Most films that have somebody stranded tend to grab my attention because of the main-focus being harsh environments based on weather. “Arctic” is one of those movies that has very little dialogue and grasps your attention because of its scenery, its survival skills components, and its actor Mads Mikkelsen. The film is vast with nature, that it leaves viewers to wonder if our main character is going to survive. I found the film to very similar J.C. Chandor’s “All is Lost” (2013) but in the “Arctic” not the sea. However, “All is Lost” consists of one person, “Arctic” consists of two.

The film is set in the “Arctic” and we have Overgard (Mikkelsen), a man that has crash landed in an airplane at unexplained time. He has created a camp, made a ritual of when to go out and explore and look for food and resources for his survival, and has set times for sleeping and such. He hopes that someone will come to find him. His wishes of someone coming for him somewhat comes true but ends up failing. A helicopter crashes and only one person survives. That person is a young woman (played by Maria Thelma Smaradottir). When the plane crashes she is very injured, and she becomes Overgard’s other priority in terms of survival. This leads Overgard to go on a journey carrying the woman with him on a sled in hopes that both their lives will be saved.

“Arctic” (to me) is like the book by William Golding, Lord of the Flies. That is because these two people are stranded in the middle of the “Arctic” and are using items and resources for survival. Lord of the Flies is similar towards “Arctic” but has tons of moments in the book with conversations, literary devices, and personification moments. One element of “Arctic” that reminds me of Lord of the Flies is the alarms that Overgard sets for himself because of its meaning of getting motivated. That is similar towards the item the conch in Lord of the Flies. The conch would mean whoever has that item has the floor to speak. Both “Arctic” and Lord of the Flies set rituals to prevent its characters from driving themselves insane.

This is definitely a top-notch performance by Mikkelsen. I thought I saw his true dark side in Thomas Vinterberg’s “The Hunt” (2012) where one lie makes people turn against him and view him as the enemy where he is not. In “Arctic” he is not a quitter. He pushes himself emotionally and physically to get him and this lady to safety no matter the weather conditions. I wonder now what other Oscar performances he will do in the near future.

Overall, “Arctic” is a must-see movie. There are many epic moments of suspense and attempts at survival that it will leave viewers in full attention. It does lack in some moments, but the element of being very less dialogue creates “Arctic” to be more visually moving. I will probably watch it one more time. I will say three solid stars.

A few days ago, I came across a classic film screening because not many of the January titles were appealing to me. However, when I came across a cinema that was playing “The Godfather” (1972) it was an opportunity that I could not turn down. “The Godfather” is a movie I look up to and not because it is a mafia film that has led to many other great ideas years later on, but because of its dark cinematic elements throughout the film. The director Francis Ford Coppola uses vivid cinematography to set the tone for the negative elements associated with “The Godfather.” Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), and Sonny Corleone (James Caan) are the most ruthless and powerful mafia gang in New York. The patriarch is Vito, and nothing stands in his way of getting what he wants.

Even though many may assume Vito is the king in the beginning of the film, the main lead is Michael. He is Vito’s younger son and a World War II Marine and is not very enthusiastic about becoming like Vito. The conflict that comes around is in the hands of Vito. Vito refuses to help a rivalry group that wants to sell drugs. Due to Vito denying a request from rivals, tragic circumstances start to happen throughout the film, and now it is in the hands of Michael and he starts to go the route to go to war with other mafia families. The problem is that these problems could cause the Corleone family to fall apart.

With there being three “Godfather” films, the violence is fairly heavy in the first one, but I find more of the intensity is through the character’s emotions and dialogue. Coppola uses a generous amount of key elements to show that Michael is still new to having the crime matters in his own hands. The problem is that he defends his father despite all the crime, hatred, and negativity that his father and clan had built up over the years. As Michael says, “My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator,” the cinematography use is set to be quite faded with not so bright lights to enhance the inner emotions and stress that Michael has inherited thanks to his father and his family’s legacy. However, the lighting and cinematography is ten times darker in the moment where Vito is in conversation with Michael about a Hollywood big shot and says, “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse,” the lighting on Vito’s eyes is fairly faded to dark where we do not see much of his eyes. That is a brilliant and cinematic element, which heightens the suspense and stress that Michael has coming towards him. “The Godfather” leaves many questions and pieces for its viewers to piece together to understand. Certain problems are a bound and viewers are left to try and put the puzzles and scenarios together.

I find “The Godfather” to be a thrill ride full of politics, crime, and family. The element to all of these aspects however, is respect. Michael earns respect from his father’s legacy, and so have others. Michael, however, is the center of what is to come towards to him in the two other films (however this review is solely on the first one in the series). In terms of Michael’s position, viewers will notice that his reputation starts to grow in the first film and the other films.

Overall, “The Godfather” is a film that I believe every film fanatic needs to experience more than once. Not just for how good of a movie it is, but for its ambiance and breathtaking screenplay. Every character talks of serious matters, but the most serious ones are Michael and Vito. These two kings remind us of what destines a film to be a classic as is “The Godfather.” I will definitely be writing another review when I have the chance to view the second one in the theaters in a few months.

The film has a great lineup of actors, but is not that great of a film itself. “Serenity” is directed by Steven Knight. Knight directed “Locke” (2013), and that film was better than “Serenity” and it only had one person throughout the whole movie (however that person communicates with people throughout the movie on his bluetooth device in his vehicle). “Serenity” is fairly boring, disorganized, and there is suspense and such, but the the film itself as a whole drags. The main reason why it grabbed my attention was because of this movie being the second time that Matthew  McConaughey and Anne Hathaway doing a movie together since “Interstellar” (2014). “Interstellar” was better than “Serenity.”

The somewhat captivating plot takes place in Mauritius on Plymouth Island. Baker (McConaughey) is a fishing boat captain with a quiet life. He is someone that enjoys his solitude. His ex-wife Karen (Hathaway) comes to him for help in terms of her safety for her son and her. Karen is in an abusive relationship with her new husband Frank (Jason Clarke). Karen wants to Baker to take Frank out on the boat and kill him by causing him be attacked by sharks out at sea. For Baker, this task turns his world upside down. His negative past starts to come back to haunt him as a majority of his life has been negative actions.

Now with “Serenity” I am not saying it is terrible, but there are a variety of times in the film where it is not very focused. Once Karen presents the task to Baker, the plot does not gear in that direction all that much. The film basically hops around flashbacks and painful memories for Baker instead of focusing on his plan to eliminate Frank. Therefore, I felt I was rolling my eyes a few times because I was not sure what to have my attention on as I was watching the movie. Now with Knight’s “Locke” viewers see the suspense through the character’s phone conversations, in “Serenity” it is hard to figure out what the suspense really is. I was not sure if it was the fact that Jim is going to be attacked by Baker, or if it is the haunting past for Baker.

I do still have faith in Knight as a director. I know he can one day make a brilliant film, because he has a decent amount of writing credits for TV series and films that have been successful. They range from Netflix’s “Peaky Blinders” (2013-2017), FX’s “Taboo” (2017), “Pawn Sacrifice” (2014), “Eastern Promises” (2006), “Burnt” (2015) and more. I am a fan of the dialogue and the setups in the three films listed above, and I believe that Knight is getting better, just directing is still fairly new for him. “Serenity” just was not his best. I believe with this one he geared too much on the emotions of the actors more than the setup for the conflict. I will say I am giving this one just two stars.