'Pulp Fiction' review

“And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee”

Sometime in 2016, I watched Pulp Fiction for the first time with a friend of mine and always wondered to myself, “What is this movie even about?” To break down that question, you have to watch the film and then piece it all together like a puzzle. The film itself is nonlinear, but each story somehow fits with the other. The director, Quentin Tarantino makes this work, even though it is confusing.

Out of all the stories, “The Bonnie Situation” is most likely my personal favorite and makes sense with the plot. In “The Bonnie Situation,” the two main protagonists, Vincent and Jules have accidentally killed someone, associated with an earlier character, in their car and are desperate to have it cleaned. Vincent and Jules drive to a friend, Jimmy, who is played by the director himself, Tarantino. At Jimmy’s house, they try to figure out how to get the car cleaned and dispose of the body. However, this all needs to be done before Jimmy’s wife Bonnie comes back home from work. Bonnie works the graveyard shift at the hospital and does not need to be put in a situation that might end up with her divorcing Jimmy, so he says. Jules calls his employer, Marsellus, and he sends his personal “cleaner” to fix the problem. The car is cleaned and the situation is resolved before Bonnie arrives home.

In “The Bonnie Situation,” it stands alone as an entire story. It contains humor, crime and somewhat mystery as to what is really going on in Vincent and Jules’ line of work. The plot of the film in general could be described as a crime drama, but it is so much more and complex than that. Pulp Fiction is mainly about people making the wrong decisions and being at a location, at the wrong time. All of the characters are put into situations that they manage to get out of, but it also takes a lot of time in order to do so. Tarantino made a film that is a sort of cautionary tale to people who make poor decisions, without even thinking about it. “The Bonnie Situation” is so important to the film, because a character that is not even shown on screen, but is talked about, holds the control of the events that take place during her absence. Although Bonnie is not present, her husband is extremely worried about how everything will turn out, if she were to arrive home early. Literally, the entire process of the car cleaning would have never happened, if Bonnie was home. It would have even been unentertaining if Jimmy were single. The idea of almost getting caught doing something immoral and vile, is fascinating and exciting, in a disturbing, sickening way.

The film illustrates violence and humor as something that can be coexisting and not separate. “The Bonnie Situation” is a great example of this, because of its immoral act of cleaning up a dead body. The scene is led to a small, but drawn-out discussion that is both about gourmet coffee and a dead, Black man in Jimmy’s garage. It is so ridiculous, in the sense that it is supposed to be funny, but also serious at the same time. I believe that is what Tarantino’s cameo was indicated for; to make light of a crazy situation. Tarantino’s character could have been played by anyone, but he decided to do it himself, because who can truly play an “outsider” better than he can?

Pulp Fiction is definitely the type of film people watch and wonder, “What have I just watched?” but now people know. It wasn’t a crime drama. It wasn’t a romance or a gangster film. It was just a film, a confusing one, about people being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and most of them getting killed for it (Vincent). Lesson learned: Never go to the bathroom.

'The 400 Blows' review

“The 400 Blows” is a black and white 1959 film by Francois Truffaut, about adolescence and how a child’s life and the decisions that they make can affect it. The child, Antoine Doinel, begins the film by getting in trouble with his school teacher and is punished. When he goes home, his life and behavior there is not better than it is at school. His behavior becomes so reckless, that his parents eventually send him to a juvenile detention, which he later escapes and runs away from.

Although the film does not have an exact, straight-to-the-point plot, it is like looking at a photo album. The viewer is allowed glimpses into the life of a young boy, who appears to be a troublemaker and disobedient, though we do not know why he commits the things he does. These short flickers of his life are not all bad, but there are some nice, peaceful moments that Doinel experiences. When he and his classmate skip school and run around Paris, they are happy with each other and fear nothing. In that moment, they are children. Truffaut captures their adventures as small boys who are sometimes naughty, but are still naive. Their playful adventure gave them a sense of innocence that the viewer might have thought did not exist, because of what trouble they caused earlier in the film. Their innocence and fun is broken when Doinel sees his mother being romantic with another man. They are both caught in their misconduct and their innocence is lost.

The only true time that Doinel regains a bit of his innocence is when his father brings him to the police station and he spends the night there. He is behind bars and locked up, left behind by his parents and he is faced to accept his misdemeanors. The moment is quiet when he rolls up a cigarette in his jail cell. Scenes that are silent or lack a lot of sound have much more meaning than others, because silence says so much. In the juvenile detention, when he escapes and comes to a stop at the ocean, it is not only quiet but he is alone. A major theme in the film is alienation, in which the main character, Doinel, is alone mostly towards the end of the film. He tends to have a friend to assist him with everything throughout the film, so he is not alone, but he is lonely. It is him against everyone else, specifically adult, older figures in his life. They tell him what to do and how to behave, but like a scratch he cannot help but itch, he has to do something drastic to defy them. These adult figures are obstacles that stand in his way, and he can usually get past them, but it is until he reaches the ocean at the end of the film, that he is unable to get past this obstacle, or border. He is lost again, as he looks at the camera in a freeze-frame shot, perhaps, asking for help.

A photo album allows for someone to know what is going on in the picture, but they cannot understand what is going on behind it. Doinel might have avoided his childhood in order to try to grow up too quickly. He did things that many young children would not do. However, because he is easily persuaded, he tries to be a good son and student to be in good spirits with his family and school. He tries to be a child again, but when it backfires, he goes back to being mischievous. When innocence is lost, it is hard to find again, and at most times refuses to come out of its hiding spot.

'Psycho' (1960) review

Janet Leigh is the Leonardo Dicaprio of “Not Winning Awards for Great Roles”... Not including his win for The Revenant, but you know what I mean. After watching Psycho for the first time in my life, yes, I know… crazy, I took notice that Janet Leigh, who plays Marion Crane, is indeed the main character of the film. However, when I discovered that Leigh was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in her role as Crane, I could only pay attention to the “supporting” part.

Leigh’s Marion Crane should be considered the main character in the film, above Norman Bates. This is due to the fact that her character begins the film and is the sole focus on everyone’s mind. There would be no plot, if Crane did not have a relationship with a man that has debt and want to steal money from her boss to help support him. Crane carries the audience through a journey that ends in her death, but her name remains on the lips of the people that search for her.

The only other character that could be considered the main character of the film, is Norman Bates’ mother, Norma. Although Norma is not alive in the film, her son takes over her identity. Without Norma, there would be no motive or murders. Norman blames his mother for almost everything, talks about her, and even becomes her by the end of the film. Norma becomes the character that is rarely seen, yet holds so much authority over other characters. It is her, or Norman’s imitation of his mother, voice that the audience hears constantly and in the voice-over at the end of the film. The focus is either on Marion Crane or Norma Bates, which goes to show that they are the main characters.

In Psycho, everyone remembers Norman Bates and the iconic shower scene with Marion Crane. However, that scene could not be executed without the subject: Marion. What many viewers have to remember is that the film is about a woman, Marion Crane, who steals money in order to help out her boyfriend. If someone, like me, were to watch the film for the first time, they would be surprised to see that there is way more to the story than a crazy guy dressing up as his mother and killing people who stay in his motel. The story actually follows Marion and the last few days of her life and how she tries really hard to conceal her identity from a suspicious police man and support her boyfriend. The story does not end with her death, but continues when her boyfriend, sister and a private investigator attempt to find her. Even though Janet Leigh will go down in history for portraying a character that is killed off within the first thirty minutes; she will forever be the main character.

'Rear Window' review

Is it ethical for a man to watch people outside his apartment window with binoculars?

This is a question that is asked in the 1954 film Rear Window, as director, Alfred Hitchcock peeps into the lives of the people living in neighboring apartments through the eyes of a photographer, Jeff, who is restricted in a wheelchair after an accident that leaves him with a broken leg. Jeff spends his time watching his neighbors through his rear window with his large camera lens as he is confined to a wheelchair. He surveys his neighbors as they go on with their daily routines. He witnesses one of his neighbors commit some suspicious behavior regarding his wife and it leads him to believe that his neighbor might have something to do with the disappearance of his wife.

Voyeurism is a major theme in the film, however, I like to believe that it is somewhat close to “rubbernecking” as to what Jeff is doing in the film. With “voyeurism,” Jeff is enjoying the act of watching others, even if they are experiencing pain or happy, sometimes sexual feelings or activities. When Jeff watches “Miss Lonelyhearts“ she is alone, sad and later tries to commit suicide, though Jeff makes the call to the police to send help to her, he is distracted and sends the police to save his girlfriend, Lisa, instead. When watching “Miss Torso” it is constantly when she is undressing or with other men. The film makes the statement with voyeurism that, like rubbernecking, it is hard to look away from something very intriguing, whether it be dangerous, erotic, or miserable.

Rear Window is film majorly through the lens of the binoculars or Jeff’s camera to add to the voyeuristic, “Peeping Tom” vibe to the film. Everything is seen through another lense, not just Jeff’s eyes. The audience is invading someone else’s life and the film suggests that there are good and bad outcomes from this. When “people watching” one can either help or hurt someone. In this case, it worked in the favor of Jeff, who not only put a murderer away in jail, but came to his senses that he belongs with Lisa and can find true love. Although all of this ended in not one, but two broken legs, the film makes note that voyeurism might appear innocent, but there are always consequences to the actions one makes.

Rubbernecking allows the driver to see what might have caused the accident, but it only creates traffic.

'Shutter Island' review

“Which would be worse: to live as a monster, or to die as a good man?”

-Teddy Daniels

In the 2010 film Shutter Island, directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, it tells the entrancing, yet also very confusing story of a deputy marshal who travels to the titular island to find a deranged woman who escaped the facility, while also trying to find the man that caused a fire, that killed his wife.

The film consists of many flashbacks to Teddy Daniel’s experience during World War II, his wife Dolores, hallucinations of dead children and memories of events that affects Teddy in a drastic way. Shutter Island shares many qualities with another film noir, Memento, that was released only 10 years prior. They both deal with a main character who tries to repress memories that involve the death of their wife. One of the main things that the film is controversial for, is the ending and how it is interpreted. I might be echoing a lot of things that other people have already mentioned in their own analysis, but I have my own theory of what really happened at the end.

Although the end of Shutter Island is open-ended and does not immediately reveal what really happens and if Teddy is mentally ill and imagining everything or are the men that work there and everyone else against him? When the audience has their first glance at Teddy, he is in a bathroom on a boat, and is sea sick. He looks at the mirror in front of him and tells himself to get over it and to calm down. It becomes quite obvious at this point that something about water, not sea sickness, is the main factor that bothers him. He explains to his new partner, Chuck Aule, that being on the sea felt like it was surrounding him and suffocating him. The mirror scene reminds me so much of another famous Martin Scorsese film… any guesses? Taxi Driver. Actually, Scorsese uses this motif in almost every single one of his films (watch them and you’ll see).

When Scorsese uses the motif of the main character talking to himself in the mirror, it usually means that he is trying to connect with reality or make sure that he is there. This idea of a moment being real and fictional is played out often in his films because in Taxi Driver, Travis talks to himself, making it appear that he is a tough guy, even though he isn’t. He uses the persona of someone else to keep him at ease, which is exactly what Teddy is doing in Shutter Island. A line that the lead psychiatrist, Dr. John Cawley says in the film is “Sanity's not a choice, Marshall. You can't just choose to get over it” which goes along with how Teddy is dealing with his situation.

At the end, it is determined that Teddy is actually Andrew Laeddis, the man who he claimed killed his wife in a fire. However Teddy is the one who killed his wife, by shooting her after she drowned and killed their children. There are many other things that are revealed to the audience, and let me be clear: they make sense. Though, what bothers me are the unanswered questions. Such as, what is real and what are memories? Teddy is publicly known to be an unreliable character at the end, because of the revelation that he is mentally ill and projected his inner feelings onto someone else and create a lie about how his wife was killed. Though, with Memento, I pity the main character and am on “his side” in Shutter Island. Both Leonard and Teddy kill their wives and project the experience onto someone else, because they are unable to come to terms with what they have done. They both love their wives so much and they did what they had to do, but it does not mean that they enjoyed it, because it took a major toll on them and it brought them to a never-ending cycle where they are hopeless and are desperately trying to make themselves sane. George Noyce, another patient at the asylum, whom Teddy knows from a previous work related situation, confronts him and tells him something that the audience most likely overlooked because George was the one in the mental institution and not Teddy, who was the one investigating, “This is a game. All of this is for you. You're not investigating anything. You're a fucking rat in a maze.” When this line is said and it is connected to everything Teddy is told at the conclusion, it becomes known that he is not really trying to find anything, but he is trying to forget something and bury it deep in his mind.

So when Teddy appears to “relapse” and I write that in quotation marks, because I personally believe that he is finally at a stage in which he knows that he is mentally ill and that he knows everything that is going on; he comes to the realization that he is done pretending. Teddy retreating back to his old ways, allows him to commit suicide (in a way), even though he knows what is real, he cannot truly accept the fact that he killed his wife. The look he gives Chuck Aule, is a strange one, when he says, “Which would be worse: to live as a monster, or to die as a good man?” indicates that he knows what is happening, and that he is okay with it. He is okay with dying, as a clueless, sad man who lost his wife, who is a good man… instead of dying as a monster who killed his wife and did not save his children from being murdered by their mother because he was a drunk. He is also the same man that may or may not have killed thousands of people in the second World War.

There are some instances in which the audience is not sure if it is “just my own imagination” or was it an editing error? The audience, like in Taxi Driver and Memento, are experiencing everything through the main character, so when things happen out of the blue, it seems out of place. Such as, when Teddy arrives on the island and the security guards are very on edge and intense, because a madwoman is on the loose, though when they are later shown, they appear to be bored and just sitting around. No one gives Teddy a straight answer or seem to be very interested in finding the missing patient. When Teddy interviews a patient, she reaches out for a glass of water, and there is nothing there. However, when she is shown again, the glass appears in her hand as she sets it down. I’m not sure if it was an editing mistake or something wrong with the continuity, but when it comes to Martin Scorsese and his films, nothing done without a reason. This editing technique shows that Teddy might not be functioning correctly and that he is already off balance with reality. He is already seeing hallucinations, so this plays along with that idea as well.

What Martin Scorsese perfects, once again, in Shutter Island is the use of motifs. However, his frequent use of characters talking to themselves will only set me off, the next time I watch another one of his films. I will now, forever, connect that image with the character having a split personality or fearing reality. Much like his other films, Teddy exits the movie as a hero. Though, how he becomes a hero is questionable.

Shutter Island

Shot Her Island

'Memento' review

“We all need mirrors to remind ourselves who we are.”

Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) says this line in the 2000 film Memento directed by Christopher Nolan. In the film, a man who suffers from anterograde amnesia goes on a mission to find the man that raped and killed his wife. The only things that he remembers, is his life before the accident and his wife. The idea for Memento came from Christopher Nolan’s brother Jonathan, who wrote a short story called “Memento Mori” about a man who has short term memory and uses polaroids and tattoos to help him figure out who raped and killed his wife, which is much like the film.

When watching the film for the first time, it is obviously very confusing. There are two different things going on: the scenes that are in black and white are in chronological order (but is in the past) and the scenes that are in color are in reverse order (but is in the present). After watching Memento, I read an article “Everything You Wanted to Know About ‘Memento’” by a film critic, Andy Klein, who dissected everything in the film and made it so much easier to understand. He basically created a way to watch the film in its right order. He explained that when watching the movie, to watch the black and white scenes in  chronological order, but to list every scene 1 through 21. However, there is a “special” scene at the end of the film, where it starts off in black and white, but transitions into color; this specific scene would be 22/A. Then, the color scenes would have to be watched in reverse order, or backwards, and those scenes would be B through V. In all, the complete order of how the film would be viewed, in a chronological order, would be:
1, 2, 3 ,4 ,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22/A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V.

One of the main themes for the film is memory. The entire film consists of the idea of whether or not Leonard, the main character, is searching for the right man who killed his wife or not. For starters, Leonard is an unreliable narrator because of his short term memory, the audience is unable to determine if his memories and his flashbacks are real or if they are fabricated. What is clever about this film is that the director, Christopher Nolan, has a man who is damaged and his short term memory is his weakness. Leonard is easily deceived by people who learn of his “condition” and they use it to their advantage, like Natalie, who has him kill her boyfriend’s drug dealer boss. Natalie and her manipulative ways definitely makes her the film’s femme fatale because she seduces Leonard and makes him trust her, only for her to use him in the end and have him kill someone for her. There are other film noir characteristics that fit with other characters, like Teddy, who resembles a rogue cop. The audience does not find out that Teddy is a cop and is the one who Leonard has been giving information to one the phone, until towards the end of the film. Teddy is taking advantage of Leonard as well, he helped him find the guy who got away from the assault, but because Leonard does not remember, he uses him to kill other men and collects money from them. This leaves Leonard… who is he? I came to the conclusion that Leonard is a homme fatale, because he is an attractive man, who is going through a rough time in his life and he can’t make any sense of what is really going on, but he is very determined and sticks to his mission.

The use of voice-over is an important device in the film as well because there are also two different types of it. For the black and white scenes, Leonard’s voice-over is more like him being interviewed, which in many cases, he already is because of the phone call that he has. The audience and Leonard are unaware, until the end of the film, of who is on the other line. The voice-over for the color scenes are more investigative, because he is trying to figure things out in his mind, as they are happening. His voice-over is his inner thoughts. The color scenes are probably my favorite ones, because the audience is just as clueless as Leonard is and we are both trying to figure out what is happening and we both get frustrated when he forgets. What Leonard knows, is what the viewers know.

The ending of the film might come as a shock for many people, but there are little clues throughout the film. One of the major clues is the “Remember Sammy Jankis” tattoo on his hand. This was most likely a way for Leonard to remember who he really is, the person that reminds him most of himself. He created Sammy to repress his guilt over accidentally killing his wife. Not only is Leonard being used by people in the film, but he, himself, is using a fictional person to carry the weight of his issue.

When Leonard remarks, “We all need mirrors to remind ourselves who we are” I believe that this means that he needs to be reminded of who he is, because he doesn’t really know himself. When Teddy asks him if he knows who he (Leonard) is, he goes on to recite real facts, but Teddy wants him to know “what he has become” which is something that Leonard will not know, and probably will never know. He is on a never-ending tunnel that leads him to kill men with the name John G. and his mission to avenge his wife’s death, becomes meaningless.

One of the last lines that Leonard says at the end of the film is, “Do I lie to myself to make myself happy?” It is one of my favorite quotes because it is something that I think everyone can relate to. The line itself is pitiful and makes the viewer feel somewhat bad for Leonard, but then you remember all the things he’s done, and you don’t feel so bad anymore. He can’t help that he has a condition and this bothers him. So when he finally learns the truth, he chooses to ignore it, because at this point in his life, he is not living his life for himself but for his dead wife. His only goal is to repeatedly get vengeance. This connects with everyone else in the world, because with little things such as makeup and cosmetics, help women feel confident and beautiful. We make up excuses and lies to help us with daily life situations. Is it a good thing? No. Though we choose to do it anyway.

'Fargo' review

5 Reasons Why “Fargo” Wasn’t Funny

A woman is cheerfully knitting and watching a morning show, when she notices a man wearing a black ski mask and holding a crowbar, approaching her back door. She watches the man with curiosity, as he peers into her house through the glass door. She continues to watch him as he breaks the glass door open with the crowbar. She jumps out of her chair and runs towards her front door, where she encounters another man identically dressed as the first one. He grabs her and she bites him, running up the stairs to the second floor. Upstairs, the second man is aiding his hand in the bathroom when the woman, who is hiding in the shower, leaps out and is completely covered by the shower curtain. In her frenzy, she tumbles down the stairs and is momentarily unconscious. The second man is shocked, as he pokes her still body.

In this film called “Fargo” (1996), directed by Joel Coen, while his brother, Ethan, co-wrote the screenplay with him, many people think that this scene is humorous. However, it was one of the many scenes that I did not laugh at. I felt very uncomfortable and I pitied the poor woman, who was not given much of a character description other than being called “Jean” and she is the wife of Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) and the daughter of a wealthy family. In the film, a man hires two men to kidnap his wife and then ask for ransom money from his in-laws, who are wealthy. When the plan goes wrong, a pregnant police chief tries to solve the murder of three people that were killed, among other situations that occur in the film.

Before watching the film, I had no clue what it was about. I watched the film with brand new eyes and I believe that is the best way to watch a movie. Due to this, I had no reason to instantly dislike the movie because of the plot, actors or time period. After I finished watching the film, I looked it up online and Google told me that it is a “dark comedy, crime thriller”. This is something that I disagreed with. I felt as if the internet, the Coen brothers and everyone else in the world was playing a cruel joke on me. This movie was neither a comedy, nor a thriller; in this case, it brings me to a countdown of the reasons why I think “Fargo” is not funny.

Reason #5: Although “Fargo” is classified as a “dark comedy and crime thriller”, it is not funny because of just… that. It does not take much for me, personally, to laugh at something, but because I was not aware that this film was “dark” and “comedic”, I ignored the fact that the film was intended for me to laugh at some of the parts. Such as, Jean falling down the stairs because she got caught in her shower curtain. The reason why she is caught in the shower curtain is disturbing. She is running away from men that are there to kidnap her, an order given by her pathetic husband.

Reason #4: Mental issues and physical problems are joked about. There is a long running, belittling joke about one of the kidnapper’s, Carl (Steve Buscemi), height and appearance. He evidently appears differently than his accomplice, Gaear, who is taller, blond, quiet and seems more intimidating than Carl. Besides Carl’s height and looks being made fun of, another character, Mike, who is an old high school classmate of Marge, the pregnant police chief, has bigger issues. It was obvious to me that he had some type of issue, because not only did he call her home in the middle of the night, but he sounded extremely jittery on the phone call and was very eager to meet her in person. When they finally met for dinner, he told her details about his life that she was not expecting, not that she even wanted to know about it. He cried in front of her, as he poured his heart out to her. Many people would find this hilarious, but it worried me. Marge is a pregnant woman dealing with a mentally ill person, but she appeared calm in front of him and did not show any signs of fear. Soon after that scene, she finds out that Mike lied to her about everything, and the truth is that he is just very ill. The Coen brothers did a bad job of trying to make Mike’s situation funny, but they did a great job of creating mystery and building up Marge’s role of a “mother figure”.

Reason 3: Gore is not funny; it is gross. Not much to say about this theme of the film. There are many scenes where people get killed and they are not pretty or funny sights. I am not sure if the Coen brothers tried to make the death scenes appear “light”, but they did the complete opposite. Usually when I watch death scenes, I feel uneasy about them and it makes me physically sick. In one scene particular, a classmate of mine said that the part when Gaear is seen putting Carl’s body parts into a wood-chipper, that it was one of the best and funniest scenes in the film. Well, I don’t think so. All the viewer sees is literally, Gaear putting body parts in a wood-chipper. There is nothing funny about it, but disturbing and weird. It is weird, because it’s a WOOD-CHIPPER of all things.

Reason 2: The characters, Carl and Jerry and the situations that they’re put in are not funny. I will admit now, I was incredibly happy and excited to see William H. Macy in the film. He is one of my favorite actors, which is ironic because I KNOW that he is a funny person and actor in general. Macy is currently starring in a show called “Shameless” on Showtime and it is so amazing and odd to see him portray a character like Frank Gallagher and then see him play an almost equally pathetic, terrible, and manipulative character such as Jerry Lundegaard. However, what Jerry lacks is humor. If Jerry and Frank met in a jail cell or randomly in a restaurant in Chicago, Jerry could definitely learn a few things. Due to his character being a complete slimeball, this made him less funny and less intriguing. That goes the same for Carl as well. The actions that he carries out, killing multiple people because they “got in the way” was completely unnecessary.

Reason 1: And finally… their accents are not funny. They are very, very annoying. The film was set in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and if you didn’t know already, people who are native Minnesotans have very strong accents. Their accents sound almost Scottish or Irish, but like… worse. The characters say “Oh yeah?” in every single scene and their accents became so bothersome to me that it came to the point where I wasn’t even watching the film, I was paying more attention to what they were saying and how they were saying it. I can’t even begin to imagine why the Coen brothers chose this specific state and to actually have their actors speak in the accent for the film. I believe it’s because they think the accent sound funny, so it makes the “crime thriller” aspect of the film sound silly and ridiculous. Not only is the film not funny, but it’s ridiculous to the point of “why am I watching this?” to “what is this even really about?” The ending, just ends with Marge in bed with her husband, pretending like everything's okay, as if she did not just almost die.

I’m not sure about everyone else who has seen the film, but this is not what I signed up for.