr. Stone completely subverts this saturated paradigm through its brilliant protagonist, Senku Ishigami, who arrives as a revolutionary breath of fresh air. Thrust into a post-apocalyptic “Stone World” where humanity has been petrified for over 3,700 years, Senku does not rely on a magical power-up, a hidden prodigy status, or a legendary sword to survive. Instead, his primary weapon is his absolute, unwavering mastery of science—a vast treasury of human knowledge that he wields with the casual confidence of a master artisan. While others might despair at the loss of civilization, Senku simply grins, points to the sky, and declares his ambition to rebuild everything from scratch. This fundamental shift from physical brawn to intellectual muscle instantly sets him apart, establishing him as an unconventional hero whose battlefield is the natural world itself.

What truly elevates Senku’s charisma is his radical rejection of emotional fatalism, coupled with a deeply empathetic soul. On the surface, he frequently presents himself as a cynical, logical pragmatist who claims to care only about efficiency and baseline data, famously declaring that he is moved by science rather than sentimental speeches. Yet this sharp, sometimes arrogant exterior is a thin veil for a profound humanism. In most survival narratives, protagonists are paralyzed by fear, loss, and moral ambiguity. Senku, however, acknowledges these harsh realities but refuses to be defeated by them. His ultimate, audacious goal is the rescue of all seven billion petrified human souls, transforming cold, hard logic into a tool for absolute liberation. His catchphrase, “I get excited, get excited!” is not the thrill of violence but the genuine joy of discovery. This beautiful contradiction—using empirical action to achieve a deeply warm and protective mission—creates a magnetic personality that viewers and fellow characters can’t help but rally behind.

Furthermore, Senku’s charisma relies heavily on his infectious, boundlessly joyful passion for discovery and creation. Watching him struggle through trial-and-error to reinvent antibiotics, cell phones, or hot air balloons from raw wilderness resources is genuinely exhilarating. He strips away the elitism often associated with high-level science, reframing it as a collaborative, step-by-step adventure. His signature phrase, “Ten billion percent,” reflects an intellectual excitement akin to Archimedes’ “Eureka!” moment. He turns the act of learning into a thrilling spectacle, proving that an active mind making gunpowder from bat guano can be just as cinematic as a well-choreographed fistfight. This passion is infectious, drawing characters like Chrome, Kohaku, and even former enemies into his orbit, because Senku makes the process of rebuilding civilization feel less like a chore and more like the greatest game ever played.

Crucially, Senku subverts the classic “lone genius” trope by being a leader who rules through mutual respect and empowerment rather than intimidation or inherited authority. Because he openly acknowledges his own physical weaknesses—frequently joking about his pathetic muscle mass—he understands that science is a team sport and that he cannot rebuild civilization alone. His most brilliant invention is ultimately the community he builds. He relies completely on the diverse, specialized talents of his friends, validating the strength of Kohaku, the craftsmanship of Kaseki, the mental agility of Gen, and the raw muscle of Taiju. Even his philosophical rival, Tsukasa Shishio, is not simply crushed through brute force; he is slowly won over by Senku’s demonstration that science can solve the very problems he believes only violence can address. Senku never demands loyalty; he earns it by giving every person a clear, valued role in his grand vision.

Ultimately, Senku Ishigami is a mesmerizing hero because his unshakable morality, wrapped in pragmatic wit, embodies the triumph of human resilience over impossible odds. He refuses to kill, even when it would be strategically easier, viewing every single human being as a precious resource for the future. His reasoning is not naive idealism but long-term calculus—yet his actions consistently show genuine care, as when he risks his life to cure Ruri’s pneumonia not for political gain, but because a promise is a promise. When faced with the literal collapse of human history, his response is a confident, smirking determination to pick up a rock, start counting from zero, and recreate everything from the wheel to modern medicine. He teaches the audience that being a hero doesn’t require a destiny or a demon inside you; it requires curiosity, resilience, and cooperation. In a world that often celebrates instinct over intellect, Senku Ishigami stands as the brilliant, grinning proof that knowing how is the most powerful superpower of all.

Hero of the Day

Review: Normal (dir. by Ben Wheatley)

Posted on by Arleigh

“I used to be a regular sheriff.” — Sheriff Ulysses

Ben Wheatley has built a career on making audiences uncomfortable. From the cultish dread of Kill List to the seasick chaos of Free Fire, he specializes in a specific kind of British miserablism that suddenly snaps into shocking ultraviolence. So, the idea of him directing a snowbound, American action-comedy starring Bob Odenkirk felt a little like hiring a surgeon to cater a birthday party. You know the food will be technically proficient, but you are terrified of what might be in the sauce. The 2026 film Normal, written by Derek Kolstad and Bob Odenkirk, is exactly that catering job: it is messy, bloody, surprisingly filling, and leaves you with a weird stomach ache if you think about it too long. But in a summer movie season often defined by joyless CGI sludge, Normal is a blast of R-rated, mid-budget freshness that knows exactly how stupid it is, even if it stumbles on its way to the finish line.

The premise is a beautiful piece of elevator pitch simplicity. Odenkirk plays Sheriff Ulysses, a haunted, world-weary interim sheriff who takes a short-term gig in the tiny, freezing Minnesotan town of Normal. The previous sheriff died under mysterious circumstances (ice fishing accident, sure), and Ulysses is just looking for a quiet place to drink coffee, ignore his wife’s phone calls, and heal. The problem is that Normal, Minnesota, is anything but. As Ulysses walks the beat, he notices the quiet desperation of rural America has been replaced by a strange, Stepford-like prosperity. The knitting store sells AR-15s. The diner’s walls are lined with loaded rifles. The town has somehow raised sixteen million dollars for a new town hall. It turns out that the citizens of Normal have sold their souls—and their town—to the Yakuza, acting as a quiet, frozen Swiss bank account for Japanese organized crime. When a pair of bumbling out-of-town robbers (Reena Jolly and Brendan Fletcher) hits the local bank, the bulletproof glass shatters, and Ulysses finds himself trapped in a blizzard, fighting for his life against an entire town of friendly, flannel-wearing killers.

Having Odenkirk as co-writer explains a lot about why Normal feels different from Kolstad’s other work. Where John Wick and the first Nobody are lean, machine-tooled scripts, Normal has a looser, more character-obsessed texture. The dialogue is full of weird pauses, non-sequiturs, and the kind of conversational detours that defined Odenkirk’s television work on Better Call Saul. You can feel the actor’s hand in every scene where Ulysses just stares at a absurd situation and mutters something mundane like “Well, that’s not ideal.” If you have seen the Nobody films, you know the rhythm Odenkirk plays as a performer. But what makes Odenkirk so fascinating to watch in Normal is how he continues to solidify an idea we haven’t really seen since Liam Neeson stumbled into Taken: the deeply unconventional action hero. Think about it. Before Neeson, action stars were Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Willis—men built like refrigerators. Then Neeson showed up at fifty-six, all grief-stricken eyebrows and theatrical training, and suddenly audiences realized that a sad dad with a “particular set of skills” was just as terrifying as any bodybuilder. Odenkirk is the spiritual successor to that twist.

No one ever looked at the guy who played slimy lawyer Saul Goodman or the hapless comic from Mr. Show and thought, “There is our next great screen fighter.” Yet here we are, years after the first Nobody, and Odenkirk has quietly become the most believable everyman action lead of his generation. Unlike Neeson’s brooding intensity, Odenkirk brings a specific, almost pathetic vulnerability. In Normal, he excels at playing the “sad dad” action hero—the guy whose joints pop when he stands up, who looks like an accountant but moves like a bar fight. Ulysses isn’t a retired assassin; he’s just a cop who is very, very tired. When he dispatches a thug with a fire extinguisher, there is no cool one-liner, just a wheeze and a wince. That grounded exhaustion is the Odenkirk brand, and because he co-wrote the part, it fits him like a tailored suit. He sells the physicality without losing that “I’m too old for this” shuffle, making you believe a middle-aged man could survive a gauntlet of killers purely out of stubbornness and regret. Henry Winkler, as the smarmy Mayor Kibner, chews the frozen scenery with glee, playing a man so polite and effervescent that you want to punch him immediately. Lena Headey shows up as a barkeep with a shotgun, and while she doesn’t get enough to do, she brings the necessary grit.

However, the secret weapon here is actually Ben Wheatley and his “anti-action” philosophy. In a recent interview, Wheatley described the violence in Normal as being akin to Final Destination. That is the smartest thing about this movie. In a typical John Wick movie, the hero is a force of nature; he actively kills people with surgical precision. In Normal, Ulysses doesn’t so much defeat the town as survive it. In one fantastic set piece, a character slips on ice and impales themselves on their own bayonet. In another, a massive sign falls and crushes a gunman mid-monologue. The town itself becomes a hostile, slippery, glass-strewn deathtrap. This gives Normal a chaotic, Looney Tunes energy that separates it from its cousins. You never know who is going to die next or how, and Wheatley directs the carnage with a blackly comic eye. The sound design of bones crunching against frozen asphalt is disturbingly hilarious. This isn’t the graceful ballet of assassination; it’s the slapstick of murder, and it is refreshing. And Odenkirk’s performance is the perfect anchor for this chaos because he always looks slightly surprised to still be alive—a quality Neeson, for all his skills, rarely conveyed. The fact that Odenkirk helped write the script means those reactions of shock and reluctant disgust feel genuine rather than performed.

But let’s address the moose in the room. Normal desperately wants to be Fargo, but it only has the vocabulary of a comic book. The Coen Brothers’ masterpiece works because the quirky dialogue masks a terrifying emptiness. Normal wears its quirk on its sleeve like a cheap souvenir. The film tries to weave in social commentary about the death of rural America, gun culture, and even features a subplot involving a trans nonbinary teen (Jess McLeod) who was the child of the previous sheriff. These moments are handled with a surprising amount of grace—they aren’t preachy, just present. However, the film is moving so fast (the runtime is a lean 91 minutes) that it forgets to give these themes any weight. You get a five-second shot of a wall of guns, and then someone blows up. The commentary is there, but it’s just set dressing for the explosion.

Furthermore, the plot structure is lopsided. The film opens with a cold sequence in Japan with the Yakuza cutting off fingers and looking menacing. It feels like a contractual obligation to remind you this is from the John Wick universe, and it’s hard not to wonder if that was a Kolstad-driven choice while Odenkirk might have preferred more mystery. It completely spoils the slow-burn reveal of the town’s corruption. Imagine The Wicker Man if the first scene showed you the villagers burning the wicker man. The tension of Ulysses realizing that “the call is coming from inside the house” is neutered because we, the audience, already know the Yakuza are lurking in the basement. Also, for a movie called Normal, it is incredibly predictable within its own lane. Once the shooting starts, you know exactly where Ulysses is going to end up (spoiler: a hardware store and then the police station). The film devolves into a familiar Assault on Precinct 13 siege scenario, and while the kills are inventive, the geography of the action gets muddy. Wheatley shoots the snowy exteriors beautifully—the white landscape makes the red blood pop like neon—but during the frantic third act, the editing gets choppy, and you lose track of who is shooting whom. For a movie that prides itself on “anti-action,” it relies heavily on the generic rhythms of action in its final twenty minutes.

Despite these structural hiccups, Normal works because it never overstays its welcome. At a brisk hour and a half, it gets in, blows up a town, and gets out. Bob Odenkirk continues to prove that he is the most relatable action hero of the 2020s—the natural heir to the “unlikely badass” throne that Liam Neeson occupied for a solid decade. Where Neeson brought Shakespearean tragedy to the genre, Odenkirk brings a frustrated accountant’s fury. He looks like he just finished paying his taxes, and you believe he is furious about it. Having co-written the film only deepens that authenticity; this isn’t a star merely showing up to say lines, but an actor who has shaped the material to his exact strengths. Ben Wheatley manages to smuggle just enough British cynicism and nasty violence into the frame to keep genre fans on their toes.

Is Normal a great film? No. It is too shallow and too structurally messy for that. But is it a great time at the movies? Absolutely. It is the cinematic equivalent of comfort food laced with hot sauce. You know what you are getting, but the kick is still satisfying. For fans of Odenkirk’s grumpy charm and Wheatley’s chaotic tendencies, Normal is a perfectly abnormal way to spend an evening. Just don’t go looking for the heart that the title promises; this one is all viscera. And frankly, in an era where most action movies are built from the same digital spare parts, watching a former comedy writer freeze his way through a Yakuza invasion feels like the most refreshing kind of normal we could ask for.

Review: Band of Brothers

Posted on by Arleigh

“A lot of those [German] soldiers, I’ve thought about this often, that man and I might’ve been good friends. We might’ve had a lot in common. We might’ve liked to fish, you know, he might’ve liked to hunt. You never know. You know. Of course, they were doin’ what they were supposed to do, and I was tryin’ to do what I was supposed to do. But, under different circumstances we might’ve been good friends.” — Darrell “Shifty” Powers

When we look back at the landscape of modern television, it is easy to take the concept of cinematic TV for granted. We live in an era where massive budgets, sweeping orchestral scores, and A-list Hollywood talent are regularly deployed on the small screen. But if you trace this golden lineage back to its true modern genesis, all roads inevitably lead to a singular, towering achievement: the 2001 HBO mini-series Band of Brothers. Produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, this ten-part masterpiece did not just recount the harrowing journey of Easy Company, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division during World War II; it fundamentally altered the DNA of television storytelling. Watching it today, a quarter-century after its initial broadcast, the series remains as potent, heartbreaking, and visually stunning as it was when it first shocked audiences. It exists as a perfect bridge between the classical Hollywood war epics of old and the uncompromising, gritty realism of twenty-first-century media. By committing to an unprecedented budget and an absolute refusal to sanitize the psychological horrors of combat, Band of Brothers set a high-water mark that few series have ever managed to touch, let alone surpass.

To understand the visual language and visceral power of Band of Brothers, one must first look at the cinematic earthquake that preceded it three years earlier: Steven Spielberg’s 1998 masterpiece Saving Private Ryan. That film rewrote the rules of how cinema captures warfare, abandoning the steady, heroic, brightly lit panoramas of mid-century studio pictures in favor of a terrifyingly immersive, chaotic style. Spielberg utilized desaturated colors, shutter-angle manipulation to create a jittery, hyper-real sense of motion, and handheld cameras that made the audience feel like they were ducking bullets in the surf of Omaha Beach. When Hanks and Spielberg pivoted to television to adapt Stephen E. Ambrose’s non-fiction book Band of Brothers, they brought this exact aesthetic blueprint with them. The impact of Saving Private Ryan on the mini-series cannot be overstated; it acts as the structural and aesthetic godfather of the entire project. Directors like Phil Alden Robinson, Richard Loncraine, and David Nutter utilized the same bleach-bypass film processing techniques to strip away vibrant primaries, leaving a color palette dominated by icy blues, muddy browns, and sickly olive drabs. This was not just a stylistic gimmick; it was a psychological tool that pulled the viewer out of the comfort of their living rooms and dropped them into the frozen, unforgiving forests of Bastogne or the smoke-choked ruins of Carentan. The camera became a participant in the war, getting splattered with mud, shaking violently during artillery barrages, and refusing to look away from the gruesome reality of what high-explosive shrapnel does to human flesh.

Yet, while it shared a visual vocabulary with Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers achieved something that a two-and-a-half-hour feature film simply never could, owing entirely to the expansive canvas of the mini-series format. A film must ultimately compress its narrative arc, often relying on archetypes and rapid pacing to reach a resolution. Over the course of ten hours, Band of Brothers allows its characters to breathe, change, harden, and break. Crucially, some of the show’s most powerful, lasting stories have absolutely nothing to do with active battles, but rather unfold in the quieter moments between the chaos. We do not just see these men in the heat of a firefight; we watch them suffer through the mundane, soul-crushing basic training regime of Camp Toccoa under the tyrannical eye of Captain Sobel, played with a brilliant, tragic insecurity by David Schwimmer. We sit with them in the agonizing, silent darkness of C-47 transport planes, listening to the vomit hitting the floorboards and watching the sheer, unadulterated dread on their faces before the jump over Normandy. We freeze with them in foxholes during the long, static winter in the forests of Bastogne, sharing the psychological numbness of isolation and the simple, desperate human desire for a dry pair of socks or a warm cup of coffee. This structural patience transforms the viewing experience from simple passive entertainment into an emotional marathon. We have known these men through their triumphs and their absolute lowest points, making their losses hit with the weight of personal bereavement.

While these quiet stretches build a deep, slow-burning empathy, the absolute biggest gut punch of the entire series arrives in Episode 9, titled Why We Fight. Throughout their march across Europe, the men of Easy Company—and by extension, the audience—have become somewhat cynical and battle-weary, numbly pushing forward simply to survive and get the job done. That numbness is completely shattered when a patrol stumbles across an sub-camp in the woods near Landsberg, which itself was part of the larger Dachau concentration camp complex. Up until this point, the war had been about geopolitical strategies, territory, and survival; suddenly, the men are brought face-to-face with the industrial scale of Nazi atrocities. The direction in this sequence is devastatingly restrained. There are no swelling orchestrations or heroic monologues, only the bewildered horror of soldiers looking at skeletal survivors wandering the camp in striped uniforms. Watching tough, battle-hardened paratroopers like Captain Nixon and Major Winters reduced to breathless, disbelieving silence as they uncover the truth of the Holocaust anchors the narrative in an entirely different tier of tragedy. It is an episode that completely recontextualizes the title of the series, showing that their ultimate purpose transcended military victory; they were liberating humanity from an unimaginable nightmare.

The casting of the series is another stroke of absolute genius that looks even more miraculous in hindsight. The producers deliberately avoided casting massive, distracting superstars for the main roles, opting instead for relatively unknown British and American theater and character actors. This decision was crucial for maintaining the show’s documentary-like authenticity; if Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt had been jumping out of those planes, the illusion would have been instantly shattered. Instead, we got Damian Lewis as Major Richard Winters, delivering a performance of quiet, stoic, and deeply principled leadership that serves as the moral anchor of the entire narrative. Alongside him was Ron Livingston as Captain Lewis Nixon, embodying the weary, cynical, and battle-fatigued intellect of a man seeking refuge from the horrors of war in a bottle of Vat 69. The ensemble is a treasure trove of talent, featuring early-career appearances from actors who would go on to become household names, including Tom Hardy, Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Simon Pegg, and Michael Cudlitz. Because the show focuses on an entire company, the perspective shifts naturally from episode to episode. One week we are viewing the war through the eyes of a terrified replacement medic in Bastogne, and the next we are embedded with the cynical, battle-hardened sergeant Carwood Lipton in The Breaking Point. This shifting focus ensures that the series never feels like a traditional Hollywood star vehicle, but rather a collective portrait of brotherhood where the company itself is the true protagonist.

The emotional resonance of Band of Brothers is amplified tenfold by the brilliant inclusion of interviews with the actual surviving veterans of Easy Company at the beginning of each episode. Kept anonymous until the very final moments of the series, these elderly men sit in simple chairs against dark backgrounds, their voices trembling and eyes misting over as they recall events that occurred more than half a century prior. There is a heartbreaking disconnect between the frail, weathered men on screen and the vibrant, muscular young actors portraying them in the dramatization. These interviews ground the cinematic spectacle in an undeniable, sobering reality. They serve as a constant reminder that the explosions, the blood, and the impossible acts of bravery we are witnessing were not the inventions of a Hollywood writers’ room, but the actual lived experiences of ordinary boys who were plucked from small-town America and dropped into the middle of the apocalypse. When the real-life winter veteran Dick Winters quotes his friend’s letter at the end of the series—saying, “Grandpa, were you a hero in the war? And Grandpa said no, but I served in a company of heroes”—it is impossible not to be moved to tears. It is a rare instance where a piece of media successfully honors historical figures without falling into the trap of cheap, unearned sentimentality or jingoistic propaganda.

Beyond its historical and emotional triumphs, the legacy of Band of Brothers is woven directly into the fabric of what we now refer to as prestige television. Before 2001, television was largely viewed as cinema’s lesser sibling—a medium defined by low budgets, procedural structures, and compromised production values meant to fit the square dimensions of old cathode-ray tube television sets. HBO had already begun to challenge this status quo with groundbreaking dramas like The Sopranos and Oz, but Band of Brothers was the project that proved television could match, and perhaps even exceed, the scale and artistic ambition of Hollywood blockbusters. With a staggering budget of over one hundred and twenty million dollars, it was the most expensive television miniseries ever produced at the time. The immense financial gamble paid off spectacularly, demonstrating to network executives and creators alike that audiences were hungry for complex, serialized, and visually uncompromising narratives that demanded to be treated as high art. The success of the show cleared the path for future cinematic television epics, directly inspiring sister projects like The Pacific and Masters of the Air, while setting the production standards that would later allow shows like Game of Thrones, Chernobyl, and Succession to flourish. It proved that the small screen was capable of housing massive, global historical narratives without losing the intimate character dynamics that make long-form storytelling so uniquely compelling.

Ultimately, Band of Brothers stands as a definitive milestone because it perfectly balanced the macro-scale horror of global warfare with the micro-scale beauty of human connection. It stripped away the romanticized myths of World War II to expose the sheer, terrifying randomness of survival, while simultaneously validating the profound love and loyalty that can only be forged in the crucible of shared suffering. It did not glamorize combat; instead, it illuminated the heavy, permanent psychological toll extracted from those who survived it. Through its hyper-realistic visual language inherited from Saving Private Ryan, its impeccable ensemble casting, and its revolutionary impact on the medium of television, the series achieved a timeless quality. It remains a definitive piece of cultural touchstone media that demands annual rewatches from millions of viewers around the globe. It is not just a historical chronicle, nor is it merely a well-executed piece of premium television; it is a monument to the human spirit, an artistic triumph that continues to remind us of the immense sacrifices made by an ordinary generation of heroes who stood together when the world was falling apart.

Hero of the Day: Monkey D. Luffy (One Piece)

Posted on by Arleigh

“If you don’t take risks, you can’t create a future.” — Monkey D. Luffy

Few modern heroes are as deceptively simple—and as radically compelling—as Monkey D. Luffy, the captain of the Straw Hat Pirates in Eiichiro Oda’s One Piece. At first glance, Luffy appears to be a collection of childish quirks: he is obsessed with meat, lacks basic social filters, and possesses a rubbery physiology from eating a Devil Fruit. Yet this very simplicity is the engine of his charisma. Unlike brooding antiheroes or strategically minded protagonists, Luffy operates on pure, unshakable instinct. He does not deliberate over moral philosophy; he simply knows what is right and acts. This unreflective certainty, far from being a flaw, becomes a magnetic force that draws allies, intimidates enemies, and anchors a twenty-year narrative. Luffy’s charm lies in his refusal to be complicated—because in a world as tangled and oppressive as One Piece’s Grand Line, absolute clarity of heart is the rarest and most powerful form of freedom.

What makes Luffy truly interesting is that his simplicity is not ignorance but a deliberate, almost radical philosophy of liberation. From his very first appearance, Luffy declares that becoming the Pirate King is not about dominion or wealth but about having the most freedom in the world. He does not want to rule—he wants to ensure that he and everyone he cares about can live exactly as they choose. This is why he destroys flags, punches world nobles, and declares war on the World Government without a second thought. He does not fight for abstract justice; he fights for the specific, immediate freedom of a friend in pain. At the Enies Lobby arc, when he orders Sogeking to burn the World Government’s flag, he is not calculating political consequences—he is telling Robin that she has the right to live. That moment crystallizes Luffy’s heroism: he makes the grandest political statements through the most personal acts of loyalty.

Luffy’s charisma also stems from his profound and unpretentious emotional intelligence. He may be unable to grasp basic concepts like navigation or medicine, but he can see into a person’s heart in seconds. He understands that Nami’s apparent betrayal hides desperate sacrifice, that Robin’s coldness masks a death wish, and that even villains like Bellamy are pathetic rather than truly evil. His famous line—“I can’t use a sword, I can’t cook, I can’t lie, but I can beat you”—is not arrogance; it is an honest inventory of his limits paired with absolute faith in his crew to fill the gaps. This reciprocal trust is the foundation of his leadership. Luffy does not command; he inspires. Each Straw Hat joins because Luffy recognizes their dream without mockery and stakes his life on its fulfillment. In a genre full of lone prodigies, Luffy’s greatness is entirely relational: he is only as strong as his crew needs him to be, and he knows it.

Structurally, Oda uses Luffy’s resistance to change as a source of dramatic tension and emotional payoff. Unlike typical heroes who evolve through tragedy, Luffy’s core identity remains static—but that stasis is tested mercilessly. The Summit War Saga, where Luffy loses his brother Ace, is devastating precisely because Luffy is not equipped for grief. He breaks completely, questioning whether he deserves to be captain. Yet even then, his recovery does not involve becoming darker or wiser in a cynical sense. He re-emerges with a new technique (Gear Second) but the same simple creed: protect what matters. This refusal to let trauma harden him is deeply refreshing. Luffy cries openly, admits weakness, and then smiles again. His resilience is not stoic suppression but childlike renewal—the ability to feel everything and still believe in his dream. That emotional honesty, rare in shonen protagonists, makes him feel real and aspirational at once.

Ultimately, Monkey D. Luffy endures as a charismatic hero because he embodies a longing that transcends the pages of One Piece: the wish for a person who is utterly free from cynicism, status, and fear. In a world that often rewards calculation, compromise, and cool detachment, Luffy offers the radical alternative of pure, joyful sincerity. He laughs in the face of death, forgives his enemies’ cruelty if it amuses him, and treats admirals and emperors with the same casual informality as a village bartender. His charisma is not about being cool—it is about being incapable of pretending. That authenticity is magnetic because it speaks to a universal desire to live without masks. Luffy will never be the smartest or most polished hero, but he is the one you would follow into hell, because you know he would go first, laughing, and never ask you to be anyone other than who you are. That is the strange, rubbery magic of the man who will be Pirate King.

Hero of the Day