Random anime/manga recommendations

The first thing one might notice about this list is that it is missing probably the two most venerated series of all anime, namely Cowboy Bebop and Death Note. Neither of the shows had any appeal to us, but if one is interested in visual and highly stylized storytelling, Cowboy Bebop is a pretty safe bet. It does look amazing. Although, if you're into Yoko Kanno's music, Vision of Escaflowne's soundtrack is the superior of the two. Death Note is your basic nihilism, and we're not into nihilism (best part of the entire show was the cat-and-mouse game of the two lead characters and once that was over, our interest waned). Basically this list is just an accumulation of all the random shit we've seen and you could do worse than flip through them. Simply remember that anime is somewhat of an acquired taste, it's not for everyone.

1. Trigun. Because it's perfect. We wrote about this series exhaustively so we don't see the need to expand further. Except that every person identifying as male should see this show.  The artistic style might seem too simplistic at first, but stick with it; it won't seem that way after a while.

1. Princess Mononoke. It's one of our favourite movies ever. Of course it has to tie with one of our favourite TV shows ever. Miyazaki (together with Hisaishi) is a fucking genius. This is absolutely the best fantasy film ever made. It refutes the argument that fantasy can't be deep and thought-provoking.

3. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga). The film is bloody brilliant. However, the manga is simply better because it's more extensive. There's more time for other characters as well. For example, our favourite character ever from Miyazaki's canon: Kushana. Please read it. You do not know what you are missing.

 

4. All other Miyazaki films starting from Nausicaä (1984) to Wind Rises (2013). Go to his Imdb page to get the full list. Wind Rises is a recommendation for those who generally don't care for anime. The man is unable to make a bad film.

5. Neon Genesis Evangelion (the series). After we found out that the film wasn't even originally part of the story but a giant fuck-you to the complaining fans, the movie is to us the same as Star Wars prequels, ie. it doesn't exist. This series is pretty fucking great. We must be the only ones in existence who actually liked the series' ending. All in all, this show is basically Ender's Game but better. Do watch it and don't you dare skip that opening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Noir. This show is especially for those who do not hold an interest for anime. Because it lacks all of the usual anime clichés. The animation and music are superb. It's almost baffling to see an anime where women kick ass without being overly sexualized. Sure, much like Trigun this requires a lot of patience as the idea really kicks in later. It is completely worth it though. This series is criminally underrated. We cannot comprehend how this show isn't a household name in geek women circles. Repent all ye sinners.

 

6. Koe no Katachi. We just wrote about it so we don't feel the need to elaborate further. It's just a damn good movie and possibly one of the best coming of age stories out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Nodame Cantabile (manga).  This is one of the funniest and most heartfelt things you'll ever read. The namesake female character is especially brilliant - she is both funny and serious, which is incredibly rare for women in anime. Also, the romance is surprisingly funny and subdued, unlike most anime romances that come across as disgustingly sappy.

8. Only Yesterday. This is our pick from Isao Takahata. You could watch Grave of the Fireflies, just prepare yourself for the crushing despair to follow. Only Yesterday is very much the opposite to the latter. It's so happy and incredibly sweet. We love the watercoloured background that gives this movie its distinctive visual look.

9. Rurouni Kenshin (manga - Remembrance arc). You can watch the OVA, but the manga is better so we'd suggest that you listen to the OVA's soundtrack (which is awe-inspiring) while reading this arc from the manga. If you want, you can watch the Shishio Makoto arc from the anime (the music and animation are pretty great) but it has substantial problems. The creator botches the main female character. It has other issues as well, but that's the worst one. The Remembrance arc is some seriously good shit though.

10. Bleach (manga). This is the most basic anime/manga we have on this list. It's your usual teenboy hero power accumulation fantasy story. Iiiiiit's pretty okay though. It's surprisingly entertaining, because all the characters are actually likeable. If you want to torture yourself, you can also check out the anime that never had the last arc, thus making it feel incomplete. We would advise against watching it also since the gazillion filler episodes do not make it worth your while. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Berserk (manga - Golden Age arc). You can read the first three volumes as well, but the Golden Age arc is the best one. The story's basically a variation on the Arthurian melodrama (think Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot) with a mix of Faust. This is our Game of Thrones and much like GOT, the creator did not know when and how to finish the story. We appreciate that the manga shows all the nobles as horrible depraved people unlike most other fantasy does. Unless you really hate women, we would urge you to stop reading the manga when the group descends to Hell. 

12. Ranma 1/2 (manga). It's crazy and it's funny. You can read the whole thing, the last chapter is still actually really funny. And dear god, do not skip anything that has Nabiki in it. Our personal favourite chapters would be the Romeo & Juliet ones. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. Fullmetal Alchemist (manga). We have some mixed feelings about this. Because we would have wanted that this story would have taken the depressing male characters from the 2003 series and the female characters from the manga. Furthermore, if those had been combined with the music and visuals from the 2003 series, that would truly be something to behold. Alas, the best thing about the manga is the adults and the flashbacks to the war. 

If you want other recommendations for shits and giggles (aka guilty pleasures), we can give them privately.

Kimi no nawa vs Koe no katachi

Since the corona started, we haven't been able to go to the cinema, so instead we decided to relive our teenage anime years and have been obsessively watching the old anime crap we saw back in the day but also indulging (or torturing with, we're not really sure) ourselves in some new shit. The first movie we saw somewhere around January and the other one this month. They make a pretty natural comparison, since they both are about teenagers and involve a lot of drama (plus they came out like one year apart). And since we've been watching anime now with kinda new eyes, it doesn't really register as embarrassing or shameful anymore. So, now is as good a time as any to write about our thoughts on the stuff we were so immersed in when we were young. This will be first out of three posts on this subject. We're just gonna write indiscriminately how we see these movies, so we haven't divided the text into different areas.

Kimi no nawa (2016)

Character introductions are actually decent. It reminded us of the good bits of Ranma 1/2 (wacko, sort of out-there humour), since the idea is essentially a body swap - the boy sometimes wakes up in the girl's body and vice versa. Through that they then learn to know each other. It's not a very original idea, but if you can make it work, it can be good. The characters have funny interactions and there's potential for the girl to have some actual depth in her character with her relationship to her dad. But then...we come to the half-way point of the movie, where the plot takes over the characters and they start to act stupid. And when we say stupid, we mean mind-numbingly moronic. One of the things that ruin the characters is the stakes being too high for a cheesy romance flick. But we'll expand on that in just a moment. We're sorry though, we can't get over how goddamn stupid the boy is. When it has been made clear that they forget about each other the minute they change back into their own bodies, it is incomprehensible, and by no one's standards should be considered a grand gesture of romance that the boy writes 'I love you' instead of his own name on the girl's hand. The body swap is your basic cheesy anime romance idea, which, when executed well, can be quite entertaining. This is not that. The stakes are that the girl is dead and she and her entire town were destroyed by a meteor and the boy is the only one who can prevent that from happening. 

First of all, there are supposedly two main characters but when everything about the girl's past and her relationship to her dad is shown through the boy's eyes, that's no longer the case. So you see, the boy writing 'I love you' and not his name makes us eternally frustrated. It means that the boy didn't care enough to actually say it out loud to her when she might die and they can never see each other again. Also, that denies the chance for the girl to affirm her feelings for him, maybe the last time ever. Additionally, it's not just she who's dying but her entire town full of people. Yet her survival is more important for the boy than the other people. What a selfish brat. The most insulting part for us, though, if we're being honest, is when it's shown that the girl cares more and is more upset about forgetting some boy's name than her entire town being destroyed. A film that has as its main characters people who are more concerned about their potential relationship than a city full of people dying, is ludicrous. 

The worst part is that this movie tries to be so poetic and deep when it's simply a corny "destiny love" romance ("destiny love" is a term we coined for every story that wants to be Romeo & Juliet). Now, anybody who reads our blog knows that we love good romance. And romance that is truly well-crafted is deep and poetic. This "destiny love" crap is nothing but shallow and pretentious. Ultimately, perhaps we're just holding a grudge, since this movie has near universal acclaim from both critics and viewers and was finally the film to dethrone Spirited Away as the highest-grossing movie in Japan. That is fucking unacceptable. On the other hand, in the West, shitty movies have in the last 30 years made the most money, so it's about time Japan caught up. And we can't help but feel that part of the adoration for this movie is because it's anime and we hate that kind of thinking. Anime is like any other movie or series - it's entertainment, pure and simple. The positive we have for this film is that it is hand-drawn and it looks about 50 million times better than any CGI trash we are exposed to in today's cinema field. The music is some of the J-poppiest of J-pop we have ever heard and thus insufferable for us (sorry not sorry all J-pop lovers).   



Koe no katachi (2017)

An announcement before we begin: Our lived experience has made us biased for the themes presented in this movie. However, if this was shittily made, we might hate it more than the previous movie. 

The subject matters in this film are depression, loneliness, suicide, and hating and loving oneself. Is it any wonder that we felt an instant connection? Most characters are teenagers in this movie too, but they come across so much more real than in Kimi no nawa. Whereas the high stakes are never addressed in Kimi no nawa, this movie is completely prepared to deal with the high stakes it has set. In this movie, the main character is a boy and we see everything from his perspective - there is no false set up of two main characters. Nevertheless, that does not rob any of the other characters of depth. We were actually amazed how well this film used visual cues and imagery to convey emotion or build character. And though it clearly had a lower budget than Kimi no nawa and has way more CGI in the background, the animation is gripping and knows how to utilize its smaller budget to its advantage. 

The basic story of the movie goes as follows: the boy was a bully in elementary school to this deaf girl who transferred to his school.  He was so cruel to her, in fact, that she was forced to switch to another school. This acted as a catalyst for all his classmates to shun him for his actions. All that together turned him inward and made him consider his actions. But instead of dealing with the emotions and feelings healthily (like talking about them) he starts to live inside his head blaming and hating himself to the extent that he thinks he does not deserve to live. Before killing himself, he wants to make amends to the girl he bullied. In the process, he becomes friends with her and that kind of sets the movie in motion and is a starting point for the main character to begin connecting with other people around him. 

The film has actually bothered to make the girl into a real character - somebody who is self-loathing to the point that she believes she's a burden on everyone and that everyone would be better off if she just died. This is where a connection is created between the main character and the girl. They are, in fact, the same. The realization that two people who were introduced to us as complete opposites with totally different backgrounds and personalities can have the same human experience. The story's point is basically learning to love oneself and human connection. Simple and incredibly effective. We love all the characters and love that the film doesn't treat anyone as a villain. The boy's best friend is a particular favourite of ours. All in all, this movie is wonderfully heart-warming, uplifting and life-affirming in the best sense. We would unreservedly recommend this nugget of cinematic gold to everyone.       

Disney's artistic bankruptcy

Of all the Disney's mediocre remakes, I ( Jenni writing solo again) never thought it would be the Lion King that would actually make me so angry I wanted to bash a Disney excecutive's head in. Don't get me wrong, I love the original animation, but when I was a kid it was always the one I loved the least of the first four Disney reneissance films. However, this movie awoke a visceral reaction in me that the other remakes did not, even though they are all pretty bad. I would say, outside of Cats, this remake might be the worst movie I have seen from 2010's. And even Cats was gloriously, entertainingly horrible. This other cat movie, not so much. It is a lifeless, murky mess where you can't see anything when it's dark and the world is completely flat of distinctive colour even in daylight. At least the other remakes had some human faces that showed *some* emotion; here it is like looking at an empty vessel, devoid of any kind of recognizable emotion. Sigh. And Disney used to be really good at manipulating people's emotions with their blatant appeal to feelings.  

I make it no secret that I believe Disney has really gone downhill artistically since they adopted the "no more hand-drawn animation" rule in the 2010's. Even though most of their offerings in the 2000's were crap, I could still admire the artwork that went into their hand-drawn animation style. CGI does not offer me the same visual pleasure. In fact, CGI, unlike traditional animation, is fairly limited in what it can show - it can't switch animation styles all that much and looks mostly the same, the expressions in characters' faces can't really be exaggerated to the same extent and the colours are always flatter. Hand-drawn animation ain't perfect either by any measure and it is much more expensive to make, but it holds far more visual interest and potential to beauty than CGI ever has. To me, CGI has always been exactly the same as all other special effects - something that should enhance the film's visuals and not replace existing effects (be they actors, make-up, practical effects, etc.), which seems to be its purpose in modern cinema. By itself, CGI is nothing but one special effect among others and if one insists making the entire movie of CGI, The Lion King remake is what it will look like at its worst.   

The film differs in no meaningful way from its original animated source. That is a problem that plagues most Disney remakes but it is especially egregious in their Lion King remake. The events are the same, the music's the same and most of the characters are the same, except it all looks much much worse. I do not think I have ever seen anything more devoid of emotion than this film. There is not a shred of sincerity in this movie - which granted, Disney does not always have in their offerings, but even in those cash grabs I could at least admire the artwork. Not the case here. The film constantly slaps you in the face with how unbearably ugly it looks. That should not be - the original Lion King is one of the best looking films Disney ever made. It has breath-taking colours with sharp and detailed animation. Though it's no wonder that Lion King looks pretty good, when it took its inspiration from probably Disney's best-looking animation ever, Bambi. And Bambi, though its story and characters aren't the greatest, looks so damn beautiful that it makes you cry. And when we are talking about films, aesthetic matters. CGI is a big part why a lot of films nowadays have cheap aesthethic. They look like crap - colour is hard to distinguish even when it is supposedly daylight, when it is dark one can barely see anything and in general a lot of the background looks blurry. I've found that the older I've gotten, the more I have started to care about movies' aesthetic. The characters still reign supreme, of course, but bad visuals can affect characters as well - like in this remake. It is extremely hard to feel anything for characters that show no emotion whatsoever. At least in CGI - animations the characters do show emotion and real animals are real, so they are way more impressive than computer-generated ones.

From Bambi. Look at that and tell me it's not amazing.

In the original Lion King the characters were already kinda all over the place but here they have somehow managed to make all of them worse. They basically took away Simba's would-be character arc about learning from one's past (which, granted, didn't go anywhere in the original animation) or accepting his divine call and responsibility as king. Especially the whole mystical divine kingship theme is greatly reduced in meaning in the live-action version, since everything looks so reality based. Scar is greatly diminished as a character already at the film's beginning by cutting his song (instead of in the last 3rd like the animation) and trying to make him into an even more obvious version of Claudius than the animation. The bond between father and son, Mufasa and Simba, is not really focused on in the beginning, so once the tragedy strikes, it is hard to feel for any of the characters involved. Also, the remake trying to make justifications for why the hyenas are evil turns out lazier than just making them evil. And this remake did something that I did not believe was even possible - it made Nala worse. Nala is already a non-character in the animation (as an adult) so making her even less so is quite a feat. I should have guessed that they'd erase all of Nala's personality when she was a kid, since erasing female characters' personalities is pretty much a feature in these Disney remakes, but it did surprise me that they managed to unimprove her adult self. Instead, Nala is a nagger all throughout the movie and affects absolutely nothing or nobody in the story. Timon & Pumba I sort of enjoyed, but even they have this strange cynical undertone that they never had in the animation. All in all, I think this film is a perfect encapsulation of both Disney's complete creative collapse and the state of modern Hollywood cinema - endless sequels, prequels, remakes (or "reimaginations") and even when something original is occasionally thought up, it is usually full-to-the-brim CGI. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I see it as a true tradgedy of the film industry that so much hand-crafted talent, like practical effects and traditional animation, has been almost completely replaced by CGI, where the work might not be as rewarding and fullfilling as creating things with one's own hands.   



   

Characters we shouldn't fancy

The title is pretty self-explanatory. This list probably reveals a little too much about how fucked up peoples' (ours) infatuations can be. Everyone has them, and thankfully they are only fancies. We don't wholly buy the Freudian subconciousness bs. It's pretty straightforward, the more of a bastard the character is combined with how attracted we are to them determines the listing. Honourable mentions go to Robert De Niro in Heat ('cause duh) and Denzel Washington in American Gangster (again duh). Obviously a lot of this depends also on the talent and charm of the actor. And since we are unfortunately 0 % gay or bi, it's all men. Even with that, though, Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity came pretty close making the list.

1. Schindler's List - Amon Goeth. We really didn't want to have him here and we probably fancy him the least on this list, but the fact that there is even a little bit of attraction qualifies him to be #1. Because he's the worst. He's a genocidal maniac. Who has a bit of charm. How fucked up can one's brain get?

2. Jessica Jones - Kilgrave. This guy's a full on rapist (insert It's Always Sunny joke here) yet the way he is played fascinates us. Having someone take your freedom and independent thought away from you terrifies us, as women, more than anything. It's so wrong to fancy this character. 

3. Taboo - James Delaney. This is the character we're most attracted to on this list, he's simply not as horrible a person as the first two. He's a violent murderer and drives his sister insane and to commit suicide, so he's pretty bad too. He's the main character though, so the viewers are given more time to understand and even sympathise with him.

4. The Fall - Paul Spector. He's a serial rapist and killer so pretty clear why he's on the list. The last season chinks away at his character a bit, but it's still an interesting character. We wish the actor went more this route instead of the other poorly chosen projects he's done.

5. Hud - Hud. First off, we didn't get the still we wanted and if you've seen the film, we're pretty sure you know the scene we're talking about. Even Paul Newman could not get this character to be in the realm of likeability. He's not meant to be there either. He's an attempted rapist for god's sake. This character is the definition of toxic masculinity. But Paul Newman, man! Really good movie as well. Seriously, watch this film!

6. A Streetcar Named Desire - Stanley. Man, we have an alarming amount of rapists on this list, don't we? Well, they say that most women have some form of a rape fantasy so we guess we're no different. We've actually never fancied Brando the actor, only some of the roles he has played. Nevertheless, he has a shit ton of charisma, as demonstrated in this role. 

7. The Godfather Part II - Vito Corleone. In real life, this is the character that probably comes closest to someone that we'd actually fancy. He's a ganster and a killer, but he has other qualities. He's reliable and that's something that we gravitate towards in reality. Obviously, we still wouldn't.

8. Dead Man Walking - Matthew Poncelet. We only fancy this character when he begins to admit his guilt. Since he has a redemption arc, he's the only one on this list with an admission of guilt and regret over his actions. He still raped and killed someone so it does make us feel, to say the least, morally confused. There's a whole 'nother conversation that needs to happen around that issue.

9. Yojimbo - Unosuke. Another gangster, this time yakuza style. He's awful, but he's pretty cool. We have no excuses, just look at him and tell us you wouldn't.

10. Sense & Sensibility - Willoughby. He's last because he doesn't rape (at least according to historical context) or murder anyone. However, he's still a bastard. He abandons a 15-year-old girl he got pregnant and then marries for money 'cause he got himself in debt. It's pretty despicable. The best version of the character is the 1995 film.

Concerning a certain branch of film criticism

We've pointed out previously that we are not big fans of criticism of movies on purely moral grounds. Don't get us wrong, this type of criticism does have value, but it is only one way of interpreting art (and that is what all movies ultimately are, no matter how shitty). If one has even transitory knowledge of film criticism's history, one should be aware that there are quite a few branches of different type of film criticism - whether it is structural film critique (aka realist criticism, based on how realistically film depicts real life), aesthetic criticism (based on how good the film looks visually) or auteur - theory (aka critiquing a film based on its director). Then you also have the many ideology based film criticisms that came to the forefront in the 60's and 70's  - like Marxist (based on class analysis) or feminist (based on gender analysis) film critique. Those two are rarely deployed together, though. And these are just a few criticism branches of many. A lot of today's film criticism, however, seems to be going into one direction, specifically, and though it has taken quite a lot of influence from the ideology criticisms of the 60's/70's era, it ultimately comes across to us way more hollow than the film criticism branches it is based on and very often misunderstands them. We call this type of criticism moralism - it is not a deep analytical dive into the movie's themes and philosophy that ideological criticism does, but a rather shallow take of problematic surface issues that constitute nothing more than virtue signalling.  First, we will go through reasons why we are not particulary into this moralist type of criticism and then take some examples that we believe have been misrepresented by only looking at them through a moralist lens.

We must disclose that because of our religious past, we might not be able to be as objective in this matter as we'd like, since in Mormonism movies are often denounced as immoral because of swearing, violence or sex. So, movies that might actually have some very profound religious undertones are dismissed if these superficial elements appear in movies. Moralist critique of movies reminds us of this kind of religious narrow-mindedness - that there is only one acceptable way to interpret something. First thing that should be remembered when looking at movies is that art is subjective - people look for what they believe. Moralist critique that we have seen instead often argues that a film should always make a moral judgement and that their way of interpreting film is the correct one. Moralism also treats viewers quite condescendincly by assuming that viewers aren't able to draw their own conclusions and instead the movie must be explained to them. In moralist critique the film's larger narrative doesn't necessarily matter but rather the details that are deemed toxic or problematic, and events in the film are often taken at face value and almost as frequently out of context. This can lead to the entire film being discredited as morally dubious. This type of moralist criticism ignores the fact that film is a collaborative effort and thus often contradictory by nature. Neither does moralist critique leave any room for ambiguity and  metaphorical or symbolic storytelling. Context of both the film and film history or details that might challenge one's interpretation are conveniently overlooked and film language that often gives movies more complexity (e.g. unreliable narrator, multiple viewpoints, camera angles, music, non-verbal communication, etc.) is ignored. Our biggest beef with moralist critique though is the elevation of women into paragons of virtue in movies (often with no personality and no substantial character arcs) and dismissing characters with human failures. This leads to expectation of perfection and leaves no room for mistakes, failures, redemption or forgiveness (aka humanity) and make both male and female characters more restrictive and regressive.

        
Some examples: So, we decided to look at few films that are often in the crosshairs of moral criticism and then some that are lauded from the same camp.

Blade Runner - Now this is a film that has gotten a ton of pushback in recent years. And it is not all unwarranted. However, many of the moral criticisms directed at this film focus solely on one particular scene and often completely ignore not just the rest of the film but also film history. Blade Runner is a neo-noir, hence it is part of a tradition in film noir that is based on fear of women or sometimes even outright misogyny. Film noir was created during the time when women were working outside the home (The Second World War) and film noir gave form to this kind of terrible fear of women becoming more powerful and independent of men. So really, it is no surprise to see this kind of fear of women materialize in this film since it is a spiritual descendant of original film noirs like Double Indemnity. Many film noirs also had an unreliable narrator who turned out to be the bad guy (or at the very least a somewhat ambiguous "good guy") in the end, even if they were the main character. Blade Runner follows this same pattern - everything that happens in the film is purely from the main character's point of view, we never get to know anything about Rachel, her feelings, her opinions, nothing. Hence, what the male character thinks is romantic (like forcing himself on Rachel) is also mirrored in the music - because the main character thinks it's a romantic situation, the music reflects that. That does not mean the viewer has to. Blade Runner also has some really great criticisms of capitalism and we do not believe that one has to ignore those aspects to see the misogyny in the film.
Beauty and the Beast (the animation) - We have written about this film pretty exhaustively so we'll just go over quickly some of the moral critique against this movie. Again, this film has also gotten a fair amount of criticism recently. However, unlike with Blade Runner where the criticism of misogyny isn't completely unfounded, in here we find the moral critique, for lack of a better word, lazy. The "abduction" and toxic behaviour (and, *gasp* the Stockholm syndrome) criticism often glosses over the redeeming character arc of the Beast or the parallel character arc of Gaston turning into a murderer. This criticism also turns Belle into a victim (instead of a character with agency), of which there isn't really evidence in the film. In addition, it doesn't hurt to remember the source material (arranged marrige is okay, the Beast has a good heart behind the hideous form). 
Star Wars (the originals) - Y'all know what scene we're talking about - the infamous golden bikini. Here, the criticism is based on how women are portrayed on film historically and the context the movie gives is largely ignored. Also, interestingly, many female critics' reaction to this scene seem to be tied to the pop culture talking points (eg. Friends) instead of the actual film. Female viewers, who loved the film and saw Leia liberating herself from the perverted bastard who imprisoned her as empowering, are dismissed. We agree on the historical criticism on the objectification of female characters but think it is equally important to recognize the different contexts that different films give (this also applies to Blade Runner). 
Temple of Doom & True Lies - Horrible depiction of women, yes, but these films are interesting to analyze, for instance, from the auteur - theory branch of criticism. For example, how the two directors' divorces affected the aforementioned movies' image of women. 
The Last Crusade - Now this film had probably the most ridiculous criticism we've ever heard. The criticism of Indiana Jones of "pushing himself" on the female character ignores the entire rest of the movie. It becomes pretty clear later on in the film that she is a Nazi spy who used the exact same ploy on Jones' father. That the main character would be so gullible as to fall for such an obvious trick makes him a little bit more human.         
A lot of older movies also get an unfair shake, ignoring the time when they were made, history, etc. and these movies are instead placed to modern context and interpreted through that lens. It's not that we love all these movies that many moralists excoriate but we do think that they're getting a somewhat simplistic treatment.

Now for some examples where the movies garnered praise from a number of moralist critics.

Beauty and the Beast (the remake) - Again, another film we've spent significant walls of text writing about. According to moralists, this film was apparently the more progressive feminist version that the original should've been. We find that claim utterly ridiculous - the character arcs for the men are gone, Belle didn't get a character arc and even her agency was taken away. The feminism in this movie is fucking window dressing and funnily enough, written by two dudes, whereas the original was written by a woman. And don't even get us started on the horrible class reductionism in this film.
The Last Jedi & Force Awakens - One of us wrote an entire column on The Last Jedi, so to put it as succinctly as possible, these movies have been commended for their inclusion of women and some radical politics they have (especially The Last Jedi). We actually found these movies rather regressive towards women, since they allow men to have some humanity but women are trapped in perfection. It's benevolent sexism, and if we are being completely honest, we actually hate it much more than the more visible misogyny. And what comes to the "radical" politics, even Aliens does anti-capitalism better.
Snowden  - Now this movie is lauded mostly by the left purity people (as we like to call them) and was completely overlooked by most moralists (who are largely focused on gender and race). Though we agree with the film's ideology (spying on citizens is wrong) the movie is so self-righteous and makes Snowden larger-than-life and leaves no room for complexities in his character that we find the movie rather boring and obvious. This makes also the film's political message quite hamfisted and closer to propaganda than actual film-making. You wanna see a film with an actual human character about this event, watch Citizenfour.  We're planning to write about this film in more detail later.
Knives Out - This film got praise for both its female lead and the class consciousness aspect. Here we go again with the "paragon of virtue", a poor working-class woman of colour who always does the right thing (as we find out in the end) and possesses no discernible personality. The rich leeches end up being far more interesting characters, which was probably not the intention of the filmmaker. The class criticism that supposedly exists in this film is on pretty shaky ground - it's fine to own that much money if you are a good person. 
However, since we are mostly character driven viewers, we wouldn't give two shits what these movies are preaching if we liked the characters. Unfortunately the movies that pander to moralistic critique tend to lack in character narratives and thus hold no interest for us.

Despite our apparent distaste for this particular branch of criticism we don't see moral film critique as useless. For example, we doubt that many people would hail Birth of a Nation as objectively a good film (and you'd better be worried if someone claims it as their favourite film) since the film is completely seeped through in racist ideology. It's pretty impossible to see Birth of a Nation in any other way but racist propaganda, yet one can still admire the great technical achievements the film made. We also use ideological criticism in our texts sometimes, especially if we're talking class critique. We are big believers of economic equality being one of the cornerstones of all equality and fairness, hence this belief can pretty often show up in our movie criticisms as well. Moral criticism in film is a rather recent phenomenon and there are quite a few films that pander to this type of thinking, which for us makes films far duller, unambiguous and barely leaves room for different interpretations. The reason we've always liked films is because they aren't always clear and don't always give you absolute answers and you don't necessarily know if something is right or true. In our religion one always had to know if something was true or right and one had to declare it to others, so we  have some serious aversion to the kind of criticism that claims to know whether something is right or true. That is a rather absolutist view on art, which is in the end fiction and never reality, and thus subjective. You can love a movie despite its shortcomings.
   



    

Beauty and the Beast x4

Beauty and the Beast is one of our favourite fairy tales (especially Jenni's) and we thought that the wintry settings of most of the known film versions would be fitting to end the year with. We know that this story has gotten quite a lot of flak in recent years, but we like to make our own assessments and have never been fans of moralizing critique. The original fairy tale's context was to reassure women that arranged marriage is actually fine. Hence "the beast has a kind heart underneath the monstrous look" and in the original story beast does not have a character arc, since he is kind despite his slight passive-aggressiveness. Belle is the one with the character arc in the original story and in older stories where women were the main characters, they often also were the ones whose story the fairy tale told. As we did with the Robin Hoods, this list also goes from worst to best (to us, of course).


La Belle et la Bête (2014)

Characters

Belle: We liked her for the first 2/3rds of the movie. She had attitude and personality but then her character did a 180 once the Beast tried to actually molest her. Her character mainly fails because this film tried to combine the Cocteau and Disney version and they DO NOT mesh at all. Also, the last third took away her character arc.
Beast: Honestly, the main reason this movie is in last place is because this is the only version where the Beast is a rapey murderer. Say what you will about the rest of the versions or the original fairy tale but at least Beast isn't a would-be rapist killer in them. This is the worst version of the Beast by a mile and a half. He is not kind and he doesn't even get a redeeming character arc.  So he stays the same bastard he was from the get go.
Minor characters: Belle's father is better than in the fairy tale and we liked him. The villain is pointless and useless and we wondered the whole time why is he there. Belle's sisters are barely there and instead they gave more time to the Beast's dead wife and even that didn't go anywhere.

Story

So, so convoluted. There was a possibility that it could've worked if they had simplified it and given more time to the characters. The idea that the Beast only demanded that the father come back and pay for his crime and never asked for a wife, was actually an improvement to the story. And they even gave a meaning for the roses, since they were the Beast's dead wife. But these are really the only things that we thought were improvements. Otherwise, this film and its characters suffer greatly from the fact that the filmmakers tried to merge two diametrically opposed versions of this story (ie. The Disney animation and the Cocteau film). This is the only version where one could possibly make a connection to the whole "Stockholm syndrome" theory. So, thank you film, for encouraging the internet commentators.

Misc./Technical aspects

This film looks AMAZING. We mean fucking gorgeous. The colours, the sets, the outfits, everything looks SO good. This is what the Disney remake should have looked like. The score as well manages to be better than the Disney remake's. Hell, even the Beast looks less fake than in the Disney live action. Truly, if it wasn't for the rapey Beast, we would actually like this more than the Disney remake.

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Characters

Belle: All of her personality has been erased. She is the unfortunate victim of what we like to call "shallow feminism", aka "corporate feminism". Much like Rey in Star Wars, she doesn't really have any faults and doesn't make mistakes and most importantly is barely given any leeway to show negative emotions. Which also gives her no character arc. The only thing that they could've improved from the animation was to give Belle a character arc but instead they even took away her utilitarian purpose in the remake. She's a blank slate and we don't think that any actor would've been able to improve this level of writing.
Beast: This Beast should really thank the French remake on its knees. Because otherwise he would be our most detested version of this character. He also stays largely the same unpleasant person he was in the beginning. There is no character arc. This version didn't seem to understand that the Beast had already changed in the animation when Belle came to the castle. And who wouldn't fall for a guy who after hearing your love for tragic romance basically goes "you ignorant peasant girl, I'LL show you better literature than that drivel". This Beast is a condescending jerk and also thinks far too highly of himself. No.
Minor characters: Since the writers took away Gaston's character arc he might as well be a minor character. Instead of having Beast's and Gaston's arcs intact, they took 'em away and gave character arcs to two minor characters, Le Fou and Maurice, which bring absolutely nothing to the story. Funnily enough, though the film focuses much more on the servants than in the animation they are far less interesting or fun than they were in the animation.

Story

There's a way better film critic than us who has done a deep analysis of this film, so we'd advise you to watch her criticism instead of reading our drivel. We pretty much 100% agree with her, we just don't hate this film, since we had such fun time watching it in the cinema. We'd say it's an enjoyable bad movie. One thing we have to say though that we absolutely did hate about this film was the horrible class reductionism and "upping the ante". Holy shit, even the French remake was more true to the French revolutionary and equality principles than this movie, since the prince gave up his crown and became a farmer in the end, for god's sake! And the Disney animation never ever blamed the fucking servants for the deeds of their master. That kind of victim-blaming is class reductionist as fuck. Also, this movie lets both the Beast and the villagers off the hook, since the Beast doesn't really learn anything and the villagers were just enchanted. And was the destruction of the castle and the servants dying really necessary for the story, since it was supposed to be about the two main characters which the movie ultimately didn't actually focus on? Taking away the parallel character arcs of Beast and Gaston made the story completely hollow so they had to stuff it with pointless shit that didn't lead anywhere. Belle doesn't save the Beast on her own once,  Gaston dies not because of his own greed and jealousy but because the castle kills him and Beast doesn't change drastically. And let's not forget the crowning achievement of this movie - Belle's hairpin of empowerment. It's not Belle who gets out of the predicament she and her dad are, but she sure gave him the hairpin that does the trick.  Also, this movie is at least 10 - 15 minutes too long.

Misc/Technical elements

Like every movie nowadays it looks dark and colourless. So many frames are ridiculously cluttered and aren't given space to breathe. Also, we greatly dislike the overuse of CGI which gives the film a mechanical and cold look. The music is barely there as well and the new songs are entirely forgettable. The autotune is pretty cringey and the only people who sound good in the movie are Luke Evans and Josh Gad (who were our favourite part of the film, even if Evans' character wasn't Gaston). All in all, a completely superfluous version that was never needed in the first place.

La Belle et la Bête (1946)

Characters

Belle: The only Belle with a character arc. Which is what she had in the original story - she has to see beyond Beast's hideous form to his kind heart. She's a pretty great character and her character design is sublime. She is humble and kind like in the original story but also quite blunt and pays too much attention to people's outward appearance.
Beast: He is almost exactly like he is in the fairy tale. Kind and long-suffering, but a tad passive aggressive (which you can't get rid of if you want to make a faithful version of the story). He also tries to reign in his beastly nature and live more like a human being. 
Minor characters: Belle's father is again improved from the fairy tale and her sisters are deliciously bitchy and vain. 

Story

Completely metaphorical storytelling. The surreal images that are given and Belle's entrance to the Beast's castle can be interpreted as a metaphor for the sexual awakening of a young woman. Avenant, Belle's rival suitor, being the Beast is one of the strongest aspects of this reading. The music, the sets and images all support a more metaphorical interpretation. The humble Belle asking only for a rose is in contrast to her sisters asking expensive jewels and clothing. The dream sequences and the mystical air in the Beast's castle add to the surreal feeling of the film. If one watches this movie as a straightforward story with a simple lesson one will lose a lot of meaning and nuance in the film.

Misc./Technical aspects

Just like the French remake, the film looks gorgeous. The shadows and shades of black and white are especially something that modern films can't seem to be able to replicate. Beautiful sets, outfits and convincing make-up that has kept the focus on the Beast's eyes (the window to his human soul) look particularly great.

Beauty and the Beast (1991) 

Characters

Belle: Although she is not the best Belle, she is our favourite. She's sarcastic, a little rude and a contrarian. And unlike the remake, while here she doesn't have a character arc, she does have a utilitarian purpose not only saving her dad but the Beast as well (at least twice, three times if you count the confession). And this Belle at the very least shows some negative emotions like grief, anger and sadness and is allowed to cry over losing her father and freedom. These are some basic human emotions that make characters way more relatable, at least for us.
Beast: This is the best Beast and by far our favourite. His arc is basically Mr. Darcy's, except  for the fact that the Beast loathes himself and that makes him act incredibly aggressive and assholish. But the drastic change in his behaviour after the 1/3rd of the movie is pretty similar to Mr.Darcy's. The arc is given to the Beast in this movie and it is a great redemption arc of regaining one's humanity. 
Gaston: One of the best villains not just in Disney canon but overall. The parallel to the Beast and his character arc is gradually descending into a possessive murderer. Where the Beast lets Belle go and refuses to kill Gaston, Gaston becomes more and more possessive of Belle and is ready to murder somebody to own her. Gaston is self-obsessed, vain and greedy and constantly tries to invade Belle's personal space. They've also cleverly made him into a more handsome fellow so one might not instantly think he is a villain.
Minor characters: Maurice is endearing and we love all the servants - they are fun and heartfelt.

Story

Simple yet there's more than meets the eye. The parallel character arcs for Beast and Gaston work great and they've actually tried to built a relationship between Belle and the Beast. Belle is given some agency since she gives her word to the Beast to live in the castle and only breaks it when he really scares her. Clearly her promise means something to her and not to anybody else. Belle's actions and decisions are meaningful and make a difference in the story. The villagers turning into a mob is based on real psychological reality, which we find hilarious that an animated kids film can be more realistic to real life than the actual movie with live actors. The story is short, yes, but everything in it is utilised to its absolute maximum. Also, why we always thought the servants were changed into objects was because the prince saw them as such and they were also changed as a punishment for the Beast, so that he would blame himself and that it would all be his fault. It's called metaphorical storytelling and unfortunately is largely lost in modern filmmaking. The Disney version is not the most faithful adaptation of this story, but it is definitely the one we love the most.

Misc./Technical aspects

Everything's perfect. The music, the colours, the designs, we love everything and it all looks so wonderful. We especially appreciate that the focus on the Beast's eyes (again, window to his humanity) was taken from the Cocteau version - it really makes him a distinct character that can speak without saying a word. Also the fact that only Belle and the Beast wore blue in the movie  was a nice bit of colour symbolism. Both of these elements (the eyes and colour) were sorely missing in the remake and made it a duller movie visually as well. This is the best thing Disney has ever done and we doubt they can ever do better.   
       

    

      
       

      

Joker vs Ad Astra

Both of these films attempt to reckon with a major theme that is exceedingly relevant in our disconnected world. The other one, for us, succeeds, the other falls short. We saw these movies few weeks apart and thought they would make a pretty natural comparison (much like one of our previous posts, Arrival and Passengers). We're gonna change the script a bit here, because how these movies are and are made. We decided to compare the films in three areas - direction, performance and story. Disclaimer: We love James Gray, think he is one of the best directors in modern Hollywood and we've been waiting for Ad Astra for like, 3 years. We've tried our hardest to be not-so-obviously biased.


Joker

Direction: Discount Scorsese. The greasy look of Gotham is directly comparable to 70's New York. We don't think they even tried to hide this fact. We really liked the colours and character designs but the overall visual look of the film leaves something to be desired. There are certain moments where we feel the direction kinda works, like when Arthur is at his neigbour's flat and realizes he has imagined their whole relationship or when he is dancing alone in the deserted bathroom. Otherwise, though, this film leaves all the work to the actor. The film suffers from the modern movie syndrome of stating the obvious (note: stating, not showing) and a lot of the lines could fit into a superhero film. Which this movie is (more about that in the story part). It does not bode well when the actor seems to know more about film-making than the director of the film (we've seen the interviews, that's clearly the case here).  This is not a badly directed film by any means, but it is quite un-noteworthy, like most movies nowadays.
Performance: Phoenix single-handedly holds this movie together. His performance deserves better than this film. The movie and the actor are at odds with each other. Phoenix overshadows everything else in this film. That should not happen if one wants to make a truly great film.

Story: Joker was clearly to liberal movie critics what Mad Max: Fury Road was to meninists. They clutched their pearls quite effectively, some without even seeing this movie and basing all their moral panic on trailers. We saw this as your basic superhero movie, just about the villain this time. It does try to peek into an alienated mind and alienation from society in general but we feel that's a bit undone when it turns into an anti-hero origin story in the end. We appreciate the depiction of billionaire Thomas Wayne as completely removed from reality, but ultimately the disdain the film has for billionaires is undermined by the sympathetic story of the poor little billionaire boy Brucie whose parents are killed because of the villain. That said, we do not understand the outrage about this movie. We wouldn't be surprised if the whole "generating outrage" turned out to be a marketing ploy. All in all, the story is pretty nihilistic and doesn't really stand for anything - which one could argue, is exactly the kind of film that fits a Joker type character. At least Joker admitted that we live in a society. 

Ad Astra

Direction: Unsurprisingly, we loved it. The references it gave to other science-fiction films while retaining its own distinct visual look is something we've always appreciated in this director. The colours were amazing, set designs, lighting, sound design, etc. James Gray is a fucking master of show, don't tell. The only quibble we really have with the direction is the music, which directly ties into the visuals. You had Max Richter as your composer (mostly) and your score ends up being 90 % purely sounds. There are no themes or even A theme in this movie and that's something we really miss in modern films. And James Gray has used music before in his films, so this isn't about his lack of understanding concerning film music. We think it was a conscious choice of not having music, but we believe the film would have greatly benefited from some Richter vibes. This film isn't Silence, it needed a score. Generally, we are not fond of narration on film, but much like in Fight Club, the movie presents an unreliable narrator, which we do like, since that often means leaving things to the viewer's interpretation. We could gush about James Gray endlessly but let's try to keep it brief. The film was well worth the wait.
Performance: It has been a while since we've seen Brad Pitt do some serious dramatic acting in a lead role capacity. We actually forgot that he's more than capable. Pitt, unlike Phoenix, did not have to do the work of the director. The performance is part of the film, not above it. Pitt's and Jones' performances complement each other perfectly.

Story: The movie handles the relationship between father and son, like many other Gray's films. The theme of connection actually pays off at the end of the film, when the father is revealed to be a much more tragic and isolated character and the protagonist realizing that he does not want to be like his father. This is actually happier than most Gray's films. The story doesn't have women as characters because the story is only about the father and son. Historically, that is a problem, but picking out a film that's specifically intent on exploring masculinity and sometimes even deconstructing it (which all Gray's films do) feels a tad disingenuous and criticism made in bad faith. Also, the visuals in this movie make the women people who live outside of the main character's world, not extensions of the man. We absolutely loved the ending, where the film shows its true humanist colours - empathy, understanding and mercy are the way to connection. The loss of someone you cared about gives the movie a pinch of melancholy that stays with you even after the film is over.