When We First Met (2018) directed by Ari Sandel

Once again, a movie was burning a hole in my Netflix list and having nothing else better to do, I decided to watch When We First Met to get it out of the way. I was expecting a half-decent romantic comedy packed full of all the stereotypes and typical plot devices that the genre uses, and that is exactly what I received. This film is nothing more than a bland romantic comedy that does not surpass any expectations. While it is still entertaining at the most, there is nothing provided to make it stand out among the rest.

This movie suffered from practically everything that one might expect a romantic comedy could suffer from: a predictable and overused plot, generic but attractive characters, and an unsatisfied feeling left in my stomach afterwards. One of my biggest developing pet peeves is the Groundhog Day-style that many films are using. The plot device of trying to get something right after multiple tries is becoming very unoriginal and unless something spectacular is done, it makes the plot unbelievably predictable. A movie like Happy Death Day, for instance, took that device and made it interesting, but this film took it for granted. Another thing that this genre always gets wrong is making the lead female character seem like a "reward" for the "hard work" of the male character (traditionally). This device was only enhanced by the premise of this movie, as the main character Noah (played by Adam Devine) kept going back over the same few days in order to try different ways to win over Avery's (played by Alexandra Daddario) heart. Almost zero development was given to the character of Avery and only focused on Noah's journey. This is what many rom-coms get wrong. Equal development and storytelling should be given to both of the characters in the film that are predicted to fall in love. This was not done in this movie whatsoever and was even worse when it came to who Noah actually fell in love with. The twist of the film was that Noah was supposed to be falling in love with Avery's best friend Carrie, played by Shelley Hennig. However, this twist occurred in the last fifteen minutes of the film and that did not bode well for the characters. Once again, the writing treated Carrie like a "prize" and had her fall for him upon his first try without any decent background. Carrie had barely even met Noah before his last attempt, for crying out loud, and then she instantly falls in love with him.

The other aspect of this film that was wildly mediocre was the characters. Noah was your typical dry-humored white male whose only goal was getting with Avery. No matter what happened in the film during his various attempts, he did not change at all. I was expecting him to develop and take different parts of his romantic attempts seriously, but that was not the case. In fact, all of the characters in this movie were very forgettable. None of the performances were great; not bad, but not outstanding. Another problem with this movie was the chemistry and representation. Even though Noah was supposed to be falling in love with Avery, Adam Devine and Alexandra Daddario do not have any chemistry together, even just with their friendship. The characters did not work well and it seemed that Noah was just an overgrown 12-year old who knew nothing about interacting with other people. The representation in this film was not great either, as the only person of color was Noah's best friend Max, played by Andrew Bachelor. And of course, he was given the role of "dumb best friend" to provide a bit of relief from the already dull plot. The final thing about this film that bugged me was the writing regarding Noah and Avery's first night together. Noah apparently knew that Avery liked jazz music, which was a weird, niche interest. This could have worked for these two, but that part was never explored.

When We First Met is a very uninteresting romantic comedy that just recycles an old plot device. The characters are boring, the story is boring, and every piece of the plot is predictable. This film is still an entertaining movie, but I would only recommend watching it in the background while you are doing laundry or washing dishes.

My Rating: ★★

Little Evil (2017) directed by Eli Craig

Adam Scott has been a huge crush of mine for years now, starting with the best TV show ever made, Parks and Recreation. I think he is a fantastic comedy actor with enough charm and wit to make any project likable. This is definitely the case for Little Evil. While this film has a decent story and other less-than-desirable aspects, Adam Scott makes this movie a very fun and charming "family" adventure, despite many of its flaws.

The best parts about this film were its decent story, performances, and character development. The genre of this film could be classified as a horror-comedy, and for the most part, that definition fits. The first two acts of the film were balanced very well between those two genres and I was really enjoying it. I was not expecting much from the story, given it is a Netflix original, but I am actually impressed by the consistency of the quality. The genre worked great for this movie up until the third act when everything seemed to change. The tone in the water park scene lightened up very much, even though the writing was actually darker than the majority of the movie. This threw me for a loop and messed up the feel of the entire third act of the film, but I still appreciated the writing's effort to bring everything back full-circle. I also liked how the story developed from a "new stepfather struggling to fit in" theme to the more happy ending where they learned to love and accept each other. This plot device was very typical, but it still worked well. The performances in this film were great; Adam Scott was fantastic as Gary, Evangeline Lilly was sub-par as his new wife Samantha, but the best role goes to Owen Atlas, who played the stepson Lucas. He was absolutely terrifying without even saying a word until the ending. This might just be the way he looks, but it worked very well for the scare factor throughout. Adam Scott brought a lot of great humor to this movie as well. It was all very original and entertaining due to his naive and adorable demeanor that he brings to most all of his roles. The editing in this film was very engaging as well. It reminded me a lot of Edgar Wright's style, as there were many quick cuts and exaggerated transitions, and I loved it. Some smaller parts that I also loved were the representation and the special effects. The stepdad therapy group, which ended up assisting Gary in the end, was very diverse and I appreciated that. And the special effects in this film were surprisingly not bad for a Netflix original.

Lack of context and strange pacing were this film's biggest issues. The pacing throughout this movie, like mentioned before, was thrown off by the third act. Lucas began to love his new stepdad and this led into the third act of the film, which felt a lot different than the previous parts. I also was not a fan of how the film opened with one of the most climactic scenes. This might work in a Tarantino movie where the audience does not know what is happening, but it kind of ruined the humorous moment having it right off the bat. Many of the scenes and details in this film did not have any context, which made for some loopholes in the writing. Some of these scenes included when Gary and Al were researching Satanic rituals and when the wedding videographer just so happened to have a video explanation of Lucas's evil powers. There was no background to many of these details, and it made the story a bit lackluster. This lack of context also occurred in Lilly's character Samantha, who conceived Lucas on the night of a demonic cult gathering. This piece of information was so out-of-character for Samantha and I felt like it was a quick excuse for why her son was the literal Antichrist. The character of Samantha was also treated a bit strangely. She is integral to the plot, but was somehow also belittled to the overly-empathetic housewife archetype. I feel that they could have written her a lot better, but she did develop some towards the end which was nice. My final complaint about this movie was how the writers handled the conclusion of the film. Through the story, Gary was meant to get the holy knife and kill Lucas, but if this were to happen, then it would only make the story extremely darker than it needed to be. I am glad they didn't go this route, but they also didn't take any route at all. It felt like they were not sure how to end the film without going too dismal, so they stuck with the tried-and-true happy family ending. This still worked well, but the writers could have put a little more thought into the ending.

Overall, Little Evil is a fun and charming horror-comedy that is definitely rewatchable. While the story suffers from some pacing and character issues, I was still impressed by the performances and character developments. I would recommend this film if you are a fan of Adam Scott or are looking to waste some time but still be entertained.

My Rating: ★★★

The Shape of Water (2017) directed by Guillermo del Toro

The fact that this film won Best Picture at the Oscars definitely surprises me. I was certain that Three Billboards or Darkest Hour would take it, but I am also beyond excited that this film won instead. The Shape of Water is a charming and romantic film that brings together all of the best talents of Guillermo del Toro: design, storytelling, and general aesthetic. This movie has definitely made its way on to my Top 10 list, and gives me hope for the future of fantasy cinema, proving that there are still original ideas out there.

This film is so indescribably beautiful throughout, as the design and special effects stood out the most. Guillermo del Toro's creative mind is absolutely unmatched, and I am very happy to see his work finally getting recognized. The monsters in his movies are always visual spectacles and are impressive like none other. In this film, the Amphibian Man was both adorable and terrifying at the same time. The combination of makeup and special effects worked very well for this character, as well as the sets and production design of the film. This movie definitely earned the Production Design award, as the locations and aesthetic were spectacular. The setting of pre-Cold War America in the late '50s worked amazingly for the story and provided enough innocence for the characters but also enough intrigue for them all to develop very well. I also adored the representation throughout this film. Elisa (played by Sally Hawkins) being mute, her best friend Giles (played by Richard Jenkins) being gay, and Zelda (played by Octavia Spencer) each had their own individual characteristic that made them excellently stand out among the white, heteronormative society that they were forced to work and live in. These performers were undoubtedly the shining aspects of this film. Michael Shannon's character Strickland was also portrayed amazingly, and he brought a lot of life and background to the character to add that extra level of creepiness.

While the special effects and design were beyond amazing, the writing was just as strong. Despite it being just a bit too predictable, my favorite part about the writing is that it was able to convey so much emotion through a lack of dialogue and limited sign language. The most emotional scenes in this film revolved around the romance between Elisa and the Fish Man, and their nearly silent performances were astounding. The other relationships that I loved in this film were those of Elisa to Zelda and Giles. Their friendships helped Elisa through so much, and all of them were developed very well. The tone in this film, while maintaining its beauty, was balanced very well. The grotesque parts with Strickland where he was torturing the Soviet scientist and all of his antagonistic behavior was so well contrasted to the lovely romance that was occurring. The scenes where he dragged the scientist through the hole in his face and when he pulled off his own fingers were so disturbing, but it also aided his character excellently. One thing that I was afraid of in the final scene was that they would make Elisa talk. Since the Amphibian Man is technically a god that can heal anything, I thought that they would take the easy route and have him heal Elisa's voice box. I am very glad that they did not go this route, and instead provided the audience with one of the most delightful closing shots of a movie ever.

The editing in this film, even though it was nominated, was very generic. The cinematography, however, was very original, as it explored a lot of different ways of showing small spaces while keeping the audience engaged. One of the best technical parts of this movie was the transitions between many of the scenes. Almost all of them were somehow water-based and aided by the camera. It was gorgeous to see, and that aesthetic worked very well. The only part of this film that was a bit peculiar was the musical number in black and white. I understand that this was a daydream of Elisa's (one in which her and the Fish Man could talk, sing, and dance like "normal" humans), but it did not fit well at all. As lovely and well-choreographed as it was, I feel that breaking out in song and dance was not the smartest choice for the tone that had already been established.

The Shape of Water is a gorgeously written and executed film in all aspects. From the design of the world and the Fish Man to the engaging story and characters, this movie wildly surpassed my expectations. I would completely recommend this charming movie to any fan of fantasy or love stories, as it proves to be one of the best in both of those genres.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Funny People (2009) directed by Judd Apatow

I was raised in a household where Adam Sandler was heightened to an almost god-like status of comedy, as I regularly watched The Waterboy and Happy Gilmore. The earliest memory I have about this film in particular was watching the first fifteen minutes and my mother walking in the room to promptly shut it off. I can understand now why it would be bad for a nine-year-old to view this film. But after finally getting around to watching it as a college student, I still don't understand why one might want to voluntarily sit through another Adam Sandler movie, especially one that attempts to deal with mid-life crises and existentialism. Funny People has a comedy powerhouse cast but a bad story, and it lacks many aspects to make it engaging enough to sit through.

The story throughout this film is honestly very off-putting for the actors involved. While it is true that some actors are talented enough to switch genres and still be impressive, the same can not be said for Adam Sandler in this film. This entire movie had a very existential tone, as it was reflecting on his character George's career and impending death. At times, it almost makes it seem like Sandler is reflecting upon himself, but it is still not believable. Sandler is definitely one of the most innovative comedic minds of our time, but he should stick to dumb, politically-incorrect comedies. As funny as some of his movies are, he simply can not act in a serious role, especially in an emotional and introspective film like this one. The writing throughout the movie desperately tries to make George as likable as possible, but I just simply could not get to that point. His character is written so awfully and awkwardly that it is impossible to relate to any part of him. Seth Rogen's character Ira is the best character in this film, and Rogen even gave a great performance. The pacing of the story itself was bad as well, and forced too much in the time given, which was already way too long (two and a half damn hours). After George found out that his disease had been cured by the treatment, all of the characters' motivations became very unclear. There seemed to be nowhere for the story to go, but it went anyways. The pacing suffered due to this, and it placed the final "fight" right at the end of the film. This scene concluded with a very forced re-bonding of the two main characters for the sake of a happy ending, which was very unnecessary. Some more of the technical parts that I despised were the Native-American headdress dancing scene, Seth Rogen's ungodly sideburns, and a very poorly-aged Robin Williams joke, unfortunately.

Despite many flaws surrounding the story, this film still had some interesting aspects. My favorite part was seeing the relationship between Ira and George develop throughout the movie. The comedic relationship between George, who was more of an unforgiving asshole, and Ira, who was a progressive and appreciative comedian, was fantastic. Sandler and Rogen contrasted each other very well in this movie, as their comedy styles in real life vary quite differently. This contrast provided a lot of good scenes between the two, and were the only scenes that brought out any emotion, if any. Many of these scenes feature George appearing done with life and Ira trying to help him through whatever he may be going through, for the sake of being his apprentice. This character trait is the only one I don't understand about Rogen's character, because he was put through so much trouble, but with practically no benefits for him. Other great elements of this movie were its cast and setting. This film is chock-full of comedians, from Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler to Aziz Ansari, Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Rec reunion), and Jonah Hill, among many others. This full house of characters worked very well together in this overall group setting, and it was interesting to see them all interact, because many have not worked together on any projects before. Other small cameos that were great included Norm Macdonald, Ray Romano, Sarah Silverman, Bo Burnham, and even Eminem. The setting of this film was great, and the world that was built was impressive. The writers managed to incorporate all of these fictional movies into this world and made it seem like they were all so real, which was very impressively developed.

Funny People is a very unnecessarily dark, existential comedy that succeeds in having a great cast but fails in providing a decent story. Although Seth Rogen was great, he doesn't make up for the lack of anything interesting in the story.

My Rating: ★★

Dunkirk (2017) directed by Christopher Nolan

I had to finally cave in. Being such a huge fan of Christopher Nolan's work on The Dark Knight trilogy and especially Interstellar, I had high hopes for this film. Honestly, war films are such a turn-off for me and I was very hesitant to give this a shot. I am, however, glad that I watched it, even though I still believe it robbed Baby Driver at the Oscars. Dunkirk excelled in many areas, including its decent story, fantastic visual effects and cinematography. Along with an impressive performance by Harry Styles, this movie is an example of a great war film done in a modern, beautiful style.

The most exemplary parts of this film would be the cinematography, sound mixing, and a surprisingly spectacular performance from a massive pop star. The camera work throughout the movie was gorgeous, as is most of Nolan's work. The locations and visuals definitely aided the story (and honestly carried the majority of it) very well. My favorite shot from the entire film would have to be the final shot of Tom Hardy's character Farrier standing in front of his burning airplane. The shadows and lighting used were stellar, and I appreciate Hoyte Van Hoytema's (DP) creative mind so much. The best part of the storytelling aspect of this film would be the fact that three separate stories were beautifully interwoven. The story of the soldiers on land, air, and sea were distinct entities but worked together very well to tell the overall story of this wartime event. At the 2018 Academy Awards, Dunkirk took home Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Film Editing. I was initially angry that Baby Driver won nothing, but I do have to agree on Sound Mixing and Sound Editing. The sound, like all of Nolan's films, was incredible and surrounded you in this setting, which drew out a lot of emotion as well. I'm still livid about Film Editing, however, as this movie definitely did not deserve that. The final element that made this film so great was a surprising performance by One Direction's Harry Styles. This was his first professional acting job, and I must say that he was the greatest part of the entire thing. He embodied his character of Alex so well, and the emotion he drew from the scenes was incredible. I never would have pictured him as being a serious actor, but in all honesty, I think he should be cast in so much more.

My biggest issues with this film, however, were its story and some technical pieces. The story throughout this film was very generic and structured just like any other wartime movie. There was nothing new in the sense of heroism or bravery which I have come to expect in movies like these. War movies are always tough, because since they are a part of history, anyone who has taken a basic history class will know how it ends. This is why films like Hacksaw Ridge or Schindler's List excel, because they provide a story that not many knew existed. This film failed to provide that same interest for me, however. I feel that Nolan was solely focused on creating a wartime spectacle instead of an engaging story, which in that sense he succeeded. Other smaller aspects that I did not like were the constant switching from widescreen to fullscreen. I'm certain that this was due to the 70 mm IMAX release and using different cameras perhaps, but it was very distracting to the story to the point that it became annoying (fun drinking game: take a shot every time the screen changes ratios). The ending of the film was way too blunt, as the editor used a fade-to-black transition literally right before the final shot. This pattern was not used once throughout the film, and caught me extremely off guard. The last piece that I am going to complain about was the writing surrounding the character of George, played by Barry Keoghan. He was the friend of a sailor, and went off with him and his son to provide life jackets to the soldiers. About halfway through the film after they had rescued the shivering soldier in the ocean, George was hit and later died. To me, this plot device served no purpose other than to make the soldier feel guilty. This didn't add anything to the writing and I honestly feel that his character could have been left out. This was all brought to my attention when his character was later hailed in the newspaper as a "hero." I laughed at this because his character did not do anything besides get in the way on the small boat, and that recognition seemed undeserving.

Overall, Dunkirk is a beautiful war film that can easily be classified as one of Nolan's crowning achievements. Even though the writing and some technical aspects were dull and wonky, respectively, this movie is still fantastic. Add the fact that Harry Styles was astounding in it, and you have a (far from) perfect film.

My Rating: ★★★½

Sing (2016) directed by Garth Jennings

Sing is a fantastic animated film from the creative minds of Despicable Me and Minions. It is often difficult to review animated films meant for children, but there are still plenty of aspects to talk about. This movie has an amazing voice cast, beautiful animation, and decently-developed characters. While there is a lot of humor and content solely targeted for children, there is still plenty to keep the entire family entertained.

The greatest parts of this film were definitely the voice cast and the adorably amazing characters. Many of the voice actors and actresses seemed to be new to the voice acting game, including Matthew McConaughey, John C. Reilly, Scarlett Johansson, and Taron Egerton among a few others. Them along with voice-acting veterans Reese Witherspoon, Nick Kroll, and Seth McFarlane were all amazing in their roles as the cute animated creatures. It was a bit hard to imagine the new performers in their roles, but they did an exceptional job with their parts. Especially having to sing as well as their characters. Taron Egerton surprised me the most, as I did not know he had those fantastic pipes in him. His performance of "I'm Still Standing" by Elton John honestly gave me chills, and I was not expecting that whatsoever. All of the characters played by this cast of people were very well-developed and I appreciated how much time and effort were put into each individual one. All of the story arcs were very easy to follow and not too much focus was put on one character. This film also utilized the beautiful animation of Illumination Entertainment very well, as Chris Meledandri's trademark animation style was smooth like butter.

Even though this film had fantastic characters and vocal performances, the story was still a bit lacking in originality. Upon my first watch of this, the main thing that I noticed was that it was almost a carbon copy of the aesthetic of Pixar's Zootopia. The only difference between the worlds of Zootopia and Sing, however, was obviously the musical numbers featured in the latter. Another one of the differences between the two that was honestly a misstep for this film was its lack of clear message for the intended child audience. In Zootopia, there was a subtle yet powerful message about racism and inequality. However, while Sing had as much charm as the Pixar film, it simply did not have any strong underlying messages, but was more focused on the simple plot and enjoyment. The only slight message that this film attempted was the generic "just be yourself and express yourself" message that has been done countless times in animated films. However, it is a very easy-to-do plot device that sells well. The final part of this movie that was decent was the humor used throughout. While it was generic and childish, it worked well for the tone all the way through. My only problem was that since the humor worked so cleverly with the story, there didn't seem to be a need for any primitive humor like fart jokes. But lo and behold, of course there is an awkwardly-placed fart joke that made no sense in the context of the overall scene.

This movie is a very childish but entertaining take on the entertainment industry. Sing not only has a wondrous voice cast, but contains many great and memorable characters throughout this animated animal kingdom. Accompanied by a catchy and vast soundtrack, this film touches every great aspect that an animated movie should.

My Rating: ★★★

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) directed by Ava DuVernay

To some degree, A Wrinkle in Time may be considered Disney's best achievement in diversity and novel adaptation. But to a much larger degree, this film is really an empty shell covered with layers of special effects. There still remains a good chunk of enjoyable elements, but the bad immensely outweigh the good. This movie is plagued with many issues including a lack of decent story, strange timing, bad directing, and a misleading soundtrack.

I'll start with the things that I did like about this film, and I'll make it quick. The casting and diversity in this movie were amazing and the actors and actresses did fit their roles very well. It was amazing to see the family comprised of Chris Pine, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, and Storm Reid without any further-needed explanation. I really appreciate all of Disney's newfound inclusion, as it really depicts our society's reality quite well. Chris Pine and Zach Galifianakis were definitely the most outstanding performances in this film. The latter, while only in one scene, was the greatest part of this entire movie, which should be saying something. The last good part about this film that I enjoyed were the special effects and cinematography. They were both indeed beautiful, but it would appear that the $103 million budget went almost entirely to that aspect of this film. This leaves almost nothing to the writers, and that is painfully apparent. Every scene in this movie was written so awfully, and left me dazed and confused constantly. Why did Reese Witherspoon transform into a giant, flying artichoke? Your guess is as good as mine. There did not seem to be a clear goal for the protagonists other than finding their father, and this did not help with the minimal character development. In the beginning, when Charles Wallace initially introduces Mrs. Whatsit to her sister and mother, there is absolutely no explanation as to where they met or how this little boy knows her. This happens with the other two mystical beings as well, and it is left to the audience to decide how the boy found them, and that was not good for the story. I guess Charles Wallace had never heard of "stranger danger."

The wildly-gifted cast of Mindy Kaling, Reese Witherspoon, and the young performers including Storm Reid and Levi Miller would seem to shine. At least, that is what I believed would happen. However, all of their performances were very underwhelming, and I was not impressed at all. I am not sure if it was the mediocre directing or the awful pacing, but it seems like their acting was squeezed out at the last minute. It was all very rushed and not enticing in the slightest. Speaking of terrible acting, I am honestly disappointed in Oprah Winfrey. I adore her power as a public figure and inspirational woman but when it comes to being on screen, she just can't sell a line for her life, and it was painful for me to watch her try. Oprah's character seemed to serve as the most moral center of the film, but her lines along with the tone of the entire movie was overly inspirational. There were just countless moments of extremely cliche dialogue that made it feel like a TED talk muffled through an awful plot. I love Ava DuVernay, and while her intentions are pure, she put way too much emphasis on the message of love and acceptance rather than the already-thinning story. This did not assist the pacing of the film either, and has definitely left a harsh mark on DuVernay's resume.

Calvin, played by Levi Miller, might be my least favorite part of this film. I understand having a cute boy for the main protagonist to have a crush on, but he served no purpose other than the shitty romantic subplot. Every "pivotal" moment in the film could have easily happened without him, which is not a good sign for a supporting character. These confusing parts all added together for a jumbled cluster of nothing. In fact, the goal at the end of the film shifted from finding their father to restoring the siblings' relationship, which only added to my confusion. There were also many moments in the film that I feel could have been explored a lot more thoroughly, but instead were skipped over very quickly. The creepy scene in the synced-up neighborhood could have easily been a memorable part, but the focus was more on exploring as much of the universe as possible instead of developing what they already had. The more technical parts of the film that I despised were the use of the soundtrack and Michael Peña's horribly unnecessary white accent. The latter is pretty self-explanatory, but the music in this film was placed terribly. The soundtrack itself is very pleasant and catchy, but it was not smart to use these songs in some of the darkest scenes of the movie. I did not appreciate hearing an upbeat pop song over the disappearance of Chris Pine's character or the melancholy of Meg in the introduction.

Although Disney has almost become synonymous with quality, there are still a few poor exceptions that occur every few years. This film is just another in this unfortunate list, joining the ranks of Tomorrowland, John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and many others. It is a shame to see so much fantastic talent wasted on a film like this, and while I still appreciate the artists involved, A Wrinkle in Time will be an unforgettable mess. I would only recommend this film to small children who will not remember the plot whatsoever and are only focused on the pretty colors.

My Rating: ★½

Mute (2018) directed by Duncan Jones

Mute is a film that I was initially hesitant to watch, mostly because of the extremely varied responses I had heard about it. The reviews were about half and half; half were saying it is Duncan Jones' crowning achievement, and the other half saying it was a jumbled mess of science-fiction. I, unfortunately, belong to the latter. Besides a strong performances from Paul Rudd, this film lacks so much that makes a sci-fi film compelling: a concise plot and an understandable aesthetic.

This movie suffered from a lot of different problems throughout its entirety. There is nothing that stands out as the biggest issue, it is simply every aspect of the film was just severely lacking in quality. The aesthetic world through this entire film instantly put me in a state of confusion. The setting is the near future (with typical flying cars, of course) that tries to blend different styles together unevenly. The main character Leo, played by Alexander Skarsgård, is somehow a loosely Amish protagonist, even though he uses a cell phone, lights, and many other electronic devices throughout the entire film. He lives in a futuristic Germany for whatever reason with a very strange cast of characters, all of which make no sense being in Germany. While the colors and special effects were done nicely, all of these aesthetic elements just do not make sense together to me. The strange, half-assed characters that Leo met along his journey seemed to have some sort of background in this world, but none of it was ever explored. To me, it seems like Duncan Jones had a certain vision in his mind, but did not provide context as to why everything was the way it was. It almost felt like this cinematic world was part of a comic book series, but the plot in this film was an issue directly in the middle of its run, with the audience already expected to know the beginning. This did not help the storytelling at all, as I was lost the majority of the time. I actually was not sure what the main goal of the protagonist was supposed to be until the third act or so. It wasn't until then that I realized he was searching for his girlfriend. I also did not realize that Paul Rudd's character was the antagonist until that point, either. Because of this pacing problem, the introduction to the film was so agonizingly slow that it messed up the mood of the whole movie. This did not assist the storytelling either, in fact it hurt it quite a bit.

While this film was plagued with problems, there were still a few notable moments that pleased me. Paul Rudd was definitely the shining aspect of this film, and his performance as the villain Cactus Bill was great. Justin Theroux's performance was halfway-decent, but it definitely only existed to enhance Rudd. Alexander Skarsgård's Leo was portrayed very well too, even though his character ended up talking in the end, which was very cliche and predictable. The scene towards the end where Leo found his girlfriend's body was very emotional as well, and his mute screaming/crying in that one shot was incredible. The final, more technical part that I enjoyed was the narrative unity regarding the bracelet and Leo holding his breath. The bracelet was seen in the end when Leo was taking the young girl to her grandmother, and he realized that it was the same one he had given his girlfriend Naadirah, played by Seyneb Saleh. The big reveal of the film was that the girl was the secret daughter between Cactus Bill and Naadirah, but this moment was heavily hidden in layers of confusion. The final part was one of the opening shots of the film with Leo holding his breath and drinking an entire mug of water. This happened multiple times throughout the film, but was not connected to anything until the final scene where Leo jumped off of the bridge with Justin Theroux's character in his arms. Leo held his breath and was able to kill the secondary antagonist, but other than this aspect, there was no relevance to Leo practicing this breath-holding previously in the film. This made no sense to the earlier story, but it was still nice to see that connection in the conclusion.

Overall, Mute was a very confusing film that had a few good parts but mostly suffered from its lack of coherence. I would only recommend this film if you were a strong fan of Paul Rudd, but do not watch this movie expecting an exciting or understandable story.

My Rating: ★★

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) directed by Martin McDonagh

In lieu of another garbage mediocre film from Netflix to watch at night, I decided to give Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri a shot. I have honestly not been very enticed by this film since its release, but due to its Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor wins, I suppose it was time to watch it. I am so glad that I did, because this was one of the most emotionally-draining and compelling films I have seen in a while. It contained some of the best performances from a cast ever and a story that kept you engaged the entire time.

The best part about this film were undoubtedly the performances. Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, and Sam Rockwell were absolutely stellar in their roles and really brought life to their characters. The character of Mildred, played by McDormand, was the most riveting part of this film (as can be seen by her new Academy Award). Her character went through so much and really did all she could in order to get justice for her daughter who had been raped and killed. The billboards were a very interesting plot device as well, as they symbolized the undying fight for what is right, and in this case, it was hard to do that in this racist and unfocused part of Missouri. This was all due to the police officers in the town, who are very interesting characters themselves. Woody Harrelson played Chief Willoughby, who was called out for not being able to get things done and control his own station. His character was extremely interesting, and the scene with the letter that he wrote his wife was absolutely devastating, given that he (spoilers) shot himself in the head because of his cancer. The other character that I loved seeing was Sam Rockwell's Dixon, who seemed to be the archetypal racist cop. His character started off this way, and I was extremely bored by his development and began to wonder why he won Best Supporting Actor. However, once his character was fired and he began more of his development, I definitely say why. This character was one of the most complex characters ever, and was developed so smoothly. Little hints of Dixon trying to improve himself despite his current personality included things like saying "people of color" instead of the n-word. Even though his intentions were not morally correct off-the-bat, the trials that he was put through in this movie further cement him as one of the best-built characters in dramatic history.

Besides the astounding performances, there were many technical aspects that I loved in this film. Those include the gorgeous cinematography and a few of the most "wow" moments. The camera work in this film was amazing, and Ben Davis is a master of his craft, previously working on McDonagh's Seven Psychopaths and James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy, strangely enough. It makes sense though, as these films are very aesthetically and visually pleasing. Many shots throughout this film focused on the symbolic parts of the story, and that is a form of storytelling all in itself. A few of the "wow" moments in this film were the scene between Mildred and the deer and every scene with Mildred and her ex-husband Charlie, played by John Hawkes. The deer scene was unbelievably emotional, as Mildred truly connected with the confused forest animal that she believed might be the reincarnation of her daughter. This is doubtful (McDormand's character says it herself), but the level of emotion that she reached in this scene was incredible. As was all of her scenes with her ex-husband Charlie. The addition of having this character in the film was a smart move, as it proved that they could successfully pull of multiple storylines flawlessly. His inclusion did not feel out of place whatsoever, and was worked into the story very smoothly. All of the stories interwoven in this film worked very well together, and nothing felt out of place in the slightest.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is a riveting drama that combines fantastic performances with an incredible story. Along with a small role from Peter Dinklage, this film truly lived up to the hype that I hoped it would. I would absolutely recommend this film for anyone seeking a dark and beautiful drama that constantly pulls on your emotions.

My Rating: ★★★★

The Ritual (2017) directed by David Bruckner

The Ritual is a Netflix original horror film, and one that in all honesty, can be forgotten. While there were a few parts that make it stand out from the slew of other isolation-style horror films, this movie followed the classic structure to a tee. Much of the story was recycled material and the revealed monster was goofy as hell, but the cast was very talented, diverse, and performed very well. This film is nothing more than a popcorn movie, but it still manages to be entertaining despite its predictability.

The decent parts about this film that stood out the most were the diversity of the friends, the violence, and a few moments scattered through the film that shook me. The story followed this group of friends that were hiking in the mountains and decided to take a shortcut through the forest. Firstly, that's never a good idea, but the characters did work very well together. As much as they fought and developed through the film, the actors portraying them had great chemistry. Only one of the guys ended up making it out alive in the end, but it's the journey that really matters, right? I am also pleased with the attempted diversity seen in the film, even though it is not superb. While this movie is predominantly white (as can be expected), two of the main men in the group were people of color, as well as the forest tribe being comprised of many different types of people. Diversity obviously was not the filmmakers' first concern in this film, but it was naturally decent. And the people of color actually weren't the first to die, either, which was a nice touch. The violence in this film was also done very tastefully. While there was not a excess of bloody scenes or gory images, just the right amount was used to scare the audience. This leads me to the best part of this film: a few shocking moments that actually did surprise me. The first being in the initial scene in the movie where their fifth friend is killed in the convenience store. That scene was done very well and as scary and realistic as it was, it provided some great background for the group of friends. The other moment that got to me was when the third friend was shown spread apart in the tree. Quite literally in pieces in the tree. I could feel that this was coming eventually, but I apparently was still not prepared as it took me by terrifying surprise.

The biggest problems with this film, however, were its lack of originality and some confusing plot pieces. The tone of this movie was the same as any other C-list horror film you may find online, and this just made it predictable the entire time. I knew exactly what was coming the majority of the time, and there was nothing done that made me sit and think "wow, that really got to me." The most confusing aspect of this film was its weak connection between the main character's background and the spooky monster tribe in the forest. The main character Luke, played by Rafe Spall, was in the convenience store when their friend was murdered in the opening of the film. He hid behind an aisle and did not do anything as his friend was killed by the looters. This guilty history is obviously traumatic enough for this character, but that background did not have anything to do with the main antagonist of the film. It definitely added some tension and paranoia to Luke's mind throughout the film, but it seemed like an unnecessary plot device to further his character while he was in the forest. The final issue with this movie was the reveal of the monster. Some of the best horror films, in my opinion, never have to show the monster in order to get the audience jittered. This one did, however, but it made me laugh more than anything. The 12-foot tall beast basically looked like a mutant, hunchback elk with two hands coming out of its face that was covered by a spooky hood. From the earlier shots in the film where we couldn't see the entire monster, he appeared to be very menacing and isolated. But the fact that an entire forest tribe was worshiping this dopey, Monsters, Inc. reject was hilarious to me.

The Ritual is an unoriginal horror film that provides nothing new in the genre. Even though this film is still entertaining and has many great ideas and performances, it is nothing more than a typical, time-killing movie with one of the dumbest monsters I have ever seen.

My Rating: ★★

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) directed by Dan Trachtenberg

I suppose I'll be reviewing the Cloverfield films backwards, but that's okay. This second film in J.J. Abrams' monster universe 10 Cloverfield Lane is an absolute masterpiece in suspenseful and thrilling filmmaking. Expertly utilizing the effect of small spaces and limited but great performances, this film never fails to blow me away each time I watch it. John Goodman leads the cast of these amazing characters, and the close cinematography and editing definitely add to the overall creepy tone of the film.

The main aspects that make this film so great are the performances and story. John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and John Gallagher Jr. are the three main actors and actresses, and because of this limited cast, they were elevated to greatness. The fact that the story took place in a confined space made it so interesting and creative, and this lack of space made for a great focus on the cast. It is apparent that the director of photography and editor were experts of their craft. The difficulty to work with such a claustrophobic area must have been quite the challenge, but they made it work excellently. This might be one of my favorite Goodman performances ever, as he played the subtly sinister protagonist throughout the entirety of the movie. Winstead and Gallagher Jr. were fantastic as well, and brought a lot of fresh life to this franchise. The suspense that was built into this story was definitely the outstanding part of this film, as this was more of a thriller than the other two so far in the franchise. The suspenseful writing made this film so intriguing, and it is great that it was so detailed, or else it would have been two hours of dull dialogue. The backgrounds of the three characters and their overall connections to this universe made for great aspects as well (Goodman's character is the brother of the conspiracy theorist from The Cloverfield Paradox).

Other parts that I adored were the use of sound and the connection to the Cloverfield universe. The sound and silence in this film was very suspenseful, and I believe that is what makes a thriller so exciting. The genius use of sound increased the suspense like nothing else, as well as adding to the creepy tone and characteristics of the characters. I first saw this film in a Harkins Cine-Capri, which with the enhanced audio systems, made for a great experience with a large group of people. Especially in the moment where Goodman's character shot Gallagher Jr.'s character, the entire crowd jumped because of the sound. I had forgot about that particular moment this second time around, and the sound really got to me again. The other part that I love about this film was its distinction from the other two films. One can watch this movie and appreciate it for what it is without having to see the other two movies in this franchise, which is great. It is done very well to establish itself as its own compelling story without having to rely on other films to assist it. However, for fans of this franchise, it is obvious that some things that were going on during this film were connected to Clover's initial attack in the 2008 film. The shaking and sudden booms are meant to be the military attacking Clover but are never exactly explained in the context of this movie. As for the aliens at the conclusion of this film, it only added to the confusion back when this film was released. This was cleared up in this most recent film, however, which tried to explain the existence of all of the monsters and aliens throughout this world. As much as I enjoy this entire universe, I very much appreciate this film's focus on development and a rich story that was not exactly seen in the other two.

10 Cloverfield Lane is an amazing story that does not rely on the others in order to be successful. This movie is filled with great performances and an engaging story which was very critical for this series to continue on into the future.

My Rating: ★★★½

Game Night (2018) directed by John Francis Daley, Jonathan Goldstein

There are only a handful of comedies that I can watch over and over again and still find enjoyment. The main component that they have all had in common was their ability to tell an original story and provide great laughs through memorable characters. Game Night is a perfect example of this, and I enjoyed every second of it. I was the only one of my friends who had ever really heard of this film, and I am glad that this underrated treasure was as great as I was hoping it to be. It is a shame that it did not get much publicity, because this film has a creative story, fantastic cast, and some of the coolest cinematography and aesthetic ideas I have ever seen.

This film has many aspects in it that are rarely used in comedies, but made this film so spectacular. The best part about it were the performances from the cast and the writing. Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams were fantastic together, and their talents really shone in this movie. Bateman is obviously a comedy superstar, but McAdams was who really impressed me. Known mostly for her dramatic and romantic movies, she absolutely killed it in this comedic role of Annie. I was honestly not expecting the performances to be so enticing, but they truly were. Another role that was excellent was that of Gary, played by Jesse Plemons. I have not heard of this Matt Damon-esque actor until recently in Black Mirror, but he is an astounding performer. While he played the creepy police officer neighbor, he also provided a great story of his own. The writing was also the biggest draw-in for me. I had been excited about this film due its original premise, and was very pleasantly surprised at how well the story executed it. It was a perfect blend of comedy, action, and drama that kept me engaged the entire time. The comedy throughout the film is not constantly laugh-out-loud, but it was so clever and well-developed with the rest of the movie that it fit perfectly.

Along with the clever comedy, the stories developing through the multiple couples were done very well. I was worried that since Bateman and McAdams are A-list stars, that they would be the main focus of the film. In a way they were, but it also blended the supporting characters in the story just as well. There was great diversity between the whole cast, and their stories were funny and fantastic. Max and Annie's plot of falling in love and attempting to have a child was done very well. Seeing them struggling with incoming parenthood and their adult lives worked great for their characters, especially since everything came full-circle in the end. Due to the consistently fantastic writing, all of the loose ends and stories were woven together beautifully. Some of the more technical pieces that I ADORED about this movie were its aesthetic, editing, and cinematography. For a comedy, I never would have expected such detail in the camera work, but it was very creative and done well. Especially in the scene where the couples are stealing the egg from the mansion, that shot alone piqued every bit of interest in me (I'll always be a sucker for long, continuous shots with lots of action). Along with the great editing and cinematography, I was fascinated by the movie's aesthetic. Every shot of the roads or buildings were made to look like a game board with toy-piece cars and structures, and this was honestly my favorite part of it all. It is awesome to see a comedy do something so creative like that with the budget that they were given, and it was beautiful. Throw in a cameo by Dexter's Michael C. Hall, and you have a expertly-crafted and innovative comedy.

I will definitely be buying this film once it comes out on Blu-ray, as it kept me interested and snickering the entire time. Game Night is one of those rare comedies that experiments with new aspects and wildly succeed in them. I would 100% recommend this film so that everyone can see what my excitement was all about and experience for themselves the hilarity of this movie.

My Rating: ★★★★½