Making a Murderer (Spoiler Free) Series Review

  

Its impossible to fathom how a combination of human nature and the justice system that keeps our streets clear day-in and day-out, could do much more harm on a person's life then good. That's at least what I thought to myself when I pressed play to watch Netflix's new and acclaimed documentary series.

“Making A Murderer” is a Netflix original documentary series written and directed by Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi and is about Wisconsin's most notorious homicide case that sent citizens Steven Avery and Brendon Dassey (a teenager) to prison for life. This series has been getting a huge amount of critical acclaim. This new series currently stands at a 97 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and has an audiences rating of 4.7 out of 5. Now, I plan to do a spoiler review of this series sometime in the future because there is so much here to talk about. But for this review I plan to state only what is necessary to know going in so that each turn can be seen as a surprise.

Back in the 1980s, a man named Steven Avery was found guilty of raping a women and spent 18 years of his life in prison. Years later, while Steven was still in prison, DNA evidence was released that proved him innocent of this crime so naturally he was released. But Steven was unsatisfied with the way the state had treated him during his trial so he sues Manitowoc county for 36 million dollars. Then three days before before the initial hearing, a women named Teresa Halbach goes missing and is suspected to be dead. Several days later, Halbach's burnt remains were discovered on Avery's property so now he is the prime suspect and faces life in prison (all of this was in the first two episodes so believe me nothing of importance was spoiled). The rest of the series is basically how the investigation and trial were carried out.

Every single moment of this series was astonishing. Everything. Every single moment. Right from the grisly details of Halbach's murder to the measures in which the state was determined to prove Avery guilty. But what is even more astonishing is that the evidence that was presented in the show, points to the fact that Avery was innocent of this crime, but the state didn't care. It was the Sheriff’s department that found a large majority of the incriminating evidence. The very same department that Avery was suing several weeks prior. Yet almost all of the evidence that they found was admitted to be valid and was used in the trial. EVERYTHING THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT FOUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALIDATED BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST!! ITS FREAKING INSANE!!

And yes, this series does contain many conspiracy theories that point the finger at the cops. And yes, this series is very one-sided. But when the evidence is studied, it actually suggests the cops (possibly) knew who the real killer was but framed Steven Avery instead. Did they in actuality? Who knows. Maybe Avery really is guilty and the documentarians' thesis is false. But there it definitely more than enough room for reasonable doubt still in the air ten years after the trial took place.

Whats wrong with this series? It doesn't present that many opposing arguments to maintain an unbiased view of the situation Avery was in. The documentary was clearly made by people who firmly believed Avery was (and still is) innocent.

Whats right with this series? Everything else. All of the footage in the series was one hundred percent relevant and was very convincing. The documentary also does a great job at getting you to want to know more about Avery's case so you can form your own opinions about it (something very few 10-hour documentaries have been able to do).

If you believe in conspiracy theories then this series is definitely for you. But it you don't, then you'll walk out angry and the filmmakers for even contemplating something like this could ever have taken place. But either way this series is definitely worth watching whether you believe what it is saying or not.

Believe me, this program is captivating from moment one and definitely accomplishes what it set out to do so the series did its job and did it well. I can't wait to start doing more research about this case so I can form my own opinion on it.

[For television programs I give letter grades instead of using numbers.]

Grade: A

Spotlight - Movie Review

The new film entitled “Spotlight” is, without a doubt, the most predictably intense film of the last several decades. Just like another great journalism movie, “All the Presidents Men”, the story was already famous so we knew what was going to happen. But it still managed to introduce some of the most powerful suspense of all time. This simple stroke of genius is how you can tell a good movie from a great movie. Simply put, this is by far the best movie of 2015.

“Spotlight” is director Tom McCarthy's follow up to the horrendous comedy “The Cobbler” and stars a brilliant ensemble cast which includes Micheal Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, Stanley Tucci and Liev Shreiber. This film follows a team of investigative journalists (called Spotlight) that worked at the Boston Globe in the early 2000s. The film explores how the Boston Globe discovered and decoded the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. I tried to keep my description as vague as possible because this film is best experienced knowing as little as possible.

Getting right into it, this film is very descriptive. What I mean by that is that the film does not show anything; it describes it. Every single interview is told in the moment. There are no flashbacks. But it counterintuitively works. I always believed that showing something is more effective than describing it, but this film is the proud exception. The descriptions allowed the audience to stay in the moment and not be detracted with backstory. The acting was also great enough to grant such a risky move by the filmmakers.

I am not joking when I say that every human being in America and beyond should see this movie. Not only is the film perfect on the storytelling and technical standpoint, but the story that it successfully tells is very important and, because of the Church, not many people are aware of its existence and everybody should be.

There is a moment towards the end where the character played by Mark Ruffalo is observing the character played by Stanley Tucci comfort several young girls who were victims of sexual harassment by priests. The expression that Ruffalo gives perfectly captures the tone of the first two acts. He knows that there was nothing he could do about their ordeal, but he could not help but feel some guilt for his ignorance. That short scene is this movie.

Believe the hype that this movie has generated. If your friend tells you it sucks, give him the finger and never talk to him again because he is dead wrong. This movie is a masterpiece—beyond perfect.

When you go see it (I say when because everyone should proudly give their money to this work of art), know right off the bat that it is a dark movie, it is a suspenseful movie and it is a disturbing movie. But that shouldn't matter in this case. Its a film that you should see just to respect what these brave, AND CATHOLIC, journalists did in the name of justice. Go see this movie, I beg you.

I wish that I could give this movie a rating beyond five because it is the rare film that deserves it.

5 out of 5 stars

The Martian Movie Review

 To achieve the movie known as “The Martian” you need to successfully fill out this simple formula: “Cast Away” + “Apollo 13” + Matt Damon in distress. That is all the knowledge you need to know to determine every single beat in this entire film. But surprisingly it works.

“The Martian” is directed by the great Ridley Scott, the director of “Alien”, “Gladiator”, “Blade Runner” and “Black Hawk Down”; clearly one of the best directors alive. The film was written by notorious screenwriter Drew Goddard who made the hilariously, atrociously brilliant indie horror film “Cabin in the Woods”. Clearly there is a lot of talent behind this film. Does it live up to expectations?

First of all, it has to be said that “The Martian” has one of the best screenplays written in years. It nailed about ninety percent of the science put on display and it does an excellent job at explaining it to the non-nerds in the audience. The story is also very well put together. It doesn't waste any time with exposition, it doesn't spend seventy percent of the screen-time with character development (the characters are fleshed out as the action is taking place), and it has a certain level of conflict that is not seen in movies very often.

The film stars Matt Damon as astronaut Mark Watney who is accidentally left for dead on Mars after a storm and must survive on the barren planet until NASA can rescue him. The film has a simple structure: problem is presented, problem is solved, problem is presented and problem is solved. Glossing over many plot points, that is the basic structure.

Watching Watney “science the shit” out of this situation was not only incredibly interest but incredibly fun and enjoyable as well. It is not easy to nail both of those things so it must be said.

Watney also has a very positive attitude towards the situation he is in. Every time something bad happens he finds the humor in it so for that reason the film was immensely comical. I honestly did not expect it to be as hilarious as it was.

However, keeping the film's structure in mind, many of the events were disappointingly predictable. Whenever you think “something bad is going to happen”, you will very correct. The film is also quite a bit longer than it needs to be. The film is two and a half hours and should be more like two. But despite this run time, I was never bored. I was always interested to see what was going to happen next and how Watney will solve a particular problem.

I have not mentioned any characters because besides Mark Watney and Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels), there really wasn't any characters that I can say were memorable. Not that the actors portraying these characters were bad because they weren't. There just wasn't enough character actions to develop the characters to their fullest. I know that I said before that it was a plus that they didn't waste any time with unnecessary development, I just hoped for some short banter between supporting characters before big moments that would have fleshed them out just a little bit more.

But overall, I enjoyed the hell out of “The Martian” and I can't wait to watch it again. There were some minor problems I had with it here and there but overall it was really well done. I am so glad Ridley Scott is still capable of making science fiction classics that he made in the seventies and eighties.

4.1 out of 5 stars

The Revenant Movie Review

The conclusion to “The Revenant” is troubling in that it feels untrue to what was on display several moments earlier. Without spoiling to much, the character of Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) makes a sudden impulse decision that was counterintuative to his feelings less then a moment before. Was this a purposeful move? Who knows.

“The Revenant” is director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's follow-up to the Oscar(r)-winning film, “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)”. Inarritu co-wrote this film with Mark L. Smith who wrote “The Hole” and “Vacancy”.

Right off the bat I should say that this is not the entertaining revenge picture that many were hoping it to be. The film's slow pace and in-depth realism make the film agonizing if anything. But it's Inarritu's seemless directing, DiCaprio's acting and Emmanuel Lubezki's super-aethetic cinematography that saves this picture from being flat-out boring. And it really does the job.

The film is fascinating to watch. But this film is not intended to be entertaining as many films are. The is a film for the art of film. Nothing more and nothing less. With that being said there is something in this picture for all movie-buffs around the world to appreciate. If you love writing, then you would be fascinated by the story's metaphorical undertones and its methods of approaching this story. If you love acting, Leo, Tom Hardy, and almost everyone in the cast will blow you away. If you love cinematography, you will be inspired by its use of natural lights only.

There is so much in this film that deserves to be spoken about and I don't have the room to state everything; so trust me when I say that there is at least one thing in this film you will like.

Getting into the plot, Leonardo DiCaprio stars as American folklore legend Hugh Glass who, after being ferociously mauled by a bear, sets out on a 200-mile journey back to civilization to get revenge against the trappers who left him for dead (believe me when I say that what I just described is only the tip of the iceberg, there is so much more going on in this movie then just that). The film is set in 1860s frontier America, during the final age of the Native Americans. The character of John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) is at the dead center of Glass' revenge campaign so naturally he plays the villain.

DiCaprio's performance is an interesting one because it really goes deep in the heart of acting. He barely says anything in the film and the vast majority of his lines are not even in the English language. That alone is enough to receive recognition by the acting community. But there is so much more to his performance then that. He relies almost entirely on actions and facial expressions to sell his character (which he does an outstanding job of doing). The is the first time over the course of Leo's career, that he completely disappeared into his character. His performance is undeniably great and is on the same level as Daniel Day-Luis in “There Will Be Blood”.

Hardy, on the contrary, suffers from the same problem that he always does. His bizarre accents. Hardy, my message to you is: NO ONE CAN EVER THE FUCK UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! I understand that it is not really his fault (as he was likely told to speak the way he did), but its incredibly hard to stay immersed in the experience when all I can think about is: what the hell did he say just now? Its undeniable distracting and I can't help but take off points for that reason.

In conclusion, “The Revenant” is a film that you should definitely check out if you have the stomach to live through it. The film is definitely one of the better pictures of the year and it deserves all the money that it can acquire. However if you are not a film buff you will likely not enjoy it as much as you hoped to. There were a few minor issues with the acting and storytelling here and there, but overall it was fantastic.

4.75 out of 5 stars

Ben's Film Reviews

Hi! I'm Ben a regular film lover just like everyone else. On this blog, I publish reviews to new releases, older releases and the classics that nobody has seen.

A Short Disclaimer: I don't have the time or the money to see every movie that is released. Sometimes I won't publish a review until months after its initial release. SO DON'T LEAN ON ME LIKE A FREAKING CANE IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

My first review will be for "The Revenant" which should be posted today or tomorrow.