the arab khaleesi blog

REVIEW: INGLORIOUS B*STERDS

(poster uploaded by Jeff Poitiers)

Inglorious B******s (2009) takes place in Nazi-occupied France during World War II, where a plan to assassinate Nazi leaders by a group of Jewish U.S. soldiers coincides with a cinema owner's vengeful plans to do the same🎞 - Even though it took me a while to realize it, I’m pretty sure IB is my (current) favorite film from Quentin Tarantino. I was hesitant to write a review on it because I thought I couldn’t say much that hasn’t already been said before, but since I made the claim of it being my favorite, I felt it was fair to explain why, at least in my own words. Out of all of Tarantino’s films, I just feel like Inglorious B* has the most to offer & then some. It has something for everyone, really. It’s got action, a rich plot, history, violence, thrills, suspense, war, politics, emotion, all wrapped into one - & this is another instance were Tarantino nails such an ambitious challenge that not many directors could've pulled off. - Though the film is titled Inglorious B******s, the film really follows two parties: the B*, & Shoshanna, the Jewish cinemaowner living in Nazi-occupied France who is also one of the best characters among all of Tarantino’s films; though Shoshanna’ storyline is far more interesting to follow than the B******s’, they complement each other really well - & the B******s add that Tarantino quality & action you’d also want & expect to see, without taking away from Shoshanna’s story. Besides taking place in the same setting, the two storylines are only connected by one character: the film’s terrifying villain, Hans Landa. Anyone that’s seen the film can tell you that Landa without a doubt steals the show with his incredible on-screen performance, & solidifies himself as not only one of the best Tarantino characters, but arguably one of the best movie villains of all time. While that’s attributed to QT’s writing, the character wouldn’t be anything (& he’d cease to exist on-screen according to QT himself) without Christoph Waltz & his bone-chilling performance & on-screen presence. - From the very first moment we meet Hans Landa, during the outstanding first 20-30 minutes of the film, we know everything we need to know about him for us to remain on the edge of our seats whenever we see him throughout the rest of the film. We’re well-aware that this is a person to be feared, one that doesn’t play around. As soon as he appears on screen in any scene, the atmosphere of the scene changes… suddenly there’s a sense of danger & trouble in the air… we know something is wrong or is about to go wrong before we’re even aware of what it might be… because of him & the environment QT creates, those first 30 minutes of the film are just as suspenseful as some of the greatest thrillers I’ve seen, with the tension building for the rest of the film towards the film’s explosive ending. At times, Landa can come off as sort of an “exaggerated N*zi villain” you’d see in some films, but instead of it turning him into an unbelievable caricature, it makes him all the more terrifying… you never really know what he’s feeling - when he laughs or smiles, he could be planning a murder in his head. If that isn’t an excellent villain (& proof of QT’s talents in terms of writing & directing), I don’t know what is. And he’s just one of the amazing characters in the film, with the other standout being Mélanie Laurent as Shoshanna, a character that stands for so much in this film.

However, I can’t say I don’t have mixed feelings about the film’s ending. My problems with the ending emerged when I watched the film for the second time this year, despite me loving the ending entirely the first time around. I can’t talk about it without spoiling the film for those who haven’t seen it, so I have a small section with a spoiler tag where I discuss it, but what I will say here is that I usually don’t mind when Tarantino (or other directors/writers) “change history” in their narrative fictional films (i.e. those not intended to tell/adapt a true story) because it’s not their intention to do so, & I think the way QT did that here is even greater than how he did it in OUATIH…

SPOILER SECTION!! ⚠️⚠️ As I said, my (slight) problems with the ending emerged when I watched the film for the second time this year, despite me loving the ending entirely the first time around. Even though it seemed obvious that she wouldn’t, a part of me really wanted Shoshanna to survive. It would’ve been really cool to see her emerge as a known hero of the story along with the B*sterds, she deserved to witness her revenge play out entirely, & she deserved to kill Landa… I don’t think his ending was satisfying enough. He deserved more than what he got. But seeing Hitler & a bunch of N*zis get killed at the hands of Jewish rebels? Yeah, that was epic.

REVIEW: KILL BILL

Kill Bill stars Uma Thurman as the Bride, a former assassin who swears revenge on a team of assassins & their leader, Bill, after they try to kill her & her unborn child. The story is divided into two films, Vol. 1 (2003) & Vol. 2 (2004) - both written & directed by Quentin Tarantino. This will mainly be a review of Vol 1, but I left a small section at the end where I briefly discuss my thoughts on Vol 2 without mentioning spoilers for either film.⚔️ - Kill Bill Vol 1 is an exciting, thrilling ride from start to finish as we follow the mysterious Bride & her quest for revenge. It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. I’m not going to pretend like I know anything about the martial arts movies Tarantino pays homage to in Kill Bill, I haven’t seen a single one of the genre yet, but to me it felt like QT took everything he loved from those films & perfectly paid homage to them & adapted it for Western audiences or those that are unfamiliar with the genre (like me) by Americanizing it & adding his signature touches & trademarks without butchering or mocking the films he was inspired by; simultaneously, he didn’t let any of that stop him from going all out on this film in every aspect, from the most unashamedly violent & bloodiest action to the highly stylized storytelling of the film. It's as if Tarantino added any stylistic device he could think of when writing the script or in the editing room, & surprisingly, it works… really well. It shouldn't, but it does - I think if many other directors attempted it they wouldn’t have pulled it off the way he did; it helps that Kill Bill has a simple premise to follow (something I appreciate & give bonus points to in any action film) while remaining extremely exciting - aided by the heavy stylization. The 10-minute anime sequence on its own could be taken out & released on its own as a short film & it would still be excellent, worthy of all the praise, & be a lesson in filmmaking in itself, which speaks for how remarkable the rest of the film is - You don’t get bored for a single second while watching The Bride kick butt in a thousand ways that would guarantee she’d win a fight against any male action hero, & she does that as a kind of anti-hero. She's definitely among my favorite Tarantino characters, yet I still can’t help but have a bit of mixed feelings about The Bride’s character. - By giving her the story of being a mother whose child is taken away from her, we don’t REALLY need to know much more about her intentions in the film - that is definitely reason enough for her to seek revenge & for us to sympathize with & root for her... & while I really like the simplicity of that & the theme of revenge, I felt like I still needed to know a bit more about her, especially when her antagonist in the film has a fleshed out, brilliant backstory, one we can more easily connect with, while The Bride is left with close to nothing. And based on what I know & have seen, Tarantino isn’t the type of director who’s philosophical & deep & would write her in such a way so we’re left to question ourselves, our experience or our morality, even while making her such an interesting anti-hero to follow…

REVIEW: WHAT A WAY TO GO! (1964)

SOME THOUGHTS ON HAMILTON & THE HAMILFILM

I said I wasn’t going to review Hamilton, & this isn’t technically a review, but I couldn’t help myself from discussing its genius or the film. If you wanted me to rate it, consider it to be a perfect rating: 10/10, 100%, A+, you name it. Since I’ll never be able to dissect or talk about Hamilton as in-depth as I’d like to (I could write an entire book on it & wouldn’t know where to stop), consider this a discussion or appreciation post where I express SOME of my thoughts on Hamilton & the Hamilfilm. - To me, Hamilton is a masterpiece and Lin-Manuel Miranda is a genius. He said something along the lines of “people will just think you’re a genius if you write a musical about a genius” but I disagree with him (& he was awarded the MacArthur “Genius Grant” so yeah Lin, you're a genius). Only a genius would look at the founding fathers and say: “yes, this is a hip-hop story”. And he doesn’t just tell Hamilton’s incredible story, he wrote Hamilton in such a way that every line, word, song, & verse is written in a specific way for a specific reason, whether it's as simple as a rhyme, or whether it’s because Lin Manuel Miranda is making a deep-reference we might later discover or whether it’s in the exact style & structure of Alexander Hamilton’s writings. Combine that with his fellow brilliant collaborators - Alex Lacamoire, Thomas Kail, Andy Blankenbuehler - you have a show where every stage direction, dance move, & note serves a greater purpose & they come together perfectly. Hamilton is absolutely filled with an unbelievable amount of hidden treasures (meanings, symbols, references) that I still find myself discovering new ones every time I revisit it, from the role of “the Bullet”, to the spectacular staging of Satisfied, & the mini replay in Hurricane to name a few. Lin turned a seemingly dry, confusing concept into an exciting, moving, unparalleled piece of art that speaks on each theme it touches upon - legacy, reputation, history, work, politics, honor, love, with great depth & meaning. And by doing so, the musical & it’s incredible lyrics could easily resonate with or impact anyone who, like Lin, Hamilton & me, have great value for those things. - One of the first things you might’ve heard or noticed about Hamilton, is that every actor in the show is a person of color (except those in the ensemble/King George). Everyone else: Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, The Schuyler Sisters, they’re all white in real-life, yet they’re played in the show by BIPOC, which in itself is a stroke of genius because Hamilton’s story is extremely relevant today & resonates more with BIPOC experiences than white people, & in every major project he’s worked on, Lin-Manuel helps amplify BIPOC representation; not only does he do that in Hamilton as well, but it’s the perfect way for the story to be delivered when you combine this casting choice with the music Lin wrote for the show that stem from BIPOC origins. Can you imagine how underwhelming it’d be for a white person to sing Lafayette’s raps?  It’s one of the ways “the story of America then is told by America now”, WITHOUT glorifying the founding fathers or excusing the horrible things they did. On the contrary, the show goes out of its way numerous times to emphasize that fact & anyone who took that away from Hamilton didn’t understand or pay attention enough. (Plus LMM condensed an entire man’s life into two & a half hours, give him a break).

As for the Hamilfilm, the only thing I can attempt to “review” is how it was adapted/filmed. And let me just say, director Thomas Kail pulled off an incredible feat with the Hamilfilm. When listening to Hamilton for the first time, I could visualize it all in my head like a movie, & I couldn’t really imagine how it’d be on stage. And when I saw it live, I was blown away & almost couldn’t imagine it as a traditional movie. So when I heard they were filming it this way, I was pleased but worried it wouldn’t be as immersive as the show. But Kail did it. He made Hamilton as immersive as it could possibly be on film, & I’d even go as far as to say it might be even more immersive than seeing it live as you’re provided a better perspective than any seat in the theater. He puts you on stage & in the audience simultaneously, through closeups that put us in the midst of the drama & show us the actors’ talents, wide shots that show us the stage & choreography in all its glory, and tracking shots that put us in the midst of the action, following all the melodious movements of the actors & dancers on stage. I’ve seen similar “professionally filmed” Broadway shows but none of them are as well-done or as well-directed as Hamilton was. (Though I’d trade a few closeups of King George for wide shots…) The editing was never off or felt choppy, which is remarkable considering they filmed it over several days & shows, yet it still feels like one outstanding show with the original cast - all of whom were sensational. I can’t even pin-point a favorite number or performance because I loved them all so much - Satisfied did give me goosebumps like nothing else though.

REVIEW: RESERVOIR DOGS (1992)

REVIEW: GOODFELLAS (1990)

Goodfellas (1990) follows the true story of mobster Henry Hill and his life in the Italian-American crime syndicate, from his early days to his relationship with his wife & unstable fellow mobsters Jimmy (Robert De Niro) & Tommy (Joe Pesci) as they climb the ladder from petty crime to violent gangsters🔎

Goodfellas doesn’t simply tell a gangster story, it welcomes you into the gangster world with open arms & a reward for your visit. It’s an immersive experience where Martin Scorsese perfectly sets up the gangster world we’re all unfamiliar with in real-life and introduces it to us just like it’s being introduced to our main character, Henry. And the gangster world in Goodfellas is unlike anything that came before it.

Martin Scorsese is a master at allowing his audience to understand the POVs and perspectives of outsiders, outcasts, antagonists, and other “grey area” characters without sympathizing with them - and Goodfellas is no different...so how does he do that with gangsters? Like other character types Scorsese has dealt with in the past, we can’t necessarily relate to gangsters on a surface level, so what Scorsese brilliantly does is, in order for us to care for & relate to the characters, he makes us befriend them. Instead of seeing the characters as some untouchable, fearful, villainous mob bosses and stereotyping them, they’re our friends. We follow Henry’s journey the whole way through like it’s our own, as he becomes an outsider admiring the mob to an insider, befriending & partnering with De Niro & Pesci along the way (& having such heavy hitters on the sidelines makes us able to ‘relate’ to Henry further) until we’re a part of their high-ranking inner circle, seeing how gangsters work & operate on a day-to-day basis, what goes on behind the scenes, & mob politics/relationships - exactly what you’d want from a great gangster film, but we’re also with them when they’re just hanging out & playing around like we do with our own friends. - It even helps that we’re introduced to them at a younger age & see them grow up as they try to figure out who they are, what they stand for, & their place in the world (something many of us can relate to). It all seems fun & helps us weirdly bond with the characters to the point that even when they commit crimes or do other unethical acts, it doesn’t seem so bad to us… it’s just business… until Scorsese snaps us out of it & reminds us that they’re fictional gangsters, not our friends… Another brilliant thing he does in Goodfellas, is he excellently uses any tool he can to tell this story more effectively. Goodfellas takes place over a long period of time & provides its viewers with a substantial amount of information to take in, but it never feels that way. The directing, editing, & cinematography make it a fun, fast-paced enjoyable ride you want to be on rather than a dull, disjointed biopic. The freeze frames & voiceover narration are also perfectly used to contribute to the film’s storytelling by showing the key lessons & moments in our characters’ lives and their thoughts, without totally relying on them - they provide an extra layer of depth & understanding to these characters for us, the audience. And, in classic Scorsese fashion, it allows us to see their struggle with their morality along the way.

May 2020 turned out to be May-rtin Scorsese month for me! (Stupid pun, I know let’s just move on). I had watched 3 or 4 Scorsese films beforehand, but one night I decided to watch Raging Bull, then Taxi Driver, & before I knew it, I couldn’t stop watching the rest of Scorsese’s filmography! I decided to devote the rest of the month to watching his films, & conclude it by writing a post where I tried to rank & review each one. As I watched more of his films, I realized it'd be impossible to rank AND review them all in one post, so I'll be sharing some mini reviews via stories or another post soon. Please note, this ranking is subjective & just based on my opinions. My ranking/ratings might change with time, I constantly shuffled some of them around, but I'm comfortable with how I ranked everything at the moment. This list excludes docs, shorts, & some films of his I chose not to watch (Boxcar Bertha, Kundun, Last Temptation of Christ, Silence)

So here's my (tentative) ranking of Martin Scorsese's films from lowest to highest! - 21. Who’s That Knocking At My Door (7/10) 20. The Age of Innocence (7/10) 19. Bringing Out the Dead (7/10) 18. The Color of Money (7/10) 17. New York New York (7/10) 16. Cape Fear (7/10) 15. After Hours (7/10) 14. The Aviator (7/10) 13. Gangs of New York 12. Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (7/10) 11. Shutter Island (7/10) 10. Mean Streets (7.7/10)

9. Raging Bull (8/10)

8. Hugo (8/10)

7. Casino (8.2/10)

6. The Departed (8.3/10)

5. The King of Comedy (8.5/10)

4. The Wolf of Wall Street (8.7/10)

3. The Irishman (9/10)

2. Taxi Driver (9/10)

1. Goodfellas (9.5/10)

REVIEW: TAXI DRIVER (1976)

Taxi Driver (1976) is a neo-noir thriller that follows Travis Bickle, a lonely and mentally unstable veteran who works as a nighttime taxi driver in New York City 🚕 - More than anything Taxi Driver is a character study on the very interesting & engaging anti-hero, Travis Bickle, who is, as quoted to him in the film, "a walking contradiction". He’s disgusted with the world around him, considering it to be one of filth, and looks down on all the activities and people that make it so.. without realizing he’s apart of it all. & when he loses the little faith he had in the world (which he projected onto others), he decides to take matters into his own hands, no matter how dirty they get. But in doing so, he becomes more corrupted & similar to the world he hates than before. Yet Travis doesn't realize that & sees himself as a hero, a vigilante of sorts because in reality, he’s mentally unstable, insecure, doesn't have any firm beliefs, lost in life, and trying to find a purpose. It could also be said that at his core Travis is not a bad person, but perhaps one corrupted by war, returning to a country & world he lost faith in, incapable of expressing himself & with no one to give him orders on what to do - it's up to him to decide what to do and what's right or wrong... - And the result is Travis embodying a great example of an anti-hero. Through him, Scorsese excellently explores the grey area of people & morality, as at the end of the film, he leaves us to make our own judgements about the character & the film, questioning our own viewing experience & morals in the process. Scorsese never asks us to sympathize with Travis or attempts to paint him as a victim, but he perfectly builds & captures his world, showing it to us from his perspective to better understand him. And he does so by choosing to focus on the dark, dirty side of New York City as it is instead of glamorizing it like most films, filming the city’s contrasting neon & darker colors, & making us feel like we’re almost a passenger with Travis for the entire ride. - And no one could've pulled off the role & portrayed the character as brilliantly as Robert De Niro, whose performance can easily give you chills as we see him & Travis transform while struggling with his own internal conflict & morality. - The only thing I might say I disliked or found a bit odd was that as the film progresses into its third quarter, all the momentum that was built is weirdly put on pause while Travis refocuses his crusade, slowing things down before the final quarter kicks things off again.. - Nevertheless, Taxi Driver is a landmark film of the 1970s and one of Scorsese’s best for a reason. It’s brilliant, with a very interesting, controversial, & memorable anti-hero, perfectly capturing the conflicts most people were experiencing at the time (including Vietnam veterans, De Niro, & Scorsese themselves, while remaining timeless. - Rating: 9/10⭐️

REVIEW: JAWS (1975)

In Steven Spielberg’s Jaws (1975), a killer shark unleashes chaos on a beach community, and it's up to a local sheriff, a marine biologist, and an old seafarer to hunt the beast down🦈 - I remember seeing Jaws a couple of times as a kid and never really thought to rewatch it as an adult until recently, because, save for a few details, I pretty much remembered the film vividly. But I’m in the midst of a 1970s movie binge, & figured since it’s been a while, why not? …And I didn’t expect it to be a very apt, relevant time to watch it. - In Jaws, as the killer shark wrecks havoc on the beach community, the problem is first dismissed as a one-off occurrence…after a few more cases, the city is torn whether to shut down for the public’s safety or to keep the beaches open for the local economy despite the deadly risks… sound familiar? Yes, who would’ve guessed that Jaws would reflect our living situation in 2020 more than Back to the Future 2? - There’s something very Hitchcock-ian about Jaws. We know the threat is there from the first few minutes of the film, & we have an understanding of how dangerous it is, & at the center of it all, we’re following a conflicted character who’s in a place they shouldn’t be - a fish out of water dealing with a fish in the water, dealing with a haunting presence in the midst of an unsettling, unknown, & uncontrollable chaos… we don’t even see the shark until about halfway into the film. Though the actual reason for that is because Spielberg hated how fake the shark looked & wanted to show as little of it as possible, it worked out for the best because that allowed the whole ordeal to feel more realistic and terrorizing and allowed us to experience it just like the main characters do, making the entire experience all the more frightening rather than relying on cheap jump scares and gore. - What accompanies & elevates that terror perfectly is John Williams’ haunting score. The simple yet iconic music we hear whenever the shark is present is enough to build suspense & put us on edge in a second - because of it, we don’t even need to see the shark. Spielberg has said that the success of the film relied on & was due to Williams’ score, and he’s right. However, I don’t want to seem like I completely disregard Steven Spielberg - he’s one of my favorite filmmakers, & though it’s not my favorite film of his, I still think he did a terrific job. - With the slower pace (& the obviously mechanical shark), Jaws might seem dated to audiences today, who might’ve seen films from recent years that are more thrilling and exciting than the slow hunt & anticipation for a shark attack - & I definitely understand where they’re coming from. - At the same time, I appreciate Jaws because at the time, there wasn’t anything like it & it went on to become such a huge success that it left a legacy & changed the film industry by becoming the first ever “blockbuster” and setting the “summer movie” trend - it paved way & set the standards for the majority of films that would come after it to this very day, & that’s no small feat👏🏼 - Rating: 8.5/10⭐️

REVIEW: PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006)

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) follows Ofelia, the bookish young stepdaughter of a sadistic army officer in Falangist Spain as she discovers an eerie but captivating fantasy world hidden within our own full of fairies, monsters, and a faun who gives her three treacherous tasks...✨ - This is a beautiful film, from one of my favorite filmmakers, Guillermo del Toro. Fellow fans of del Toro are aware of his love for the eccentric and his gorgeously ghoulish aesthetic - and this is no different. In Pan’s Labyrinth, Del Toro presents a beautiful fairy tale that is modern, yet is simultaneously timeless, as it is clear, he drew inspiration from traditional tales and fantastical folklores and myths, yet it remains completely original and its own story. And it is a great one that’s told excellently. - Pan’s Labyrinth features dual storylines and worlds, both told through the eyes of the young Ofelia - one of cunning creatures and quests, and the other, one of unsettling chaos, violence, and abuse…our world, in the midst of a war. And while it might be hard to imagine a combination of fantasy and war, GDT perfectly intertwines the two genres, in a way that highlights the film’s message and themes, which appear in both contrasting worlds - monsters, greed, escapism, brutality, authority, rebellion, and hope against all odds. It’s dark, tragic, and frightening, definitely not a fairy tale for kids, but it’s also beautiful and poetic - a perfect balance that Del Toro is always able to achieve. The film is a perfect reflection of who he is & his style, as it’s told through the eyes of a character not too different from Del Toro himself - a person full of wonder with an incredible imagination that reaches far beyond the limits of our world. - And I’m sure anyone who ever understood that need to escape into fantastical worlds, the hope for a magical world within our own, & the willingness and bravery to explore - movie-lovers, readers, writers, and those in tune to their inner child - will enjoy this film as much as I did. As long as you don’t mind a little darkness… - 9/10⭐️

REVIEW: GRAVITY (2013)

REVIEW: SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK (2012)

REVIEW: VEEP

Veep is a series from HBO following Selina Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), a fictional vice president of the United States, and her team as they attempt to make their mark and leave a legacy and all their outrageous antics in Washington, DC. Veep is a great show - given the show premiered in 2012, I’d say it was ahead of its time - as it would’ve been an easy concept to think of in recent years with the absurdity in US politics today. It was innovative & due to how brilliant it was, I doubt there will be a show like it in the near future.During its prime seasons, the show is a near-perfect depiction of subtle yet realistic political satire that didn’t rely on over-the-top gags but on the sheer talent in its writing team and cast, with witty, sharp, clever comedy and on-point delivery. - The cast members, most of which were nominated for Emmys, were outstanding. I thought Julia Louis Dreyfus couldn’t portray a character anywhere as iconic as Elaine in Seinfeld, and boy was I wrong. JLD proves that she’s a master of comedy, in a role tailor-made to her talents - no one could’ve portrayed her as well or made the extremely unlikable Selina Meyer as fun to watch as she did. Another personal favorite of mine was Gary Walsh portrayed by Tony Hale, who always ends up being my favorite in any project I see him in - he was hilarious & the only generally likable, pure character in the show. - However, I have to say I was disappointed by the show’s last two seasons, and for a multitude of reasons. Veep was never the show that had an emotional tone or ever attempted to establish an emotional connection between the characters and the audience - plus, it helped that only a select few of the show’s characters were generally “likable”. But going into the last two seasons, I expected a satisfying ending and a proper, heartfelt farewell to these crazy characters we spent so much time with, and I was let down. Not only did we not get a satisfying ending, it was almost cruel - to us & the characters. The characters were unrecongnizable, the opportunity for meaningful character development thrown out the window in favor of a depressing ending verging on cartoon-ish satire rather than the subtle, smart satire I loved about it. Veep never needed to make a “statement” about the Trump era, it already encapsulated his ridiculousness without even trying in previous seasons just by being what it was. I understand Veep was never an emotional show, I’m totally fine with that, & I actually appreciate some of the details in the finale, but overall… I still would’ve preferred a happier ending which might’ve been more powerful & satisfying.

REVIEW: MINDHUNTER (SEASONS 1 & 2)

REVIEW: EMMA. (2020)

REVIEW: BIRDS OF PREY (2020)

In the latest film from DC Comics, Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey are on a quest to save a troubled young girl from Gotham City crime lord Black Mask💘 Birds of Prey has everything you could want from a Harley Quinn movie. It’s as wild, silly, naughty, colorful and all over the place as its main character - any other tone or direction wouldn’t have worked as well given the established version of Harley in the DCEU. And it’s a fun ride to say the least. Though the film is titled Birds of Prey, make no mistake, this is Harley’s story. At the start of the film, everyone knows & remembers her from a hazy memory as a loud, possibly psychotic attachment to the Joker… not unlike how many people think of her in real life. Harley’s not a good person. And she knows that. She chooses to save herself before anyone else and doesn’t try to be the hero. She’s a proud anti-hero. And this story isn’t necessarily about her redemption, but rather Harley trying to prove herself, to the people of Gotham, the people watching the film, and to herself... and watching her do so is a sight to see. We see a rare, more vulnerable side to the character as she learns to be more confident in her skin & show the world that Harley Quinn is even stronger, tougher, wilder, and more confident and “fantabulous” on her own or with a girl gang than she ever was with “Mr. J”. I like Harley even more than I did, I appreciated where they took her character, & I thought Margot Robbie was awesome. I loved Cathy Yan’s directing & Christina Hodson’s script. I really appreciated that you could tell it’s a story about women by women, from the little details to the overall story - passing a hairtie during a fight, the costumes that aren’t unnecessarily s*xualized, and by them just presenting a superhero action flick fronted by women and showing that they can stand on their own. It wouldn’t have worked as well if it were directed/written by a man. I also really liked the movie’s soundtrack and how it was used in the film.

Still, the plot has its flaws and weak points, and while it was fun to have Harley narrate the story with humorous & fun moments & storytelling techniques reminiscent of Deadpool, the story felt disjointed at times and would’ve flowed better if it were consistent and linear. Additionally, I wish all of the supporting characters were even more fleshed out than they were - we got a good glimpse of their backstories & personalities to understand their motivations, but not enough us love them or to connect with them.

Overall, Birds of Prey is an extremely fun & enjoyable ride that would please any fellow fan of DC Comics and the fabulous Harley Quinn.

REVIEW: THE MARVELOUS MRS MAISEL