REVIEW: Inside Out

It's been a long time since I've actually been really excited to see a Pixar movie. Monsters University was fun and Brave was gorgeous, but we haven't really had that classic kind of Pixar film since Toy Story 3; the studio really needed a return to form. Something packed chock full of that patented Pixar emotional punch that resonates with kids and adults alike. Something that would make you laugh, make you cry, and wrap everything up with an honest but comforting message that manages to be totally universal without sounding clichéd or contrived. If you've felt the same way, then it gives me great joy to say that Inside Out is most definitely that return to form.

The story follows a young girl by the name of Riley (Kaitlyn Dias); as the film opens, we see her as a newborn infant in her parents' arms. She begins cooing and gurgling as babies do, and we witness the birth of her first real emotion, Joy (Amy Poehler). Without warning, Baby Riley suddenly bursts into tears; it's here that we see another emotion has joined Joy inside Riley's head, Sadness (Phyllis Smith). Over time, more and more emotions join the two in Headquarters; Fear (Bill Hader) keeps everyone safe, Anger (Lewis Black) ensures everything is kept fair, and Disgust (Mindy Kaling) prevents Riley from being poisoned (both physically and socially). Riley grows up a normal and happy human girl; Joy usually runs the show and Sadness rarely gets to touch the control panel that dictates Riley's moods and actions. However, everything is thrown out of whack after the family moves from snowy Minneapolis to San Francisco; Riley finds herself in a new town, living in a new house, and going to a new school. Everything is strange and different, her friends are all back home, and her parents appear visibly stressed for the first time ever. While everyone at Headquarters attempts to keep Riley happy, an accident causes Joy, Sadness, and a bundle of Core Memories (which determine the primary facets of Riley's personality) to be flung deep into the recesses of Riley's mind; without Joy or Sadness, the young girl's personality is dictated exclusively by Anger, Fear, and Disgust. While Riley adjusts poorly to her new surroundings, it's up to Joy and Sadness to find their way back to Headquarters before Riley's life completely crumbles around her.

The first thing you'll notice is the absolutely flawless casting on display here; who better to portray personified anger than Lewis Black? It feels as though each one of these characters was written specifically with each of these actors in mind, considering how everyone completely disappears into the role. Amy Poehler and Phyllis Smith get the most attention out of the primary ensemble, so it only makes sense that they'd be the clear standouts here. It's by no means a new concept, the two mismatched opposites on a great journey, but the context of who these two are and what's at stake manages to make their relationship a really interesting one. At first glance, Joy is objectively positive while Sadness is objectively negative; while this is somewhat true at face value, nothing here is totally black and white. While Joy is literally responsible for allowing Riley to feel happiness, she can be a little shallow, treating Sadness with utter condescension most of the time. While Sadness usually causes doom and gloom, she's also the most down-to-earth and empathetic of all Riley's emotions. If you're noticing the subtext here (in that the descriptions of these characters can also be easily applied to the emotions they represent), you'd best get used to it, since that kind of underlying definition is this movie's bread and butter.

The group of emotions are by no means the only inhabitants of Riley's head; there are various blue-collar workers who keep the lights on and make sure everything's up and running, as well as an entire movie studio that produces dreams (or nightmares). There's also Bing-Bong (Richard Kind), Riley's forgotten imaginary friend. Special praise needs to be given both to the filmmakers and to Kind, seeing as how this character is definitely one of the major highlights of the film. He's utterly ridiculous when it comes to his appearance and his mannerisms, but his thoughts and motivations feel very real and nuanced; you can't really get a bead on him until you finally come to understand him and what he wants. I can't speak for anyone else, but I was really surprised by this character; both by his role in the story and by just how much he adds to the whole picture. If I say anything else I'm definitely getting into spoiler territory, so I'll just reiterate that Bing-Bong is fantastic.

I had high hopes for this movie the second I heard the premise; this is a movie about how Joy and Sadness are present in every life. The two emotions are linked; in order for us to feel happy, we sometimes need to feel sad. Sometimes sadness can lead to happiness, or vise-versa. The human experience isn't composed of absolutes; we are complex, fluid beings who change and evolve over time. Things that once made us laugh may eventually make us cry; times of hardship and sorrow may be remembered fondly when we think of the comfort and growth that those hard times brought down the line. This is the kind of message that we are given by Inside Out. This is a movie that tells us that it's not only okay to feel sad sometimes, it's actually healthy. It's the cinematic equivalent of a warm blanket, and good lord does it feel nice.

Inside Out manages to be everything I wanted it to be and more. From the compelling story to the gorgeous animation to the amazing subtext behind it all, this is Pixar firing on all cylinders for the first time in years. So much thought and imagination clearly went into this film and the way its portrayal of the human mind works, it's impossible to not find something to love here. If you're looking for a Pixar film that's less Cars 2 and more Up, definitely give Inside Out a watch; this is one that'll be remembered for a long, long time.

REVIEW: Insidious- Chapter 3

The first time I watched James Wan's Insidious, I honestly didn't like it. I considered it a so-bad-it's-good ghost flick that was best enjoyed with an audience who all enjoyed laughing at the musical stylings of Tiny Tim. Insidious: Chapter 2 was a pleasant surprise; not only did I thoroughly enjoy it, it actually managed to retroactively improve the first film in my eyes. As time has passed, the series has really grown on me and I now enjoy partaking in the occasional Insidious double-feature, watching both films back-to-back in a darkened room with a group of friends. The series manages to be well-made, scary, imaginative, and tons of fun all at the same time. With that kind of pedigree behind it, it's a shame that Insidious: Chapter 3 manages to feel both mediocre and unnecessary.

Taking place a few years before the original hauntings in the first movie, the story follows the Brenner family; still recovering from the loss of her mother, Quinn Brenner (Stephanie Scott) seeks the help of Elise (Lin Shaye), the psychic medium from the first two films. While Quinn has tried (unsuccessfully) to contact her mother's spirit in the past, she cannot shake the feeling that there's a presence watching over her. Sensing something evil is afoot, Elise warns the young girl against dabbling in ghost-whispering in the future, for fear of unintentionally contacting a malevolent spirit. Sure enough, this is exactly what happens and, after an accident leaves her recovering in a wheelchair, Quinn finds herself menaced by a wheezing demon who wants nothing more than to do all manner of nasty, spooky things with her immortal soul.

The first red flag here is that, despite this being Chapter 3, it is a prequel. This would be fine, except it doesn't really add anything to the story of the other films. We get a bit of backstory for Elise and we see how she began working with series regulars Specs and Tucker (Leigh Whannell and Angus Sampson, the former of whom has taken on both writing and directing duties); other than a few jarring winks to the audience, it contributes nothing new to the series. The character of Elise appears in the other two Insidious movies (which take place after this one), so any scene in which she's in danger is immediately removed of all dramatic tension; we see her later on, so we know that no matter what happens, she'll emerge totally unscathed. The previous two films established a standard of ending on a cliffhanger; it usually answers one question while raising another that will inevitably be answered in the sequel. I was genuinely interested in seeing where the story would go after the way Chapter 2 ended, but that plot thread seems to be completely ignored here. As I mentioned, James Wan wasn't involved with this one at all and it really shows; the whole thing feels like someone attempting to ape his style, but not quite pulling it off. There are a few scenes that actually work, showing creepy imagery in the background, building solid tension, and generally toying with the audience until something comes along to scare them out of their pants. These scenes are few and far between, sadly; the majority of spooky scenes this time around involve a character looking around a dark room for a bit before someone in a spooky mask pops out and yells "BLARGH". Sure, it'll make you jump, but the thrill is immediately gone afterward; it's a cheap shot that gets cheap results. The previous two films are well-shot ghost stories, but this film is more akin to sneaking up behind someone and popping a balloon when they aren't expecting it.

The performances here are nothing spectacular, but they get the job done, I suppose. Shaye, Whannell, and Sampson are all good as Elise, Specs, and Tucker, but then they've easily been the highlights of the series so far. Dermot Mulroney is fine as Quinn's father, but I really wish we got more characterization out of him. They hint in one scene that he has his own issues regarding his wife's death, but it's never brought up again. He simply spends the entire film as the beleaguered, old-fashioned dad; that's fine for the first act, in which the characters' everyday lives are established before the supernatural funtimes begin, but part of what made the original films so strong was how interesting the central family was. Each character reacted to the horrifying events in their own way, which helped us empathize with their plight. They felt like real people, which is the crux to making any horror movie work; from Alien to The Exorcist, believable characters help keep things grounded and work to sell the scares. Here, the Brenner family is comprised of a few totally flat characters who exist only to be scared by things. Stephanie Scott is good at looking terrified, which honestly helps this movie a fair bit when it comes to keeping the adrenaline pumping. I never really felt for her character, but I definitely thought "ooh, that's a bad situation" more than a few times, which shows that the film is doing something right. There's one sequence in particular which employs a remote night-vision camera; I won't spoil anything, but the highlight of Scott's performance here is easily found in this scene. If the entire movie were as good as this one moment, it'd be a strong contender for the best film in the franchise.

The biggest problem with Insidious: Chapter 3 is that this simply wasn't a film that needed to be made. It adds nothing new to the story and feels like a transparent cash-grab meant to bank on name-recognition and a few recurring characters. While it certainly has its moments here and there, they aren't enough to completely salvage this spiritless prequel. Hopefully James Wan will return to direct any future entries in the series, considering how it really feels like his absence is what hurt this movie the most. 

REVIEW: Jurassic World

It's no surprise to anyone who knows me that Jurassic World was easily one of my most anticipated movies of 2015. As excited as I was, I did my best to keep my expectations in check; the Jurassic Park franchise isn't exactly famous for the quality of its sequels and even The Phantom Menace had a promising advertising campaign. As excited as I was to return to Isla Nublar, I was well aware that this could easily turn out to be yet another terrible, mindless excuse to have a bunch of dinosaurs fight and eat people. I sat in my seat, the house lights dimmed, and I didn't stop smiling for the entire two hour runtime. At long last, we are given a film worthy of being considered a follow-up to Jurassic Park.

The film opens with brothers Zach and Gray (Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins) being sent off to the titular theme park to visit their aunt Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) while their parents work out a divorce back home. In the 22 years since the original Isla Nublar incident, John Hammond has died and his company has fallen under the control of one Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan, who is a naive delight); Masrani has managed to fulfill Hammond's original vision of opening a functioning dinosaur theme park to delight children of all ages. The park has thrived since the early 2000's, supporting crowds of over twenty-thousand people a day. While it was astounding at first, the novelty of Jurassic World has begun to wear off; a new attraction is needed to increase park attendance. Enter the Indominus Rex, a genetic hybrid of a good dozen different dinosaurs and animals, designed to be the nastiest, scariest thing on the island by a country mile. As the park's operations manager, Claire brings in Owen Grady (a scruffy raptor-tamer played by Chris Pratt) to inspect the monster's paddock. As one would expect, karma befalls those who tinker in God's domain and the beast escapes during the inspection, wreaking unimaginable havok on the island full of families and tourists.

Story-wise, it's the next logical step for the Jurassic Park franchise, as well as a not-so-subtle metaphor for the moviegoing public; over the years, we've become so accustomed to seeing revolutionary special effects in summer blockbusters that studios feel the need to indulge in mindless excess without putting any thought into their product. While I appreciate this message, I find it a bit ironic that Jurassic World, of all things, is the movie presenting this metaphor. This is the biggest, most bombastic Park movie yet. We have dinosaurs eating people, dinosaurs eating each other, dinosaurs fighting each other AND people at the same time, dinosaurs teaming up to eat people and THEN fight other dinosaurs; if it wasn't so well-paced, it would honestly be totally overwhelming. I feel as though I should mention, this movie does go to some out-there places. If you can accept a theme park full of genetically cloned dinosaurs born from DNA found in fossilized mosquitoes, you should be able to accept everything else that happens in this film, but it definitely toes the line of straight-up silliness. A good litmus test can be found hanging on the wall of your local theater; if you can look at the poster of Chris Pratt riding a motorcycle alongside his gaggle of raptor pals and still feel unironic excitement for this movie, then everything will work out swimmingly for you. If not, then I'd suggest you temper your expectations. I personally loved it; that said, I can totally understand someone thinking this is the goofiest movie of the year.

The movie has all the elements of a total schlock-fest; whether or not they're visible depends on the mindset of the viewer. If you're looking to see a bunch of cool-looking dinosaurs tear each other apart amidst the backdrop of a tropical theme park, you're going to get just that. If you're looking for suspense and thematic elements like those found in the first movie, you'll find those as well. However, the two elements don't blend quite as well as in the original feature. There's interesting commentary on themes such as isolation, genetically-modified organisms, paramilitary organizations, maternal instincts, pack mentalities, and animal rights, but none of this subtext is really present during the action. If there's something interesting happening with the characters, there's a good chance there's no dino-carnage happening onscreen (and vise-versa). 

The most interesting facet of the film was easily the Indominus Rex; we see it hatch in the beginning of the film, twitchy and terrified, as if it knows within a second of being alive that it's an abomination. The staff of Jurassic World proceed to keep their new attraction under-wraps, raising it in total seclusion until it is fully-grown. The way that the filmmakers accomplish in making this thing legitimately terrifying is probably the film's greatest strength; before we even get a good look at it, we get to watch Owen's incredulous assessment of its environment. It's spent its entire life alone, the only other living things its come in contact with are its sibling (which it apparently ate) and its feeders (who have long since been replaced with a meat-laden crane). It's a powerful, intelligent beast that has been alone literally its entire life; an outcast from nature itself who suddenly escapes into an island full of creatures who are not only fundamentally different, but objectively weaker to boot. As silly as it may sound on paper, you really get the feeling that this thing is insane; it's huge, powerful, and unpredictable, which makes for a truly terrifying combo. One of the key aspects of any kind of monster flick is ensuring that the threat is legitimate without dumbing down the protagonists; while the film ticks the first box with aplomb, it's the second part that gives us some trouble. The thing that made the first Jurassic Park so good is that the actions of the protagonists felt natural; any stupid mistake they made could be easily explained in the context of their situation. Here, the people trying to contain this rampaging Murdersaurus (including the Asset Containment Unit, led by Vic Hoskins, played by Vincent D'Onofrio) are just a little bit too incompetent to come off as totally believable.

The cast all play their parts well, but there isn't really a standout among them. Howard and Pratt make for good protagonists, Irrfan Khan is delightful as Masrani, Robinson and Simpkins aren't horribly annoying, but I'd be surprised if anyone here was remembered exclusively for their role in this movie. The closest thing to human standouts would probably be Lauren Lapkus and Jake Johnson, playing Jurassic World employees who operate the park's massive command center. They've got great chemistry and their scenes are some of the most enjoyable in the movie. Vincent D'Onofrio is fine as the brash, ignorant Hoskins, even though he falls into the same old stock "military guy who wants to harness the power of thing" stereotype. B.D. Wong returns as geneticist Henry Wu, playing the character as much more of an egotistical schemer than before. Honestly, the majority of the cast is comprised of flat characters. Sure, Chris Pratt's Owen is cool and enjoyable to watch, but he's completely static throughout. The only characters with anything close to an arc are Claire and Zach (the latter of whom doesn't have nearly enough screentime to explore his development from angsty teen to caring older brother); no one is particularly bad, but no one is particularly amazing either. However, I can only apply that to the human element of the cast; my favorite characters by far came in the form of Blue, Charlie, Delta, and Echo, the four velociraptors whom Chris Pratt is attempting to train. Before this film, the velociraptors were the snarling, scheming slasher villains to the T-Rex's lumbering brute; here, they're somewhat domesticated without completely losing their teeth. Their relationship with Owen is one of the best parts of this movie; by the end of it all, you really feel for the raptors as animals, rather than just as the shrieking predators they usually portray. This particular example highlights what I find to be Jurassic World's greatest strength; it's something new. It works off of the elements presented by the previous films and gives us something fun and original, made with care and reverence for that original groundwork. In a world of cynical cash-grabs, Jurassic World is anything but.

I found Jurassic World to be a rollicking good time from beginning to end. It indulged my inner-child without devolving into an uninspired exploitation of nostalgia, a very easy pitfall for a film like this to fall into. While it can get a little ridiculous at times, it still maintains a certain level of substance that I feel keeps this movie from becoming yet another insipid summer blockbuster. It's not as good as Jurassic Park, but it's certainly a worthy follow-up in addition to just being loads of fun. If you've got the time, hit up your local cinema and take a trip back to Isla Nublar, preferably with a good, receptive audience.

REVIEW: Jurassic Park

I hesitate to call this a review, since I feel like everyone on the planet should know by now that Jurassic Park is a masterpiece. It's by no means flawless, but it's easily earned its place in cinematic history as an innovative film that captured the imaginations of all who witness it. Seeing as how Jurassic World is just on the horizon, it felt appropriate to revisit the movie that started it all, investigating just what makes this 1993 classic so gosh-darn memorable.

Based off of the novel by Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park involves a team of scientists assembled by charismatic businessman John Hammond (Richard Attenborough); at the behest of his investors, Hammond flies Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), and Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) out to Isla Nublar, a small island off the coast of Costa Rica. There, Hammond has constructed his magnum opus, a biological preserve/theme park packed to the gills with genetically resurrected dinosaurs. Along for the soft opening are Hammond's grandchildren, Lex and Tim Murphy (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello), as well as Donald Gennaro (Martin Ferrero), a lawyer representing Hammond's worried investors. Once the tour vehicles embark on their maiden voyage, the island is rocked by a tropical storm; during the deluge, the security measures are deactivated by the park's systems architect, Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight). While Nedry attempts to escape the island with stolen dinosaur embryos, the various prehistoric residents of Isla Nublar escape their enclosures and begin to run amok.

Rounding out the supporting cast, we've got Bob Peck as Robert Muldoon, the park's game warden and Samuel L. Jackson as Ray Arnold, the head engineer. The entire cast gives stellar performances, bolstered by a strong script; their interactions all feel natural and relateable, a quality that is mandatory for any kind of horror or disaster film to succeed. It allows the audience to put themselves in the shoes of the cast with minimal effort, helping the threat feel all that more real. As each character is introduced, we learn immediately who they are within just a few minutes; we learn about Dr. Grant's profession, his personality, his incompatibility with technology (and children), and his theories on the evolutionary trends of dinosaurs all within his first scene. It establishes important details about his character and builds the foundation that his arc will be built upon as the film progresses. While not every character gets an arc (Samuel L. Jackson doesn't have much to do aside from smoke and struggle with the computers), they all feel wholly natural; even when it comes to the most expressive characters (Jeff Goldblum, the kids, Nedry), no one feels like a cartoon character. It's a very organic-feeling film, which is something that not a lot of action movies these days can get a handle on, whether it be through substance or visuals.

It's no revelation that Jurassic Park was one of the biggest innovators in the field of visual effects when it was released in 1993; I hesitate to word it like that, since it makes it sound like the effects aren't still impressive to this day. And that is simply not true. This is a gorgeous film in every sense of the word; from the verdant locales to Stan Winston's jaw-dropping dinosaurs, everything in this movie grabs your attention with just how good it looks (except maybe for the JP staff's pink polo/khaki shorts/tube socks combo). It's a near-seamless blend of CGI and practical effects, breathing life into dinosaurs that actually look like real, living things. There always seems to be a debate as to which method of effect is better, but I feel this film is proof that the best results are accomplished with appropriate amounts of both. At the end of the day, special effects, be they practical or computer-generated, are merely tools meant to tell a story. Jurassic Park would be the same movie at its core if you replaced the dinosaurs with, say, mutated koala bears. Sure, the visuals have changed drastically, but the themes of attempting to assert control over nature and the folly of man's ambition are still as prevalent as ever. Throughout the course of the film, the only characters to die are the ones who, up until the very end, try to maintain control over the chaos of the natural world. It's a reminder that there are some things in life that just can't be molded to suit the needs and desires of the individual; no matter how much power, intelligence, or technology man may possess, the absolutes of nature will be ever present until the end of time.

Even with all that said, I cannot help but personally relate to John Hammond every time I watch this movie; one of the best scenes in the film delves into his backstory and how he created Jurassic Park with only the purest intentions. He wasn't in this for the money, but rather to present the world with something tangible and amazing, to capture the imaginations of children and adults from all walks of life. Hammond is a mad doctor who isn't burdened with a lust for power, but rather a desire to explore that which is unexplored, bringing back something amazing and humbling from his proverbial journey. Even after things begin to go wrong, he immediately starts telling Dr. Sattler about how things will work better the next time; it's clear that he's in the wrong, since no matter how he tries to enact his grand vision for Jurassic Park, the idea will be fundamentally flawed from the get-go. One cannot force order into a system of chaos. However, despite all that, I find myself identifying with him every time. Each time the credits roll, I think "but I would do it better, I wouldn't make those mistakes". It's a summer blockbuster that raises interesting questions about the nature of man and the various responsibilities we have as the dominant species on the planet, in addition to the moral quandaries that can arise when one considers what should be done with the power that we have access to (especially when it can be so tempting to wield that power, in the words of Ian Malcom, "like a kid that's found his dad's gun").

Jurassic Park is and always will be my favorite movie of all time. It grabbed my attention as a dinosaur-obsessed child and started me on the road to becoming the cinephile I am today. More than just your standard summer blockbuster, Jurassic Park offers something interesting to contemplate or investigate in literally every aspect it presents, from the characters, to the special effects, to the philosophy behind it all. In the highly unlikely event that you haven't seen this movie yet, stop reading this review and remedy that situation right away.

REVIEW: Bernie

Bernie is one of those films, for me, in the same realm as something like Super; I remember hearing a bit about it in the early 2010's, saw some posters at my local theaters, it came out, and I never heard from it again. Until, like Super, I saw it on Netflix and decided to give it a watch. Having finally seen it, I must say that Bernie is a really fascinating piece of work and features one of the best performances from Jack Black that I have ever seen.

The plot (based off of a true story) involves a fellow by the name of Bernie Tiede (Jack Black). Living in the small town of Carthage, Texas, Bernie is an assistant funeral director and all-around good guy who is widely beloved by all who know him. He volunteers at the local Methodist church, runs several community plays, and truly, genuinely cares about everyone he serves in his rather morbid line of work. After overseeing the funeral of a local millionaire, Bernie decides to spend some of his personal time checking in on the widow, Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLane), ensuring that she has everything she needs in this most difficult of times. As time goes on, the two become inseparable; the good-natured Bernie ends up playing the part of full-time manservant/travelling companion to the cantankerous, controlling Marjorie in a relationship reminiscent of Monty Burns and Waylon Smithers on The Simpsons. The arrangement begins to wear on Tiede, who is too charitable to voice his discomfort and stand up for himself before he finally reaches his breaking point. This is as much as I'm going to say for sake of spoilers (though one can probably deduce what happens with minimal effort), but the movie really takes a turn about halfway through.

The film is formatted almost like a documentary, constantly cutting away to the various townsfolk of Carthage who give their recollections on the events that transpired. Honestly, I can't tell if I liked or disliked this stylistic choice in the end; on one hand, the way that the townspeople view Bernie is a major facet of the story itself, helping to establish the proper tone and exposition for the audience. On the other hand, I feel as though it is almost used too much; Jack Black is so good in the role of Tiede that the various confessional bits with the citizens of Carthage tend to take up time that I really would have preferred to have seen spent on the titular character. Bernie Tiede is such an interesting guy in that, even after things inevitably go wrong, he's still genuinely likeable. He does some terrible things, but we never truly feel as though he's a monster as much as he is a genuinely good man who just had a bit of a break and needs help. None of his folksy, religious mannerisms are played off for a mean-spirited joke or punchline; everything about him is totally honest and earnest, so it's interesting to see a person who is so good end up doing something so objectively wrong.

Shirley MacLane plays the role of Marjorie Nugent, a millionaire widow who (unlike Bernie) is widely hated by pretty much everyone she's ever come across, family included. Much like Jack Black, the interesting thing about her character is the mystery as to how she ended up at this point. One of the townspeople mentions how he believes she was just born a nasty, old woman; MacLane puts on a great show, as I honestly couldn't picture this character as a young woman, getting married and having children. She's just a bitter, lonely person who happens to find Bernie, a happy, lonely person. They're like Yin and Yang; Bernie lives alone and does everything he can to help those around him so that he'll be liked. Marjorie lives alone and cares only for herself; as a result, she's unanimously despised. It's an interesting relationship that shows how negativity can cause positivity to weaken and decay over time. We also have Matthew McConaughey as Danny Buck Davidson, a District Attorney who begins as one of the talking head townsfolk before taking on a bigger role in the later half of the film. Like Black and MacLane, he does a fantastic job and helps provide an interesting view on the events that take place over the course of the film; as we explore the conflict that arises, we find that no one side is entirely right or wrong. You end up liking just about every character in the movie, but none of them are 100% correct. In this way, the film keeps the audience thoroughly invested in the outcome; just like real life, there's no black or white, just many differing shades of gray. The townsfolk of Carthage are also a delight, some of whom are actual citizens playing themselves. Everyone gives such a good performance, I wasn't sure at first if their bits were scripted or not; while the talking head interview segments take up a bit more of the runtime than I would have preferred, they undeniably lend the film a sense of realism and grit, a dash of Southern flavor that really helps immerse the audience in the story unfolding onscreen.

Bernie is a really interesting piece of work. Many times, the word "interesting" is just used as a polite way of saying "there's some good ideas here, but it doesn't work out". This is definitely not one of those times; this is a black comedy that is well shot, well written, well directed, and well acted, in addition to being genuinely thought-provoking. It's a true story that FEELS like a true story, and manages to keep you genuinely invested up until the very end.