MOVIE REVIEW: A Million Ways to Die in the West

      If I can say one thing about "A Million Ways to Die in the West" it's that I think that Seth Macfarlane is beginning to get a grasp on live-action filmmaking. His previous live-action outing was 2012's "Ted", a film that seemed to amount to little more than a series of mildly interconnected sketches and cut away gags, a la "Family Guy", "American Dad", and "The Cleveland Show". The result was a film with a curious amount of dead air between moderately funny jokes.

      This brings us to 2014's "A Million Ways to Die in the West." I have to say, this film serves as a bit of a curiosity to me. On one hand, it certainly seems a bit more coherent than "Ted". The focus seems to be more on keeping the jokes internal and organic, rather than relying upon the cut-away. Even more, there seems to be an actual rhythm to the film as it moves from plot point to plot point, and act to act. There is a steady progression as we see Macfarlane's Albert Stark progress from a sad sack sheep herder into a sharp shooter. Unfortunately, this welcome functionality doesn't save the majority of the film.

      I'd be lying if I said that I didn't compare this to Mel Brooks's comedy/western "Blazing Saddles." They certainly share similar DNA, what with their self awareness and use of sight gags, but the similarities stop there. Where "Blazing Saddles" had meaningful economy with its story and writing, "AMWDW" seems more intent on reusing the same jokes with deminishing returns. Whether it be the constant reminders that life in the West was indeed deadly, or the constant reminders that Stark is a horrible farmer, or jokes that go on for far too long past the point of no longer being funny, "AMWDW" really wants us to see how funny it is. Unfortunately, it feel closer to someone laughing at their own jokes far harder than the audience.

     This is further compounded by a sort-of subplot involving Giovanni Ribisi's Edward, and Sarah Silverman's Ruth. You see, Ruth is a prostitute in a brothel and is in a relationship with Edward, a church-going cobbler. They've never engaged in sexual intercourse due to Ruth wanting to "save herself for marriage" as the "good Christian thing to do." That's it. That's the entire joke. Nearly a third of this movie is devoted to this ONE joke, in one capacity or another. Needless to say, it lost it's luster very quickly.

      Thankfully, a few performances in this film rise above the half-heartedness of Edward and Sarah. Charlize Theron's Anna Barnes serves as Stark's love interest/marksman coach, and Liam Neeson plays Clinch Leatherwood, Anna's more-than-a-little-possessive boyfriend/superior marksman/antagonist. The A-List quality of acting from the two of them completely eclipses everyone else within the ensemble. I dare say Neeson's performance is my favorite out of the film, as his feels as though he wants to adequately chew up every frame, his Irish accent coloring his every line with just the verbal hint of a smirk. Easily, this ranks along with "Darkman" and "The Lego Movie" as some of my favorite of his performances.

      Theron and Macfarlane actually seem to have some onscreen chemistry, with their dialogue feeling easy and natural, but this presents another problem: their scenes, along with a few others, feel as though they belong in better movies. Whether it be the dramatic chase between Stark and Leatherwood's gang, or the well-choreographed dance sequence at the Dance, Macfarlane obviously has an eye for composition in some cases. It yet seems that he is still constrained to many of the methods employed on his animated works. I, for one, would like to see him write and direct a musical, as that seems to be where his greatest affinity is.

      Among both the pantheon of great westerns and great comedies, this film ranks pretty low. At the same time, it is evidence of Macfarlane's progression as a filmmaker. Unfortunately, that's about the only great thing I can say about this film.

IT'S COMPLICATED: Women Against Feminism (a few thoughts)

I find "Women Against Feminism" to be horribly misguided. The methods used to express the points said were paved by Feminists. It seems that "misandrist" and "feminist" have become interchangeable terms in the eyes of some, and I can't help but find that disheartening.

I think Misandry and Misogyny are terrible things. I think that there are issues that affect everyone, regardless of gender and that stem from difficulties caused by what's perceived as some gender norms. I would also say I'm a Feminist, but in the broad sense. I hope to take things from a broad place, hoping to get the big picture, because if there's one thing I've learned in this life, it's this: things are always more complicated than they appear.

We may seek those simple answers, or even the most streamlined routes to solutions, but the depth of human experience is incalculable. With people it's never simple. Every issue relating to some aspect of the human condition has a near infinite number of angles to them, so it's a bit harmful to approach them as though they have anything but.

Something to concider is this: there are no simple things, only simple thoughts. We tend to willfully obfuscate complexity for simplicity. We obfuscate the complexity of both the internal and external systems at play.

It's completely within reason that those alligned with "Women Against Feminism" make make some points that address some of the things that slip through the cracks of the majority of Feminist talk, but they then participate in the same discrediting of every aspect of Feminism that Feminists are accused of doing.

So is there any solution? What new maxim should we rally behind to solve this? If you've been paying attention you'll know that there isn't one. It comes from the conscious search for the core of arguments and of people. Hearing what they have to say and learning of their experiences. It takes openess and humility, whether (like me) fueled by the thought that God desires us to know each other better and to know Him by understanding our connectedness, or by the underlying thought that people should just be decent to each other, or from any other place, this is what I see as a solution. Do not obfuscate it's complexity, because it's something that will take your whole life to do. There is no mastery, only exponential growth.