Fight Club

A complex, confused look at life in late-90s America, David Fincher’s violent 1999 black comedy “Fight Club” remains one of the most divisive movies of the past 20 years. Hated by insensitive critics when it was first released as a hateful celebration of chaos, the film has over the years gained a passionate cult of mostly male viewers who have gotten it equally wrong. There is pessimism, violence, and anarchy in Fincher’s adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk’s cult novel about a nameless protagonist (Edward Norton) who falls out of his tiring job into a fighting ring and eventual terrorist organization run by the loud Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). However, it’s all part of the film’s livid, despairing satire of a culture so overwhelmed with materialism and greed the only response is to burn the whole thing down and start over from the beginning.

Norton’s protagonist, suffering from insomnia because of unhappiness over his materialist lifestyle (Matt Noller said in his review, “his apartment is presented in the style of an IKEA catalogue, one of Fincher’s earliest and most effective bits of artful digital trickery”), starts the film by finding comfort through support groups for disorders he doesn’t have. Noller mentioned, “Attending groups for testicular cancer patients, alcoholics, and survivors of incest allows Norton to have people really listen to him rather than just “wait for their turn to talk.” It’s his escape from his soul-crushing corporate job (a risk calculator for a major automobile manufacturer), but it’s a false one because it’s a lie.” He finds a more apparently real escape in Durden, whom he meets on an airplane and goes to live with after his apartment burns down.

Noller said, “Norton’s character and the tackily dressed Durden, who attacks mainstream values by splicing porn footage into children’s films and selling women’s liposuction fat back to them in boutique soaps, form the underground “Fight Club,” where men go to beat the shit out of each other. It’s a total boy’s club, which explains why Fight Club has so appealed to a certain strand of hyper-masculine men who don’t understand that Fincher, Palahniuk, and screenwriter Jim Uhls are making fun of them.” “Fight Club” never hides the fact that the club and its terrorist branch, Project Mayhem, are just more false support groups, nor does it steer away from the fact that its members are mindless, whining idiots. Noller described, “Though the film’s big plot twist doesn’t make much narrative sense, it does make explicit that Durden is just a literal manifestation of a ridiculous male fantasy—a fantasy every bit as manufactured as the desire for a big-screen TV or yin-yang-shaped coffee table. (Much of the brilliance of Pitt’s performance is in how he turns his absurdly chiseled physique into a wild, scary joke.)” Fight Club is not the answer.

So, what is? Well for starters, love, though of a particularly disturbed type. If “Fight Club” has a heart (Noller said, “and I think it just might”), it’s in the relationship between Norton and Marla Singer, played by Helena Bonham Carter, a fellow support-group liar who falls in with Durden. Noller described, “The girl is all kinds of damaged, but there’s a sick sweetness to her hate-fuck romance with Norton, something sort of nasty and real among all of contemporary life’s distancing messages and mediation. If Fight Club falters somewhat by diagnosing a problem while dismissing all the solutions, there’s nonetheless a warped but very real sense of hope in its final image of a boy and girl holding hands while the world collapses around them.” “Fight Club” is funny, scary, messy, and imperfect, and there’s a reason it continues to tolerate. It met us at a very strange time in the decade.

I think it goes without saying that this is a movie that has to be seen to be believed. Psychology students could have a field day with this film. I think people might know the twist, but if not, I’m not going to spoil it. Everyone knows the famous quote from this movie, “The first rule of fight club is you do not talk about fight club.” I had a friend when I attended Community College that was obsessed with this movie. Probably because it was his favorite, which I can understand. Like I had already said, this is one of those mind-boggling films that you should see because you will enjoy it.

Thank you for joining in on “Brad Pitt Month.” Look out next month to see what I will review next.

Prey

Today, I finished watching “Prey,” the prequel in the “Predator” franchise, which came out on the 5^th on Hulu. I decided to watch this while exercising, and now I will let everyone know what I thought of this film.

1987’s “Predator” collaborated a team of one-line quoting mercenaries sent on a quick rescue mission in a rainforest in Central America. However, the numbers game and total amount of weaponry were no match for an invisibility-cloaked, high-tech alien. The film expanded our imaginations on what we considered hunters and prey combined in a sci-fi/horror package. The “Predator” franchise has taken so many turns, peaks, and valleys, to say the least. There was a stop in Los Angeles with 1990’s “Predator 2,” a set of crossover battles with “Aliens vs. Predator,” a sequel to the first film with “Predators,” and a virtual-present day sequel with 2018’s “The Predator.” Did everyone get all that information? The franchise has been looking to reclaim its original look of terror, suspense, and delicate campiness.

Dan Trachtenberg’s “Prey” has finally made that happen. It has a great coming-of-age story combined with the most appreciated theme of what made the first film great – the hung and chase. Murjani Rawls said in her review, “Sometimes you have to go back to the past to reclaim your essence.” The beginning of “Prey” tells everyone a simple message – “a long time ago. It said that a monster came here.” From there, we are taken back to 1719 within Comanche Nation. A teenage girl named Naru (Amber Midthunder) wants to be accepted as a hunter like her brother Taabe (Dakota Beavers). While stalking a deer, Naru sees so many lights in the sky – indeed, feeling this is a sign she’s ready for her Kuhataamia (rite of passage). The problem is that Taabe, their mother Aruka, played by Michelle Thrush, and male members of the tribe don’t think Naru is ready for that.

However, as a reoccurring story element throughout “Prey” would tell, appearances can be deceiving. Naru may not seem threatening at first, but she’s a tracking expert, has an eye for detail, and is constantly developing her hunting skills. However, members of her tribe dismiss strange footprints and animals who are killed in strange ways, Naru says to stay on the trail. The combination of Midthunder’s acting and the story from Patrick Aison and Trachtenberg makes audiences attention hooked on the character’s journey. Rawls said, “Prey provides nothing easy to Naru — there are growing pains you will witness in how tedious hunting can be. However, the callbacks from difficult situations Naru goes through making her triumph that much more meaningful. Midthunder switches between contemplation, quick wit, and undying resolve at the flip of a coin.”

For example, there’s a mud pit Naru almost sinks and climbs her way out. Rawls said, “That instance is put together with a grab-bag of skills that will eventually help her when she fights the Predator.” They feel natural to the story and even call back to the original 1987 film. A Predator-set film wouldn’t be anything without its outer-space villain. Rawls said, “Trachtenberg sets things in motion where an entity that overpowers the setting it jumps into is also learning. A motif shows a succession of food-chain situations, with animals displaying what happens when something not natural to that habitat is introduced.” “Prey” goes to give the answer about what people and the environment can do about it.

The dangers are not only from outer-space – another element of French soldiers comes into play. Thus, a hierarchy of who considers what is threatening or not constantly changes, giving an exciting layer to “Prey’s” story. The film could have quickly fallen for the one-on-one aspect. However, it decides to speak on gender roles, colonization, and how danger presents itself in the wild.

Rawls said, “The cinematography of Jeff Cutter expertly captures the lushness of the forest that makes you feel involved in the period piece.” Producer Jhane Myers, a member of the Comanche nation, helps elevate Prey with a great level of truth. Most of the cast are Native American or Canadian First Nation, to the feeling of inseparability feels much more powerful. Rawls said, “Sarah Schachner’s violin-ladened score heightens danger during moments of isolation and elevates the taste of victory when they come.”

Looking at the violence, “Prey” delivers when looking at the land of muskets and tomahawks. The fight scenes are fast, planned, and brutal – so goes the nature of survival. The determination of the human spirit is a universal story one could insert anywhere. Trachtenberg completely uses the 100 minutes allotted to him to return the “Predator” franchise to stable ground.

If you have Hulu, I highly recommend everyone to watch this. This is a welcome return to what made the first “Predator” movie a classic. Hands down, this is the best in the franchise since the first movie, and everyone says the same thing. If you love this franchise, don’t miss your chance to watch “Prey.” Check it out and have an enjoyable time.

Thanks for joining in on today’s review. Stay tuned Friday for the finale of “Brad Pitt Month.”

Seven

“Seven” is a gruesome 1995 movie about a serial killer who is just out to deliver a sermon against modern corruption. Carol Buckland said in her review, “His modus operandi: murders "punishing" the seven deadly sins.” For those who are not familiar with Dante’s Inferno, the sins are: gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, pride, wrath, and lust. Buckland noted, “There are seven cardinal virtues, too, but God forbid we should make a movie about them!”

To give you an idea of how this murder’s thinking is: The murder linked to greed involves the taking of a pound of flesh. Not bone, or cartilage, or anything else…just flesh. Is anyone thinking this film is not for those who are sensitive?

Moving on, tracking this sadistic murderer is a cliché cop duo. There’s the experienced, intelligent African-American cop who is about to retire. Joining him is a young, wanting to track down the villain white cop. Do you feel a buddy cop bonding going to happen?

The Oscar-winning Morgan Freeman takes the first role. He brings great wisdom and dignity to the part. Buckland said, “His character is wise and world weary but not (no surprise) quite as emotionally burned out as he'd like to believe. In addition to all his other talents, Freeman is an actor who's thoroughly persuasive playing a man who really, truly, uses his head.” Some performers read “stupid” on screen, but Freeman always has “smart.”

Brad Pitt comes on strong as the young cop. Buckland noted, “His callowness works well here and he goes a long, long way toward scuzzing up the glamour boy image he acquired in the wake of "Legends Of The Fall". Teeny-boppers attending this movie intending to swoon over his pouting lips and killer bod are going to be disappointed. Possibly even grossed out.” His hair is shorn, his face is unshaven and scratched, and, because of an accident that occurred during filming, he has on a hand cast and/or sling throughout a majority of the movie. With all of that said, it’s important to emphasize that Pitt does bring a lot of interesting quirks to his character. He even manages to find a bit of humor in a lot of scenes. Buckland said, “He's almost always interesting to watch...even if he's half-obscured by murky shadows!”

Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pitt’s loving and vulnerable wife. Buckland noted, “She's very good -- a ray of sunshine breaking through a great deal of gloom. She also seems like a sacrificial lamb from the second she turns up on screen.”

Kevin Spacey plays the serial killer, probably borrowing a page from the amazing “The Usual Suspect” (I still have to see that). Buckland mentioned, “He gives one of his patented creepy-crazy performances. His is a quiet insanity and it makes your flesh crawl.”

Buckland continued, “Speaking of flesh. If the "pound of" reference earlier didn't make you queasy...how about a full figure shot of a naked dead guy who weighs oh, maybe four hundred pounds? Plus dialogue references to (I think this was it) "rectal ruptures"?”

“Seven” was scripted by newcomer Andrew Kevil Walker. It’s filled with literary illusions – including the Marquis de Sade, Chaucer, and Helter Skelter. The characters are pretty much wooden; however, the actors do their best to give them more than one dimension. Buckland criticized, “To say the ending (which I won't give away) is a bummer is to understate the case.”

Director David Fincher’s work runs the scale from daringly inventive to completely pretentious. Buckland noted, “He's really into rainy-days-and-dim-lighting, which makes this film visually depressing from start to almost finish.” There are some really striking visual images in this film (a fingerprint technician finding a clue, for example, or a SWAT team going through a forced entrance). There are also ones that will make you sick.

In the end, “Seven” is a very twisted film. Buckland ended her review by saying, “If you're feeling bad about the state of the world, I can almost guarantee this film will make you feel much, much worse. The movie is riveting in a gut-twisting way, but I, myself, would not call it "entertaining."”

Like I had already mentioned, this movie is really different. This film does have some parts that make you feel like you’re going to vomit, but I think this is a good mystery thriller. However, it does keep you on the edge of your seat, and it gets creepy and messed up as the film progresses. Check it out if you haven’t because it is good. Despite all the shocking images in this film, I still think this is a good movie that everyone should not miss the chance to see.

Stay tuned next week when I end “Brad Pitt Month” with one of the greatest films ever made.

Morbius

Tonight, I watched “Morbius,” which came out in April, online, and I will let everyone know what I thought about this film that is based on a lesser-known Spider-Man villain.

With the worldwide success of “Venom” and its sequel “Venom: Let There Be Carnage,” it was inevitable that Sony would continue to expand on their villain Marvel universe. Drew Tinnin said in his review, “Morbius is next up, giving audiences a 90s inspired horror actioner that delivers on its promise to be ridiculously entertaining. Jared Leto’s take on The Joker in 2016’s Suicide Squad had the unenviable task of competing with iconic interpretations of the character.” Playing the Living Vampire, Leto gets the honor of introducing a Spider-Man villain that’s never been in a live-action movie before. Tinnin said, “Unfortunately, his performance and most of Morbius as a whole are layered in melodrama and CGI fakery.”

A sick Michael Morbius is looking all over the planet to find a cure for his rare blood disease. This search takes him to the entrance of a bat cave where he sees the essential health benefits of mixing bat blood with human DNA (no COVID subtext here). Using artificial blood that Morbius has prepared and combining it with a healthy balance of bat blood leads to a breakthrough with…unplanned consequences.

His partner, Dr. Bancroft, played by Adria Arjona, does her best to protect Morbius’ secret, even after (as Tinnin puts it) “she winds up going from an idealized Mary Sue trope to the more familiar comic book cliché of Mary Jane.” Morbius and his childhood friend have the same condition, which leads to an inevitable fight when Milo, played by Matt Smith, becomes public frenemy number one.

Following the same formula that came before is fine, that’s what an entire movie universe has been built on. Tinnin said, “Morbius, however, seems fine with barreling towards the end without delivering on the moments in-between that make that ending worthwhile. The chemistry between Leto and Smith is effective, mirroring the relationship between Peter Parker and Norman Osborn a.k.a The Green Goblin. But Morbius cashes in on the dramatic beats of better films that came before it, from Venom to Spider-Man: Far From Home.”

There are some real scenes of horror that call back to the Universal Monsters, especially in an early transformation scene. Tinnin mentioned, “With so much bat imagery flapping around, nods to Batman could’ve been an easy cop-out. The shape-shifting from Leto into Morbius comes straight from the werewolf mythos, looking painful and exhilarating all at once.”

Surprisingly, the choice to not rely on prosthetics and instead rely on the latest visual effects ends up being the greatest strength of “Morbius.” Tinnin noted, “The matches in lighting and the facial mapping technology are genuinely impressive. The only problem is an overreliance on CGI. Action beats showing Morbius discover his abilities give way to incoherent blurs across the screen. Aware of its own visual messiness, the overused slow-mo effect that we’ve all seen before rears its ugly head in nonsensical ways.” Slow-motion should be used to show something we wouldn’t have seen otherwise. Here, it’s just put in because it’s worked in other movies, so why not?

Tinnin mentioned, “Morbius rushes into its finale at a fevered pace, only to circumnavigate it in favor of a post-credits sequence that, apparently, Marvel fans have been waiting for.” The Sinister Six now has a number of possibilities thanks to what was created in “Far From Home.” This is where the problem is. Tinnin noted, “Characters like Michael Morbius don’t have room to breathe when an entire universe is at stake.” This is exactly the movie you think it is and, for that, “Morbius” is a welcome introduction into a world that keeps expanding even when it shouldn’t.

In actuality, this movie was supposed to come before “Far From Home,” but because of COVID, this was re-edited due to constantly being pushed back. I know the critics really thrashed this movie, but I just found this to be alright. Leto and Smith really helped this movie out since you buy their friendship turned rivalry. However, the action seems like it was borrowing a lot from “The Matrix” movies, since there were times, you couldn’t make out what was going on. Also, there are parts that feel like they were borrowing from other comic book movies.

Spoiler alert: there are two mid-credits scenes where Michael Keaton returns as the Vulture, who has been transported into this universe. He’s released from prison, and meets up with Morbius, telling him to form a team, which is leading up to the Sinister Six movie.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the next review in “Brad Pitt Month.”

A River Runs Through To It

Fly-fishing stands for life in “A River Runs Through It,” released in 1992. Roger Ebert said in his review, “If you can learn to do it correctly, to read the river and the fish and yourself, and to do what needs to be done without one wasted motion, you will have attained some of the grace and economy needed to live a good life. If you can do it and understand that the river, the fish and the whole world are God's gifts to use wisely, you will have gone the rest of the way.”

This childhood memory was first told in a book published 20 years prior to the film’s release by Norman Maclean, after he retired as a professor of English at the University of Chicago. It was a story his father told him he should some day try to write. The book was published to little display by the university press, and immediately found an audience. Ebert said, “Many printings later it is one of the sacred books in the libraries of many people - one of the books that actually taught them something, like Walden or Huckleberry Finn.”

Robert Redford’s film version makes the important choice to keep Maclean’s voice in the film. His own style is read as a narration, by Redford, so that we do not simply see events as they happen, we are reminded that they are memories from years prior, and that the author has spent time and trouble to draw the lessons from them.

The movie stars Craig Sheffer as Norman, the older son, more serious, learning to write by taking his papers in to his father’s (Tom Skerritt) study, always to be told, “Good. Now make it half as long.” Brad Pitt is the younger brother, Paul, an impulsive, golden-haired free spirit who drinks too much and gets in card games, and wants nothing more than to stay in Montana forever, working for a newspaper. Norman has realistic dreams. He wants to teach literature. But it is Paul who is the better fly fisherman, and who, at least one day, is perfect at what he did.

Ebert noted, “The movie was shot on locations that suggest the bounty of the Western states in those days. The towns uneasily straddle the divide between the modern and the frontier.” As the boys grow up, they meet young ladies, and date, and think about their futures, and Redford elaborates on the book in ways which flesh out the characters of Paul and his mother (Brenda Blethyn), and some of the people in their lives, including a young Native American woman Paul dates (Nicole Burdette) in insolence of town opinion, and the high-spirited Jessie (Emily Lloyd), who eventually becomes Norman’s wife.

This must have been a very difficult movie to write. It is not really about the events that happen in it. Ebert said, “They are only illustrations for underlying principles. Leave out the principles, and all you have left are some interesting people who are born, grow up, and take various directions in life.”

Redford and his writer, Richard Friedenberg, understand that most of the events in any life are accidental or random, especially the important ones, and we can see little sentient control over our destinies. Instead, they understand that the Reverend Maclean’s lessons were about how to behave no matter what life brings. About how to wade into the unpredictable stream and deal with whatever happens with grace, courage and honesty. It is the film’s best accomplishment that it communicates that message with such feeling.

I had saw this movie when I was senior in high school for an Advanced Composition class that I was taking. I didn’t really remember what happened in the film. Then, I saw that this film was available on Netflix, so I decided to watch it while exercising recently. I have to say, this is a really good movie. You should see it because it is an inspiration for those who want to break into the lecturing or writing. I recommend this to everyone because I think you will like it, especially if you like to go fishing. See it and enjoy.

Look out next week when I look at a very serious thriller in “Brad Pitt Month.”

Lightyear

Tonight, I saw “Lightyear,” which was released in theaters back in June, but came out on Disney+ three days ago. This was one of the movies that I wanted to see, and now that it was released on Disney+, I will let everyone know my thoughts on it.

This is a space adventure with inspiration for everyone’s favorite toy astronaut on a fascinating mission to defeat a robot invader and get his crew home.

One thing that helps animated film is making sure they bring audiences of all ages because kids aren’t going by themselves and adults would like to not be bored. No question, Pixar understands this and has been releasing widely popular movies for decades. However, they – and the fans that love them – have frequently returned to where it all began: “Toy Story.” Now that Andy is an adult, and Woody and the gang are bringing joy to other kids, it became a question of where do we go from here? The answer goes all the way back to before they were toys. Thus, “Lightyear” is the movie that looks like an inspiration for the arrogant astronaut action figure.

Buzz Lightyear (Chirs Evans) and Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba) are Space Rangers, traveling the galaxy with so many humans in pods as they make their way home. Unfortunately, some mistake maroons them on a hostile planet. Refusing to give up and wanting to get the mission back on track, Lightyear sacrifices his chance at a life to get everyone home. With Hawthorne’s support and the help of an A.I. cat named Sox, played by Peter Sohn), Lightyear just might do it. However, then an occupying robot alien race led by Zurg, voiced by Josh Brolin’s father, Fames Brolin, decides to mess up their plans, threatening to destroy everything the Space Ranger worked so hard to save.

From face value, the narrative is a typical sci-fi story about a mission gone wrong and the need to adapt to a new environment. It starts with an action scene where the protagonists are introduced to the planet’s unfriendly occupants, followed by a high-speed escape. Sarah Gopaul said in her review, “When it’s discovered they cannot leave the planet, the second act shows a resilient group of people who make the best of a bad situation, while Lightyear does his best to rectify the error and get everyone back to where they belong.” Seeing how this is a family-friendly science fiction, Lightyear learns a lesson as the film goes on about learning from his past mistakes, accepting people’s flaws by focusing on their strengths, and accepting help once in a while.

Gopaul said, “Lightyear is slightly less arrogant than the toy version of him, though he’s still very courageous and unwavering in his commitment, which Evans can portray in spades. Hawthorne has strong Monica Rambeau vibes as she lives for the adventure and is quick on her feet.” She’s Lightyear’s best friend, while her granddaughter, Izzy, voiced by Keke Palmer, becomes his greatest ally. The younger Hawthrone, along with a small group of rookies, turn out to be involved in helping Lightyear…and the source of a lot of trouble as they mess up most of their tasks. Taika Waititi just can’t avoid playing loveable characters as Mo is a little clumsy, but is very resourceful. Also, Sox is a complete enjoyment and he has so many “Star Wars” references.

As a story that comes before “Toy Story,” fans shouldn’t expect too many connections beyond Lightyear’s catchphrases. However, fans of the toy astronaut will not be disappointed by this film.

Couple of complaints that I have is one being the design of Lightyear. They didn’t make him look like he did in the “Toy Story” franchise, but maybe that’s because, as they stated before the film began, this is based on a movie that Andy saw, which made Lightyear the boy’s favorite toy. Maybe I shouldn’t be too hard on that, but the one that I think people could agree on is that Chris Evans is no Tim Allen. I don’t get why they wouldn’t cast Tim Allen in this movie since he has been voicing the character since the first “Toy Story” movie. If Allen could voice the character in the animated series from way back, why not for this movie? Are they trying to make it that action figures don’t always sound like they do in films? Because I always thought they did.

All of that aside, this is a good Pixar film. If you haven’t seen this yet because you don’t really go to the theaters since the pandemic, watch it on Disney+. For those who are fans of the “Toy Story” franchise should not miss the opportunity to see this. Check it out and have an enjoyable time. I wouldn’t be surprised if they make a sequel to this, because I wouldn’t mind seeing this turn into a franchise.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight. Look out next Friday for the continuation of “Brad Pitt Month.”

Thelma & Louise

For the month of August, I thought about reviewing every movie that I have seen that stars an actor that I know I have said I am not a fan of, Brad Pitt. Even though I don’t like him as a person or an actor, I can’t deny that he has done some good films. To prove that, let’s take a look at the 1991 classic, “Thelma & Louise.”

This is an expansive, visionary tradition of the American road picture. It celebrates the story of two carefree people jumping in a 1956 T-Bird and driving out of town to have some fun and start some purgatory. However, we know the road better than that and we know the toll it exacts: Before their travel is done, these characters with have gone through a rite of passage, and will have discovered themselves.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “What sets “Thelma & Louise” aside from the great central tradition of the road picture -- a tradition roomy enough to accommodate “Easy Rider,” “Bonnie and Clyde,” “Badlands,” “Midnight Run” and “Rain Man” -- is that the heroes are women this time: Working-class girlfriends from a small Arkansas town, one a waitress, the other a housewife, both probably ready to describe themselves as utterly ordinary, both containing unexpected resources.”

We meet them on days that help to explain why they’d like to get away for the weekend. Thelma (Geena Davis) is married to a man (Christopher McDonald) filled with self-importance as the district sales manager of a rug company. He sees his wife as beneath him, to be tolerated so long as she keeps her household chores done and is patient with his temper. Louise (Susan Sarandon) waits tables in a coffee shop and is involved with a musician (Michael Madsen) who is never ever going to be ready to get hitched, no matter how much she kids herself.

The two drive out for a weekend (Thelma is so frightened of her husband she leaves him a note rather than tell him). They’re almost looking to get into trouble, in a way. They end up in a saloon not too far down the road, and Thelma, a wild woman after a couple of margueritas, begins to get stuck in a situation after a couple of dances with an urban cowboy, played by Timothy Carhart.

That leads, as such affairs sometimes sadly do, to an attempted rape in the parking lot. After Louise comes to Thelma’s rescue, there is a sudden, violent turn that ends with the man being shot. The two women now drive away. They are convinced that no one would ever believe their story – that the only answer for them is to run, and hide.

Ebert noted, “Now comes what in a more ordinary picture would be the predictable stuff: The car running down lonely country roads in front of a blood-red sunset, that kind of thing, with a lot of country music on the soundtrack. “Thelma & Louise” does indeed contain its share of rural visual extravaganza and lost railroad blues, but it has a heart, too. Sarandon and Davis find in Callie Khouri’s script the materials for two plausible, convincing, lovable characters. And as actors they work together like a high-wire team, walking across even the most hazardous scenes without putting a foot wrong.”

They have adventures as they drive, some sweet, some tragic, including a meeting with a suspicious but attractive young man named J.D., played by Brad Pitt, who is able, like the cowboy who was shot, to utilize Thelma’s hidden desires, which was not touched by her husband. Ebert noted, “They also meet old men with deep lines on their faces, and harbingers of doom, and state troopers, and all the other inhabitants of the road.”

Obviously, they become the targets of a huge police chase. Every cop in a six-state area would like to arrest them. However, back home in Arkansas there’s one cop, played by Harvey Keitel, who has empathy for them, who sees how they sunk themselves down and are now about to really drown. He tries to reason with them. To “keep the situation from snowballing.” However, it takes on a strange momentum of its own, especially as Thelma and Louise begin to get tired with the how much freedom they have – and with the discovery that they possess unheard of resources and capabilities.

“Thelma & Louise” was directed by Ridley Scott, from Britain, whose previous films show complete technical achievement but are sometimes not never interested in psychological questions. However, this film shows a great sympathy for human comedy and it’s intriguing the way he helps us to understand what’s going on inside these two women – why they need to do what they do.

Ebert said, “I would have rated the movie at four stars, instead of three and a half, except for one shot, the last shot before the titles begin. This is the catharsis shot, the payoff, the moment when Thelma and Louise arrive at the truth that their whole journey has been pointed toward, and Scott and his editor, Thom Noble, botch it. It’s a freeze frame that fades to white, which is fine, except it does so with unseemly haste, followed immediately by a vulgar carnival of distractions: flashbacks to the jolly faces of the two women, the roll of the end credits, an upbeat country song.”

It's unsettling to get involved in a movie that takes 128 minutes to bring you to a resolution that the filmmakers appear to be afraid of. If Scott and Mount had let the last shot run for seven to ten seconds more, and then held the fade to white for a decent interval, they would have gotten the payoff they deserved. Can one shot make that big of a difference? This one does.

All of that aside, this is a powerful film that I think everyone should see. If you haven’t seen it, you’re missing out. This is an absolute must. Just seeing the way the two lead characters go through the abuse they go through and find a reason why they want to escape, you’re rooting for them the whole way. You can understand their reasons and see why they are doing this, so you should definitely see it. I saw a little bit of it as a kid, but saw it much later when I was probably in my late teens, early twenties. I give it a high recommendation.

Alright, next week I will be looking at a film I saw in my senior year of high school, but recently went back to watch, as we continue “Brad Pitt Month.”