Spirited Away (2001) directed by Hayao Miyazaki

I never had my anime phase as a child, unless you count watching Pokémon and Teen Titans. While I have heard of Spirited Away for years now, I never had the motivation to watch it because I have never been into Japanese animation. However, after hearing a very interesting lecture in my Intro to Film class about the impact of foreign animation into our culture, it became much more interesting to me. I was quite confused at some parts of this film, but I enjoyed it regardless.

There were many parts that I loved about this film, even though I was extremely unfamiliar with it. The biggest aspect that I loved was the animation and design. The animation throughout the film was just absolutely gorgeous and the color schemes used were fantastic. This movie followed the rules of colors and moods to the tee, and I loved how much color influenced the actions and characteristics of the different characters. The animation was astounding, even for 2001, and while I have not seen any of the other Studio Ghibli films, this one blew my mind with its beauty. Other aspects of this film that I really enjoyed were the characterizations of the working children and the animals in the film. It was interesting to see how the characters interacted each other, especially the phantom No-Face. He was honestly my favorite character in the film, and seeing his actions affect the other characters was very interesting. The character of Chihiro was also riveting to see, as her journey through the strange land put her through so many trials and once she came back to her parents in the real world, she was completely changed. Development is always very important to me, and this film handled it very well.

Some things, however, that I did not quite enjoy about this film were its metaphors and variation of certain characters. I feel that this entire film is one extended metaphor about childhood and growing up, but I am just assuming that because I could not quite put my finger on it. Many metaphors throughout the film were very diluted and I personally did not understand most of them, even though I knew they were there. Some examples include the character of Haku, who was also a dragon for some reason, and Yubaba, who had a son that was a literal giant baby. These design choices didn't seem to serve any purpose to me, and it all just further made me uneasy. The only metaphor throughout the film that I understood clearly was how her parents were apparently turned into pigs. Even though we never saw them physically transform, it can be assumed that pigs were chosen because of their greed and gluttony. As for the rest of the film, I feel that your average viewer might have to go online afterwards in order to figure out what it was about. I personally feel that a good film would not require you to do that, but rather make you question things about yourself. This entire metaphorical confusion may be caused by the fact that I only speak English, live in America, and have an entirely different culture than that of the Japanese. I watched the English-dubbed version of this film, but perhaps it has a completely different meaning in Japan.

While I did not understand much of this film, I did appreciate its quality of design and animation. Spirited Away is a beautiful film that devotes its entirety to the beauty of childhood and aging, and I would recommend it for any fans of anime or worthwhile animation.

My Rating: ★★★

Justice League (2017) directed by Zack Snyder

Justice League is one of the films that I have been waiting for absolutely all year. I am a die-hard DC fan who has been waiting for all of the greatest heroes to get together on the big screen once and for all, and The Avengers just didn't do it for me. So after the success of Wonder Woman earlier this year, I was very excited and positive about this film. After watching this film however, I was not entirely as enthralled as I hoped to be. I thought that DC had gotten their act together judging their previous film, but I guess I had too high of hopes.

Let's start by addressing the basic problems: the plot and generic tone of everything. The plot of this film just felt so generic. The villain Steppenwolf was arguably the most boring villain in any modern superhero film, but we did finally get a Darkseid name drop, which excited me a lot. The villain quite literally had the mindset of "find some ancient relics and destroy the world," which is the dullest reason for taking over the world, as it has been done thousands of times. Besides the fact that Ciarán Hinds' antagonist was entirely CGI, he was just excruciatingly generic, and not a bit threatening, in my opinion. All three acts of the film led up to the final battle with the villain, and as it was supposed to be the climax of the film, it felt so unsatisfying. Steppenwolf's end came so quickly and was very anti-climactic that I thought he might have a final form or come back for more. Alas, I have gotten used to settling with mediocre DC films and attempting to support them even when the other 99% of moviegoers are against me.

The root of the biggest problem with Justice League was the change of directors. While Zack Snyder left the project towards the end of production to deal with a family tragedy, Warner Bros. decided to bring in Joss Whedon to assist in finishing the film. This was the worst possible move they could have done, and instead of pushing back the release date and keeping the dark tone of Snyder, they pushed to include Whedon's hyper-sexualized vision. This caused so many problems throughout the film, and the pacing just felt so off. It was easily visible to see which director worked on which parts, as Whedon is infamous for his misogynistic and shitty romantic subplots. This was seen in the strange scene between Bruce and Diana where she was massaging him and the costume changes seen in the Amazons, as they were a lot skimpier than the warriors had dressed previously. Whedon was the worst move that could have been made, and I hope that Snyder's original film is released when it comes out on Blu-Ray, because I feel that it would have been infinitely times better.

As for the characters, it was indeed great to see my personal favorite heroes all meet together finally, and that sense of nostalgia helped a lot. One of the best things was the interactions between the members, as it really felt like an old episode of the Justice League cartoons. There was plenty of humor and color throughout, and I'm glad that DC took critique from their past films to fix this problem. My personal favorite additions were the characters of Aquaman and The Flash. Ezra Miller portrayed such a lively and naive version of Barry Allen that we are not used to seeing, especially from The CW's Grant Gustin. I appreciated his character the most because of his ability to break the awkwardness with a witty comment or joke, even though it felt out-of-place at times. The Flash and Aquaman were definitely the scene-stealers of this film, and Jason Momoa's performance as Arthur Curry made me very happy and enthusiastic for his upcoming solo film. While Ben Affleck played the typical snarky and brooding Batman and Gal Gadot played the heroic and all-around fantastic Wonder Woman, the character I was least impressed with was Ray Fisher's Cyborg. I was expecting a lot more liveliness and energy from his character that I'm used to in the Teen Titans, but they did include his trademark "booyah!" so I can't say that I'm entirely disappointed.

Now for the nerdiest and greatest parts of this film, which made me enjoy it more than your average comic fan. I was hoping that the inevitable return of Superman would not come off as cheesy, and it was honestly done quite well. It reminded me of a technique that some Marvel characters might attempt, which is why I guess I loved it so much. His return was the perfect amount of cheesy yet satisfying. And his transition from zombie, brain-dead Clark back to "truth and justice" Clark was handled decently well, other than the obvious CGI removal of Henry Cavill's mustache. Other parts that made me geek out and hopeful for the upcoming DC films include some notable cameos and the post-credit scenes. We finally saw the first glimpse of Abin Sur, who, as many comic nerds know, is the Green Lantern whose ring eventually ends up on Hal Jordan's finger. While we did not get any glimpse of who that ring may belong to next, it was refreshing to see a Green Lantern that looked so good on screen (sorry Ryan Reynolds, stick to Deadpool). And, like mentioned before, the name-drop of Darkseid got my tenses tingling, but we did not get to see him quite yet, as they have not yet casted him (probably saving for Justice League 2). As for the post-credits scenes, the first one simply gave me pure joy. The age-old question of who would win in a race between Superman and The Flash was done so humorously, but it fit so well with both of their characters. It's just one of those scenes that makes you smile like an idiot. And the very last scene, with Lex Luthor and Joe Manganiello's Deathstroke forming the Injustice League gave me so much more hope for their (hopefully bigger) roles in the future. Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was quite honestly the greatest part of Dawn of Justice, and he embodies the crazy and rich madman very well.

In conclusion, Justice League was a bit of a mess. While it is bounds better than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, it doesn't quite measure up to Wonder Woman. Despite many plot flaws and confusing tones, this film is held together by some great performances and cameos to excite fans of this franchise for the next addition. If you are a fan of the classic Justice League cartoons, then you will enjoy this film immensely. Just try not to focus too much on anything other than the nostalgia and pure bliss.

My Rating: ★★★

Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2010) directed by James Nguyen

Jesus Christ almighty, I have no clue where to begin with this film. Should I call it a film? Should I call it a practical joke on the movie industry? Who knows anymore where the line is between fun, hobby filmmaking and absolute shit shows. Birdemic: Shock and Terror describes exactly how I felt sitting through this almost two hour piece of garbage: shock and terror. Shock that anyone on the crew of this film would allow it to be released and terror that it even was. This movie is so confusing, disgusting, and absolutely awful in all aspects. This movie makes The Room look Oscar-worthy. And at least The Room had a plot with actors who knew what they had got themselves into. I'm not entirely convinced that the cast of this film were aware they were shooting a movie instead of playing make-believe. Anyways, I digress, but this movie is just a pure piece of filth.

Now that I've settled down a touch, let's begin with the cast and performances. I have never seen such awful performances in my life, and I've seen Tommy Wiseau's acting. I can not recall what any of the characters' names are, and I'm not going to waste my time by looking them up on IMDB either because they do not deserve it. The cast was so lost in all of the scenes, and I am positive that they sent out a Craigslist ad looking for actors and picked the first person who would respond. There was absolutely no emotion behind any of the actors or actresses, and I felt so disconnected from anything that happened as a result. I just can't fathom how horrendous the performances were, and I'm just going to leave it at this: don't watch this film.

Now for the fun part: the plot! But wait, you may ask, "Carson, was there even a plot?" And to that I would respond: absolutely fucking not! This film might have been slightly bearable if there was even a taste of what was going through the characters' heads and why they did what they did. No motivations, no reasons for action, no anything. Things just seemed to happen in this film, and I did not understand any of it. One of the most confusing aspects was how they set up the typical three-act structure. It was really only two acts, and the first act attempting to introduce the characters lasted about 50 minutes (keep in mind that the film is about 90 minutes). And try to ignore the extended and misleading "sex" scene, for your own sake. The biggest problem was that there was not a touch of foreshadowing or hint that the movie was about birds attacking a city until the sudden scene where they were dive-bombing a gas station. If there was even one person on the crew who cared just a tiny bit about this film, it might have been infinitely times better. And besides the fact that it's really just a blatant rip-off of The Birds, there was nothing innovative or original about this film at all. So, let me make this clear again: don't watch this film.

I'm not certain whether I should give James Nguyen the pleasure of being called a visionary director, let alone director. I would prefer he be called a "loose supervisor." And even with that title, it does not fit him well. Every small aspect of this film is ridiculous, and I just can't get over how it was even made. The camera and audio were not synced up, and the editing was done in an hour max, probably with iMovie. The "special effects" were just Google images of birds copy and pasted onto the shots and it was unbearable. The only credit I'm giving to Nguyen is that he was able to muster up some people to attempt to make this. It's inspiring that he was able to find anyone. Even then, there was no effort to make this film look remotely presentable, and it's a miracle that I could even find this film online to watch. I paid $4.99 to rent this film, and I think my money could have been spent better on spoons so I could physically scoop my own eyeballs out of my skull.

If you've made it this far in my review, I congratulate you. If you're still reading this, I would like to tell you one thing before you leave, and that is to NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. Do yourself a favor and jab a pitchfork in your brain because that would feel better than having to watch the pathetic excuse for cinema called Birdemic again.

My Rating: ½

Whiplash (2014) directed by Damien Chazelle

Whiplash is one of those rare films that you physically need to take a break from about halfway through. Especially watching with someone else, the pressure that builds up is too much and I've ended up sweating and needing water because it can be a bit much. But nonetheless, this film is an absolute masterpiece and, in my opinion, deserved the Oscar for "Best Film" in 2015. It is an anxiety-inducing thrill ride that will leave you begging for more while also being thankful that it's over.

This film is outstanding from start to finish, diving right into the world of Andrew Neiman, Terrence Fletcher, and the insane world of jazz drumming that surrounds them. J.K. Simmons portrays Fletcher, who is a physically and emotionally abusive music teacher that pushes Neiman, played by Miles Teller, to his limit. The greatest performance in the film was by Simmons, and his character was so absolutely terrifying and manipulative that it was difficult to watch at times. While it was crucial for his character, it was so scary to watch Simmons, who usually plays a hardass, reach this level. I sympathize with Andrew so much because I was also in a jazz band and can understand how rigorous but rewarding it can be. Watching this film gave me a horrifying feeling that my band teacher Mrs. Britton would throw a chair at my face. So I guess this film did its job. I enjoyed the performance by Miles Teller as well, because his progression into madness was so compelling to watch. The characters in this film were done very well, and it even earned J.K. Simmons a "Best Supporting Actor" Oscar in 2015.

My favorite part of this film, however, would have to be the editing. I have such a passion for editing, and seeing this film earn the "Best Editing" Oscar made me very happy because of how much it deserved it. The suspenseful editing patterns seen throughout the film utilized the timing of the storytelling very well. The first act two acts of Whiplash take place in the fall semester at the Shaffer Conservatory of Music in New York. The third act, however, occurs at a much later date: in the summer of the following year. This editing decision from Tom Cross, the lead editor, is very important because he chose not to use alternative methods of showing time passage, such as a montage. While a montage tends to be the accepted standard for many other films, Cross chose to show Teller’s character’s defeat and forfeit from the prestigious school that he attended. It was not until the summer that his character took up drumming once again for a final performance with Fletcher, who had been fired. This type of editing is rarely seen in film, as it can appear to be confusing to the audience and make them question why the ending was so unfulfilling. In this film, however, Cross decides to cut to the next summer and present one of the most iconic musical scenes in modern-day cinema to satisfy the audience.

Whiplash is such a fantastic film that I would recommend to not only fans of music, but fans of having a life-changing experience simply watching a film. The performances, editing, and plot are all executed so intricately and beautifully that it would be nearly impossible to not enjoy yourself watching this film. However anxiety-inducing it may be, this film is definitely worth watching.

My Review: ★★★★★

Lovelace (2013) directed by Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

American Gigolo (1980) directed by Paul Schrader

I'm going to be completely honest when I say that I am not really a fan of Richard Gere at all. I've seen Pretty Woman and Hachi: A Dog's Tale (honestly the latter was better) and so, based off of his reputation as an 80's heartthrob, I was just expecting mediocre acting with a large focus on his body and face that everyone seems to love. And I was not disappointed in that sense, because that's exactly what I got: mediocre acting and body shots.

I have not heard of this film before I watched it for my Introduction to Film class, and I guess there is a reason for that. The main focus of the film in regards to my class was its use of displaying the male body and the role-reversal of its main protagonist. It is very interesting to see how Gere's body was the one that was ogled over the entire time instead of the woman. However, I felt like that's all the appeal that this film had. I assume the writers of the film heard that Gere was on board with the project and then relinquished their hard work to rely on him to carry the film no matter what crap they wrote. That didn't work. The plot of the film was a basic murder drama, and it was so dull that I could not pay attention to what was happening or when the critical points were supposed to be. This got confusing at times, because I wanted to be interested in this film. I thought the idea of a male prostitute, excuse me, ESCORT, was very interesting to see how the gender roles were reversed in this type of situation. But throwing in a lackluster plot left me feeling uneasy, especially because there seemed to be no sense of direction. As for the ending, the actual murder of the gay manager sending Gere's character to prison was very sudden and unnecessary, and leading to the very last scene where Gere is begging the woman to help him get out of jail was anti-climactic to say the least. The entire film just felt very drawn-out and lost.

The other elements in the film that I did not like were the acting and the music choices. Richard Gere, while considered a great actor in his own sense, did not seem to be fully invested in this film. It may be my personal judgment that is stopping me from seeing what everyone else apparently is, but I truly think that Gere was only cast in this so he could take his clothes off and everyone could see his dick. His acting was wildly mediocre, but he did make a convincing male escort so I will give him credit for that. Another piece of this film that I found laughable was the soundtrack. The film opens with Blondie's classic "Call Me," which makes sense because Gere's character is an escort. But I guess they used all of the film's budget on hiring Gere because the same recognizable rhythm of "Call Me" was used in a lot of different contexts throughout. For example, when Gere is sad about accidentally killing his gay manager, a depressing version of the song was quietly playing in the background. I couldn't help but to laugh during this, no matter how serious the scene. This film wasn't bad in any sense, it was just too long and extremely boring. My favorite aspect is the gender reversal plot device, but there wasn't much else to the story for the audience to hang on to.

American Gigolo is a very tedious and honestly unnecessary film that easily could have been made into a short film or a short scene in something else. While Richard Gere is eye candy for two hours, that is about all he provides. I wouldn't exactly recommend this film, unless you are REALLY dedicated to Gere's, umm, personality.

My Rating: ★★½

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) directed by Taika Waititi

The latest addition to the Thor franchise and Marvel Universe, Thor: Ragnarok is a fun and exciting superhero film that is definitely worth your money. While there are multiple problems and dull moments, the heart of this film is very hilarious and action-packed. Past these problems, however, Waititi has definitely delivered one of the best Marvel films in the past few years.

I'll start with the good parts of this film, because there were, indeed, many of them. My personal favorite aspect would have to be the addition of Hulk into the film. This has definitely assisted the Marvel universe in explaining what Thor and Hulk were up to during the events of Captain America: Civil War. Fans were left in suspense for a while, and it was very refreshing to see what they were doing while Cap and Iron Man were busy having a "whose-dick-is-bigger" tussle. The best part of this film was the inclusion of Hulk, as he made the film as great as it was. Hulk is now capable of speaking almost full sentences, and that character development was really important in developing him throughout. The relationship that was built between Ruffalo and Hemsworth's characters is so important to this film, because it delivered the comedy that we needed. In the initial two Thor films, and the two Avengers films, Thor has been the stoic and brave ancient warrior that was honestly only included for his strength and firepower. He has not changed personality-wise through those four films, but this one was critical in developing the character that we needed. Thor was very sarcastic and had a strong sense of a dry humor, which made his character actually watchable. And the dynamic between him and Hulk prospered due to these character changes.

A few other aspects that I really enjoyed were the performances of Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, and especially Jeff Goldblum's villainous Grandmaster. I was not expecting Goldblum's character to be so evil, but the Grandmaster was a devious battle-creator who exploited Hulk so infamously. Then again, Jeff Goldblum tends to play the same character in a lot of his films: the dry yet somehow handsome character that you cannot love nor hate. While it seems confusing, you have to get a grip of his acting to really understand him. Either way, he had a great performance alongside Hulk and Thor. Other smaller parts that I loved were the inclusion of the character Korg and the color used in the film. Korg, actually voiced and motion-captured by the director, was absolutely adorable and in my opinion, provided the most memorable moments. And the color used in the film was more than any of the other Thor films, and it did very well. Along with the humor, it provided me more of an intergalactic Guardians of the Galaxy vibe, and that worked so well. And the appearance of Doctor Strange excited me a lot, because it was so unexpected and handled quite well.

The few problems with this film vary in size, but are present nonetheless. The main problem was the villain Hela's arc and the majority of the plot of the film. Hela, through the marketing, was made out to be one of the biggest baddies in the Marvel universe. However, she did not play the best part in the film. The best parts were with Hulk on the Grandmaster's planet, and honestly I forgot that Hela was a threat at times. She took over Asgard, but the main story seemed to focus on Thor's revival with Hulk. Which is why I believe that the heart of this film belongs to Planet Hulk. If Marvel would have made a Planet Hulk film and had an appearance by Thor, I feel like that would have worked with the tone much better. As threatening and exciting as Ragnarok is, 80% of the plot was focused on Hulk, which it did good in that sense.

Thor: Ragnarok is a funny and great adventure to take part in, and critical in developing the overall story of the Marvel universe, leading up to Infinity War. It had some problems, however, with the generic "take-over-the-land" villain and its confusion on what the focus of the plot was. Regardless, this is a fun movie and was great to see more development in two of the least-publicized Avengers.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Room (2003) directed by Tommy Wiseau

After 18 years of being in love with movies and beginning my film major in college, I am excited to announce that I have finally done it. I finally lost my Tommy Wiseau virginity. The Room is a film that any fan of pure entertainment will agree is one of the must-sees of the century. This film is so well-done in all of its aspects and there is nothing that could stop me from giving it the praise it deserves.

There are so many fantastic parts of this film that it astounds me the Academy has not picked up on this cult classic. The acting, cinematography, and special effects throughout this film are truly ahead of its time. Let's begin with the acting. Tommy Wiseau has proven himself as one of the greats, giving an absolutely flawless performance as Johnny. All of his actions and reactions were so perfect for his character, and I believe that is what makes a fantastic actor. Truly embodying your role is what makes the audience believe in what you are selling, and Wiseau did just that. Other great performances from notable actors such as Greg Sestero (Mark) and Juliette Danielle (Lisa) were proven to be just as magnificent. One of the best parts of this film was the resolution of the subplots. Every single character was treated very well, and their individual stories were all wrapped up very nicely. The production quality and thought put behind each characters' motives was flawless, on account of The Room's excellent writing.

Speaking of the writing, the story, written by Wiseau himself, is the compelling and dramatic story that this decade of film desperately needed. In the wake of awful storytelling in 2003, as seen in such films as Mystic River and The Return of the King, this film is so fresh and innovative. The audience is truly drawn into the story of Johnny and his girlfriend Lisa, and is really made to despise the latter. After she cheats on him with Johnny's best friend Mark, the story stays so attention-grabbing that one can not help but to wonder what will happen next. I, personally, was moved so much by this film and its dramatic elements. Another outstanding aspect that caught my focus was the cinematography and editing. The DP really draws you in to the world of San Francisco and the cuts that take place throughout are so well-done. Not a single shot was out of focus or out-of-the-ordinary and the cinematographer deserves credit where credit is due. My personal favorite scenes involve Johnny purchasing some roses from a local business and the classic rooftop confrontation. The phenomenal acting and world-building really took my breath away.

While this film is just extraordinary in every aspect, there is always room for improvement. While said room is very small, there still is some for this film. A few very minor issues that I had with Wiseau's masterpiece was its lack of a coherent plot or subplots, completely disgusting performances by every character involved, an absence of narrative unity and production quality, a camera that might have been found in a dumpster (along with the DP), out-of-focus shots that should have been burned, very gratuitous sex scenes, horrendous use of effects and green-screening, and an absolutely degrading death scene in the conclusion of the film. But I guess we can't all be perfect.

In conclusion, The Room is a fine film made by the inspiring visionary director Tommy Wiseau. Any rational person or fan of movies will agree that this film deserves to be highlighted in the Hall of Fame for the rest of eternity. Or at least until someone breaks the news to Wiseau that he can't write, direct, or act for his life.

My Rating: ★★★★★½

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) directed by Jonathon Demme

AFI Top 100: #74

Watching this film for the first time the other night was very eye-opening to me. While I know of the infamous cannibal Hannibal Lecter, I never knew what made him so evil or the story behind the man. I can honestly say that I was expecting a more horror-like film, and when I got a crime thriller, I still was not disappointed. The Silence of the Lambs is a fantastic movie with amazing elements that kicks off the incomparable legacy of Hannibal Lecter.

There was only one problem that I had with this film, and I might as well get it out of the way now. It involves the story of Hannibal Lecter, and I think they could have used more of it. I was expecting Hannibal to be the main villain of the film, but he was more of an accessory villain to the real threat throughout. While he did end up escaping in the end (and successfully setting up possible sequels), I personally think that they could have used more of his backstory for this film. I have not seen any of the other films in the franchise so they might have explored more of him in those, but I would have liked to seen what made him a cannibal and do the god-awful things that he did to people. He was definitely the most interesting character in this film, cementing him in suspense history, but that infamous mask should have been taken off, metaphorically.

This film has so many memorable scenes and elements, and it is worthy of all of the praise it received. One of the best parts in the film was the performances by Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins. Although he might play a psychotic cannibal while she plays a mild-mannered FBI trainee, they had such amazing on-screen chemistry. Their roles fit them so well as the humility of Foster's character contrasted the stark and controlling nature of Hopkins' character. Even though their characters worked beautifully together, the best part of this film was the female empowerment portrayed by Foster's character Clarice Starling. She was one of the only females that had succeeded in the rigorous FBI training program, and she still did not give in to any of her male counterparts, even surpassing them. She had been asked out twice in the film, and handled her male superiors with the greatest attitude ever. She truly showed how independently strong and successful a woman can be without being influenced negatively by those damn boys. Starling was very bold and career-oriented, which we can thank the writers of this film for making such an inspiring and well-rounded character.

In conclusion, The Silence of the Lambs is a very powerful and moving crime thriller, with the reputation of Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins backing it up. While it presented a new criminal that would have an impact on people for years, it also presented one of the strongest women in film. I would recommend this film for anyone who is interested in a good suspenseful movie, because this film has some of the best writing of its genre.

My Rating: ★★★★

Victor Victoria (1982) directed by Blake Edwards

Victor Victoria is a very strange film indeed. This film, about a woman disguised as a man disguised as a woman in order to get a theatrical role she was auditioning for, tends to get very confusing at many points throughout. It is a bit hard to follow, but is redeemed in some aspects by Julie Andrews' remarkable performance, as always, and the beautiful and skillful cinematography.

I don't want to diminish the importance of this film by leaving bad feedback, but there is one main problem throughout that left me feeling so confused. The plot of the film can get a bit complicated at times regarding her disguises and motives behind why the Julie Andrews character Victoria does what she does. It makes sense that in 1930's Paris, only men would be praised for their acting abilities and so that gives way to why Victoria decides to dress up as a man. It gets confusing, however, when as a man, she has to disguise herself as a woman once more. I understood that it might have been a statement regarding sexuality and gay rights back in those times, but the reasoning behind why she did what she did got quite confusing. Another part that really bugged me, as simple as it was, is the naming element. It seems like if a woman named Victoria who was infamously fired from one of her roles wanted to re-brand herself as a man, that she would pick a different name than Victor. Especially since she (or he) auditioned for a role with the same company. And a simple glance at her face would have been ample enough information to realize that it's the same woman. Either that, or 1930's Frenchmen were just really dumb.

There are many amazing aspects of this film, however, which actually made me want to sit through it. Some of these include the representation and fight for the LGBT community, the performances, and the gorgeous camera work. The main premise of the film was that the protagonist's best friend, who was gay, could not get a role because he was homosexual. So Victoria, filled with talent, dressed as a man to get the role as a woman. Times were very very different in the 1930's obviously, and this might have actually been the case for many starving actors and actresses. And as confusing as the plot is, I appreciated the story's effort to fight for equality and gay representation, even if it was 80 years ago. Another part that I really enjoyed was the work of Dick Bush, the cinematographer. Especially in the scene where the antagonist is attempting to sneak into Victoria's apartment so that he can uncover the truth. That entire sequence was shot so well, including the hiding behind the walls and the spacial unity that it entailed. The running gag of the man putting his shoes out to shine was one of the funniest parts of the film, and helped push that scene along very well. The very last piece of this cinematic puzzle that really brought everything together were the performances by Julie Andrews and Robert Preston. Julie Andrews, as widespread and stunning as her career currently is, did a fantastic job alongside her character's gay best friend played by Preston. Only one word could be used to describe their work together, and it would be charisma. They had such good on-screen chemistry and I am surprised at how much life they brought to the screen.

Victor Victoria is a good film that many cult followers of Julie Andrews will adore. It has a lot of catchy musical numbers, as well as great actors, actresses, and a stunning man behind the camera. The plot of the film runs on for a whopping 2 hours and 14 minutes and becomes quite dull and confusing, but I loved the representational message they were attempting to get across.

My Rating: ★★★