Venom (2018) directed by Ruben Fleischer

Since his appearance in Spider-Man 3, Eddie Brock and his symbiote have been a fan-favorite pair that many have wanted to see in their own original film. 11 years later and that is now an unfortunate reality. Venom is an exceptionally disappointing superhero film that hits the mark in all of the most generic and predictable ways. Even though it was refreshing to see a new face in this age of cinema, this film was entirely afraid to take any risks and stuck with the tried-and-true formula for a superhero blockbuster.

As done recently in this genre of film such as Wonder Woman, Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, or Logan, superhero movies need to bring something fresh to the table in order to remain relevant. Whether it's a female lead, a cast of beautiful color, or risky violence, there needs to be a redeeming element to bring an audience to see this type of movie nowadays. In your run-of-the-mill popcorn film of this variety, you've got your titular hero who is reluctant to embrace their powers while the antagonist of the film is a big government villain that somehow has a personal connection to the hero, ending in a CGI blow-out. That is the exact premise of Venom, with some minor characters and a dark tone thrown in for good measure. Every aspect of this film was so painfully dull, as audiences have seen this story countless times. For a film with a tagline that reads "The World Has Enough Superheroes," it sure did not attempt anything to validate that bold statement. My biggest issue with this take on the plot was the antagonist Carlton Drake, played by Riz Ahmed. His goal of utilizing alien technology to "save humankind" came right off of the cookie-cutter action plot conveyor belt. And of course, he becomes the symbiote Riot later on in the film and provides a fight scene near the space shuttle in which there are two dark blobs wrestling around with each other; I really could not tell who was who. Even starting with the very first shot of the movie, we see the damaged spaceship tumbling towards Earth in a dramatic fashion and I instantly knew what kind of movie this would be. Not good.

The writing in this movie given its generic premise was just that: generic. I did not care about a single character, motivation, or issue that they faced. Especially the half-assed romantic subplot between Eddie Brock and his ex-fiancé Anne, played by Oscar-nominated Michelle Williams. I read in an article that Williams only took the role for the paycheck and also because she thought that Tom Hardy was cute and honestly? I'm proud of her. Another large issue for me was the fact that the actual character of Venom did not show up until about 45 minutes into the movie. This transition from normal Eddie to parasitic Eddie took far too long and unfortunately, the parasitic side never took full effect. In the comics, Venom is a horrendous monster that literally devours human beings and does not leave any victims when it comes to his murderous rampages. In this film, we only see a few implied bitings of the face and a fight scene in which the symbiote is just throwing around his enemies and slamming them on the ground. This is obviously due to the film's PG-13 rating to appease all audiences, but this was a mistake. I understand that an R rating would not have necessarily made the story any better, but it sure as hell would have made it more entertaining and true to the source material.

One element about this movie that at least made it watchable was Tom Hardy's performance as both the reporter Eddie Brock and Venom. Hardy is such an admirable and spirited actor that really did his best with what he was given. There is not much to work with when it comes to the development of lonely reporter Eddie but Hardy was believable and enjoyable, which is all we could ask for. Eddie's relationship with Venom was hilarious as well, which was my favorite part of the movie. I enjoyed the more humorous take on Venom that the writers incorporated and thought it worked decently. The design of Venom and the special effects were also beautifully creepy; as one could expect, the hulking monstrosity was terrifying, even without the signature spider logo on his chest.

While there was so much potential to set Sony apart from the competition, Venom failed to even attempt that. I have and always will love Tom Hardy but he is sadly the best part of this entire film. Playing it safe never seems to work out for the superhero genre nowadays, as they all tend to become the same lifeless entity. This movie is no exception.

My Rating: ★★

Zombieland (2009) directed by Ruben Fleischer

Right next to Shaun of the Dead lies one of the greatest undead-fueled horror-comedies of all time: Zombieland. This film will always have a special place in my heart, even though it is not necessarily one of the greatest movies of all time. The complete absurdity and mayhem that stem from this film are incredible, as so many different scenes and quotes have turned this strange story into a modern-day classic. If at this point in time you haven't seen this film, I would definitely hop aboard the Twinkie train and treat yourself to this fantastic movie.

The most memorable and incredible parts of this film come mostly from my nostalgia, but it's a nostalgia that I often find shared between anyone else who has experienced this movie. The cast of characters in this film is a solid line-up, including Columbus, played by Jesse Eisenberg, Tallahassee, played by Woody Harrelson, Wichita, played by Emma Stone, and Little Rock, played by an up-and-coming Abigail Breslin. The chemistry between these four is amazing as much of their dialogue and interactions with each other have become iconic. Their individual quests and how they end up aligning with each other make for some wildly humorous scenes as well. Columbus simply wanted to be a part of a family, Wichita and Little Rock were looking for a safe place to survive, and Tallahassee just wanted his Twinkie. All of these goals for these characters were accomplished by the conclusion and in hilarious and heartwarming ways; and the fact that this film, at its core, is an apocalyptic road trip movie makes it that much better. One of the best parts about the writing in this film is the reversal of character that Tallahassee goes through as we see his backstory. Even though I personally was more emotional about him losing his dog over his son, it was a great character development choice.

All of the technical parts of this movie are done very well too, as the production quality is through-the-roof. The writing and plot throughout this movie are very simple but work very effectively. My only issue with the writing (and this goes for every road trip film) is that a lot of the events that occurred while the four traveled the country had no connection. Besides enjoying the little things and making a mess of middle-America, the scenes were a bit disorganized and did not have clear motivations. The directing in this movie is fairly decent, but the opening sequence is what stands out to me the most. It really nailed the "zombie apocalypse" theme but the slow-motion and practical effects really grounded the horror aspect of this movie in. I also love the editing in this film. Clocking in at only 1 hour and 28 minutes, the movie does not waste any time but it is perfect for the story. This is the first film I remember seeing where the motion graphics stood out to me a lot; even at ten years old, I remember how clever it was to see Columbus' rules utilized during his scenes. This is such a creative choice that not only works perfectly but also provides some framework and full-circle gags for the conclusion of the film.

Zombieland is a hilarious comedy with a great production value that will live on forever. I am so excited for the planned sequel next year and I truly hope they do these characters justice. This film will never cease to be one of my guiltiest pleasures as the nostalgia of the story brings me so much joy. Throw in a "Bill fuckin' Murray!" cameo and you've got an instant classic. Happy Halloween, y'all.

My Rating: ★★★★

The Endless (2017) directed by Justin Benson, Aaron Moorhead

To preface this review, watching this film was not my choice. My family was scrolling through Netflix and saw the two-star-user-rated The Endless and thought it would be a good idea to watch it. This film has a lot of blatant problems that I could tell were not given much effort to fix. Even though there are a few redeeming qualities, lack of creativity and an abundance of vanilla characters make this movie an absolute dud.

If you are just getting into screenwriting and have daydreamed of writing your very first screenplay, chances are it will still be better than the script for this film. There is so much mediocrity within this film that could have easily been fixed by having a wider crew behind the camera. The Endless was written by, directed by, and starring Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead as two brothers who return to a cult years after their fateful escape only to discover that the cult is preparing for a spectacular event known as the ascension. To make this story even lazier, the characters that Justin and Aaron play are named *surprise* Justin and Aaron. Unless you're performing a one-man show, I never feel like it is a good idea to write, direct, and star in a movie. Benson and Moorhead have a decent skill for directing, but I feel that their energy should have been put into one thing and not the entire trifecta. This is quite apparent from the story, as it is so painfully recycled at this point. Besides the fact that not many writers embrace the idea of a UFO-suicide cult, this film is just like a hundred other, better movies out there. There are countless independent sci-fi thrillers on Netflix that can be good for wasting time but do not watch this film if you are expecting any effort in filmmaking.

Many of this film's character and plot choices made no sense. This movie begins with the two brothers discussing the cult that they had escaped and how harmful it was for their lives. So why, why, why would either of them think that going back, even for a day, would be a good idea? Once they returned to Camp Arcadia and revisited old friends and girlfriends, stranger characters and occurrences begin to surface; none of which carried any sensical value. The strange man in the shack who kept hanging himself, the two gun-tweaking friends in the house, and practically every other element of this movie had no bearing on what the two main characters decided. None of the subplots were ever finished, the dialogue was severely empty, and I was dragged through this movie feeling like it was ENDLESS (damn I am so funny). This was an obvious attempt at making something game-changing that, well, followed the rules of the game. The philosophical and extraterrestrial aspects of the writing were well thought-out but not coherently executed.

The cinematography and acting in this movie was very standard. It says a lot about a DP when his title in the credits reads "camera operator." This comes off to me as a cameraman who is only there to do his job and nothing more, having no effort for originality. The acting in this film was also very generic and did not wow me in any way. However, the worst part of this entire movie that was apparent to me right from the opening shot was the lack of focus on lighting and color grading. This movie was uncomfortably over-exposed as I had to squint for many of the scenes. I try not to carry such harsh criticism when it comes to independent films, but it's hard not to when they are so dull. Benson and Moorhead had the chance to create an amazing indie sci-fi movie with great themes, but that just did not happen. Although I did appreciate the potential that was built and I can definitely see these two getting into some better projects in the future. I also respect how they were able to produce this film with an independent budget and I was impressed by their accomplishments in editing and special effects. While it is not studio-level CGI, it did not look bad.

One might think that with a poster like the one above, The Endless would be a beautifully made, introspective, and intergalactic adventure shared between two brothers. It's not. The overall quality of this film is horrible and made me feel more numb than my arm which had fallen asleep while I was on the couch.

My Rating: ★★

Mid90s (2018) directed by Jonah Hill

In yet another directorial debut from a comedian this year, A24 once again delivers with the raw and emotional Mid90s. This film is brilliantly written and directed and contains so many great performances and character arcs. At its surface, Mid90s comes off as a more grungy and crude take on the coming-of-age genre, but the story behind the character of Stevie and his transition through his childhood in Los Angeles is much deeper than that. This film explores lots of different concepts of growing up while giving the audience an amazing story to follow along with.

Jonah Hill's writing and directing in this film is absolutely superb. He set out to capture the essence of skater culture in the '90s along with his own personal experiences growing up and he does just that. You can tell when an artist puts his entire heart, soul, and being into a piece of his art and that is what I felt during this entire movie. The representation of skater culture of that era is distinctly accurate and the entire environment of this film was built very well. This also had to do with the fact that this movie was shot on film and had a 4:3 aspect ratio, giving it a "home-movie" feel. This technique worked brilliantly as it was paired with one of the characters' ambitions to become a filmmaker, constantly carrying around a flip camera and recording everything the friend group did. The soundtrack of this film was relevant to the time as well and helped to further along the story. The editing in this film was utilized creatively too. Many shots lingered on characters for a long time, providing that authentic room for emotion through their dialogue. Also, a simple technique that will always draw me in is cutting to the beat. So you can guess how entertained I was during the party scene in the kitchen when the shots changed with the funkiness of the song. Even though this film is a relatively quick watch at an hour and 24 minutes, the story was jam-packed with wildly engaging character development and interesting plot.

The most incredible writing in this film happens in the developing relationships between the characters. Stevie (Sunny Suljic) is a young kid who admires a group of skater friends from a distance, eventually finding his way into the group and beginning to change immensely. Suljic was astounding in this role as he truly embodied the essence of naive childhood turning into rebellion. In a way, he represents many children of the '80s who began to question authority and turn against their parents and families. Stevie's transition into a completely different person was so interesting to watch, if not also a bit depressing. Seeing how he began to smoke, drink, and distance himself from the people he loved was quite sad and led to some intensely emotional scenes. Especially in the car between Stevie and his mom Dabney (Katherine Waterston), I could not help but shrivel up as he treated his own mother so cruelly.

Stevie's family and new friends also paved the story for some great moments. To me, the standout character was Ray, played by Na-kel Smith. His character was amazing and was the guiding light for Stevie's childhood journey. He was there to prove to Stevie that he did not need to fall under peer pressure by smoking and drinking in order to fit in. Ray was such an outstanding role model in this film and I really appreciated his character; I only wish he could have been used a bit more. The best moment regarding his friends in this movie was when Stevie was in the hospital after the car crash and his mother came out to see the entire group asleep in the lobby, waiting to check in on him. At that moment, the audience could tell that his mother realized how much they cared about him and it was such a sweet, defining scene. The most well-written relationship, however, is between Stevie and his brother Ian, played by Lucas Hedges. Hedges was extraordinary as his role and he showed so much emotion throughout the movie, as he obviously cared about Stevie and his wellbeing. Even though his actions seem to present him as the stereotypical, bully figure of a brother, you could tell through Hedges' simple acting in some heartbreaking scenes that there was nothing but love.

Jonah Hill joins the list of comedians who have recently proven themselves to be incredible filmmakers. Mid90s is a beautiful tale of growing up told through the lens of a punky little skater boy and the struggles that come with his environment. Whatever algorithm A24 is using to crank out this pure art, they need to keep it coming.

My Rating: ★★★★

Crash (2004) directed by Paul Haggis

An interweaving tale of family relations and racial tension, Paul Haggis' Crash really only exceeds at one thing: making sure the audience is aware of their own personal prejudices. This film is decently engaging and slightly interesting at times, but the overall theme of the movie becomes way too overwhelming. While the performances and writing were decent, there is nothing about this movie that makes it absolutely memorable.

The best elements of this film involve the way that it told its story and some of the performances. The plot itself, along with practically every other part of this movie, was very mediocre. There is nothing particularly wrong with it, it is just simple. I enjoyed how Haggis utilized a Tarantino-like style to tell the stories of the multitude of characters. The audience checks in with the characters throughout the film as they constantly cross each others' paths over the course of a few days in Los Angeles. While this technique was practically pioneered by the infamous Pulp Fiction director, it just becomes typical after a certain amount of time. The writing of this film was still able to maintain its dramatic tension, however, which was impressive. Another part of the writing that I enjoyed was the shock value that was incorporated. Especially in the scene where I thought Michael Peña's daughter was shot, Haggis is able to build up to these scenes excellently. As for the performances in this movie, Michael Peña was definitely the standout character. He showed so much love and compassion for the people around him and he was honestly my favorite part of this entire movie. Don Cheadle, Ludacris, Sandra Bullock, and Matt Dillon were all good too, but not as spectacular as I expected. This film won Best Film Editing as well, which I do not see how it won that. The editing did its job, but it was generic at every turn. Along with the cinematography, these technical aspects were just done very plainly.

Overall, Crash just gave me a feeling of... blah. Not that it wasn't interesting, but it did not entirely hold my attention. The main reason behind this is because of the characters only being written for a specific purpose: to serve the message of the film. While this should be the goal of every movie, this film did not keep it subtle when it came to the theme of racism and prejudices. Haggis really pounded in the fact that we all hold prejudices against people of different colors or backgrounds, no matter how visible. Since all of the characters were written around this message, I did not feel any authenticity to their actual personalities and lives. I feel like there could have been more of a focus on creating the characters with parts of their actual lives and not directly discussing racism the entire film. Which was also my main issue with the characters of Anthony and Peter, played by Ludacris and Larenz Tate, respectively. They are introduced in the film as two friends who come out of a diner discussing the blatant stereotypes that the waitresses had just placed on them. After them talking about the subject and making the audience believe that they would be the moral center of the film, they instantly decide to carjack a couple at gunpoint, embracing those stereotypes. I really did not appreciate this part of the writing, as I feel it is horrendous for a writer to introduce characters as one thing, but then show them to be something completely different only because of the color of their skin.

Some of the cast were very under-utilized and the treatment of women in this film was atrocious. Actors like Brendan Fraser and Sandra Bullock only had a few scenes and very little runtime was devoted to them. Fraser plays a district attorney while Bullock plays his racist wife and while their arc was explored by tossing Bullock's character down a flight of stairs, they were not used as much as they could have been. I would have enjoyed seeing a more developed arc of redemption for them, but they did not ever get that treatment in the writing. The females in this movie were all written terribly as well. There was not a single woman character in power, as they were all represented as either delusional wives or crazy, racist mothers. And it does not help that the only defining scene with Thandie Newton's character involved her getting practically molested by Matt Dillon's character after they were pulled over.

Crash is a solid movie that definitely fits every aspect of a film worthy of the Best Picture award. That does not necessarily mean that the film is entirely interesting, though. While I enjoyed Michael Peña's character and the use of narrative storytelling, nothing else about this movie is going to make me want to go back for a rewatch.

My Rating: ★★½

Easy Rider (1969) directed by Dennis Hopper

AFI Top 100: #84

Am I missing something? Did I not watch the same film that everyone else in America did? It is truly beyond me how this movie was able to make its way onto the AFI's Top 100. Easy Rider is a 1969 film about two bikers and their drug-fueled quest from Los Angeles to New Orleans. While this movie paints an eerily accurate portrait of the biker culture of the 1960's, there is, unfortunately, no story or motivation behind any of its aspects. Despite some good performances and a catchy soundtrack, I was unable to follow along with this film in the slightest bit.

Let's begin with the elements of this film that I really enjoyed. Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson provided some fantastic performances as Billy and George, respectively. Hopper was the initial comedic relief of the movie and his pot-fueled scenes made for some great visual humor. He also had the most personality between him and Peter Fonda, who played Wyatt. My main issue with Wyatt is that he did not have any personality. I do not appreciate it when actors rely solely on their looks and reputation to sell a movie, and I feel like that is exactly what Fonda did for this role. Jack Nicholson was the best part of this movie, frankly. I adore him as an actor and the many different kinds of characters that he can play. Nicholson's George brought a lot more life to this film, if only his character would have stayed alive longer than 30 minutes. I also enjoyed the atmosphere that our two leads created through this movie. If there is one thing that is done well, it is the representation of bikers in this time period. I completely respect and appreciate the way they were portrayed, as it is actually accurate for the era. And this is also aided by the timely soundtrack consisting of Steppenwolf and The Byrds.

After a few days of thinking over this movie, I have come to realize the main reason why I did not enjoy it: I was sober. Unlike every member of this cast and crew, apparently. The production quality of this movie blew me away in how excruciatingly bad it was. This is one of those rare films, similar to Tommy Wiseau's The Room, that I could see through the narrative and visualize the crew behind the camera, and it was not a good sight. The directing, editing, and cinematography were all utterly atrocious. This film looked like a collection of home movies that Hopper thought would work well as a collected story. Half of the entire runtime was just shots of Hopper and Fonda riding their motorcycles through different parts of the country, which did nothing to further the story. The camera work was awful, as there would be random points of quick, unnecessary zooming on strange subjects that I do not think was meant to be included in the final cut. And as an aspiring editor, I do not want to get started on what was wrong. The weird flashes between the cuts at points that were meant to be stoic and dramatic? The lingering on certain shots for an uncomfortable amount of time? These choices made zero sense. The only time I was impressed by the editing was during the acid-trip sequence, because taking drugs is truly the only acceptable time to use those techniques.

The writing in Easy Rider was also done by Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper, which proves that they are much better in front of the camera. There was absolutely no story to follow along to and I was confused during the entire film about what the goals of these characters were. The audience is thrust into Wyatt and Billy's world as they are buying cocaine from a dealer in quite large quantities. The only way that a viewer would be able to establish that they are transporting these drugs is if they were to visit this film's IMDb page. Every major plot point throughout this movie was never built to or developed, they just simply happened. No motivations, no reason, no anything. Nicholson's character was beaten and killed in the middle of the night; by who and for what reason remains a mystery to me. During this movie, the two are traveling and meeting different communities of people to see how they interact with these bikers. Except there were no connections between any of the subplots or supporting characters. And in the final scene when Billy and Wyatt are both killed by the redneck in the pickup truck, I felt absolutely nothing. Whether it was because of the blandness of the event or the unreasonableness of its occurrence, I had no reaction. I suppose the goal of this movie is to explore how different cultures embrace or reject bikers, but to me, without at least a semi-consistent narrative, there is no point.

Coming from an entire family of bikers, I desperately wanted to love this film but I suppose I'm an outcast in saying that Easy Rider is not a good movie. I understand the nostalgia surrounding it and I absolutely respect its cultural place in cinematic history, but just because you CAN make a movie, doesn't mean you should. Unless you really want to see Fonda and Hopper showing off their motorcycles for 95 minutes, I would unfortunately not recommend this film.

My Rating: ★½

A Star Is Born (2018) directed by Bradley Cooper

Never in a million years would I have thought that my popstar crush from 2008 would have broken her poker face to try her hand in acting. I sure am glad she did, though. Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper shine so magnificently bright in this generation's remake of A Star Is Born, which is also Cooper's directorial debut. This film is a wondrous achievement in not just storytelling but also in new fields of artistry for both Gaga and Cooper. I have not personally cried at the end of a film for quite a long time, but the sheer talent that radiated between these two definitely got to me.

The most obvious part of this film that stood out to me the most was the chemistry and performances from the entire cast. Lady Gaga, Bradley Cooper, Sam Elliott, and even Dave Chappelle were all incredible in their roles. Gaga and Cooper were the two standout stars of this film, and especially Lady Gaga. She portrayed Ally, the small-time aspiring singer, amazingly and brought so much energy and passion to the character. This was my biggest point of surprise throughout the film was Gaga's jaw-dropping performance. We all knew that she has the voice of an angel and that she is an incredible person, but to show her talents as an actress absolutely blew me away.

Gaga's chemistry with Cooper's character Jackson was fantastic as well. Every single time that those two had a scene together, it felt so raw and believable, as if they were not even acting at all. This film will definitely earn these two some nominations this coming February and I would not be surprised if they won. Sam Elliott and Dave Chappelle were great in this film too. Elliott played Bobby, Jackson's older brother, and their scenes together were great as well and brought a good sibling relationship to the movie. As for Chappelle, he played George, a friend of Jackson's who helps him through his alcohol and drug problem. Chappelle's role was only minor and for a few scenes, but he fit the character surprisingly well and I was pleased by his performance.

Technical pieces that I loved include the cinematography and the soundtrack. I have had Shallow stuck in my head since I've seen this film and I would not have it any other way. Gaga lends her angelic voice to the music of the film, as does Cooper. Seeing her out of her typical costumes and style was obviously off-putting but we all know that she doesn't need them in order to be an absolute icon. Her voice was unbelievable and paired with Cooper's very nicely. A Star Is Born was Cooper's directorial debut as well as Gaga's feature film debut and they both owned these. The direction was amazing and I was impressed by Cooper's use of the camera. I noticed how a "shaky cam" technique was utilized during the two protagonists' most important points of their career. For Jackson, it was in the opening scene as he was playing a concert and later met Ally. For Ally, it was on her SNL performance and breakout on the stage with Jackson. Small details like these are so powerful to me and I loved how Cooper used them. Even though the passing of time throughout the movie was a bit confusing and the narrative flow was not entirely clear, the story completely made up for that.

The writing in this movie from Eric Roth, Bradley Cooper, and Will Fetters was great too. The story of Jackson being an alcoholic and drug addict falling in love with an up-and-coming singer was fairly generic but was told so eloquently. The most interesting relationship was between Jackson and Ally and seeing how their lives changed together. While Jackson struggled with alcoholism and his own personal demons, we see Ally rising to fame and her career taking off. This dynamic of one going up while the other goes down was the most riveting part of these characters and their marriage. I especially loved Ally's background and how she worked in a drag bar, as this provided a lot of humorous expository scenes. The only aspect that I wish would have been given more focus was Jackson's mental health struggles. The side of him that fought with alcohol and drug addiction took center stage for his character, but I wish that more of his writing was focused on his mental development. I do not think it touched on mental health as much as it could have, especially for today's social climate.

A Star Is Born is an excellent tale of love, loss, and redemption that utilizes two of the biggest stars in today's culture to create an absolutely beautiful film. I have nothing but praise for this movie as I am still in awe at how incredible Gaga and Cooper were in their roles, especially the former. While I have not seen any of the original iterations, I hold a firm belief that this will be one of my favorite musical films of all time.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) directed by Steven Spielberg

The final (so far) addition of the Indiana Jones franchise follows Indy chasing after a mysterious skull that is said to have mystical, extraterrestrial powers. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a widely criticized addition to this series that I do not dislike, like many others. While some aspects of the film are definitely a bit ridiculous, the plot is just another great story that is definitely worthy of being included in this franchise. I do not see the reason why so many despise this movie, and I think audiences should really give it another shot.

There are so many great things about this movie that I feel many people overlook because of their stubbornness or faithfulness to the original trilogy. The plot of the movie is incredible and definitely fit the times a lot better. Throughout this movie, action and drama was blended so well together and reminded me of the types of stories told in the original 80's trilogy. This film is set in the 1950's, as opposed to the 1930's from the previous three, and involves elements of the time, including Area 51, an Elvis-powered opening sequence, the inclusion of nuclear families (along with a nuclear bomb), and Soviet antagonists that add fuel to the Red Scare fire. These are all new elements for our hero to encounter, but the story incorporated the new setting very smoothly. Spielberg was definitely still on his game when directing this film, as it includes every typical element of one of his movies. The plot definitely follows this Spielberg protocol so I can not imagine that fans could be upset at all about how the movie played out. 

I personally think that the only reason why audiences were so upset and negative about this movie's release is simply that Paramount chose to bring the series back. There were not as many reboots or continued franchises like there are nowadays and because of that, people were probably not used to one of their most beloved film series being continued. In relation to the plot of the movie, I do not understand why people think the inclusion of aliens in this film was so overboard. Jones has already dealt with flying spirits, crazy cults powered by voodoo, and the literal Holy Grail that Jesus Christ drank from, so little green men should really not be off the table. Harrison Ford is also still on his A-game for this movie and it is shown that he still really cares about and respects his character. Despite the nearly twenty year gap between The Last Crusade and this film, his charisma did not falter whatsoever.

There are still blatantly bad parts about this movie, unfortunately, that I'm sure everyone can agree with. The CGI was very obvious and did not fit the grounded aesthetic of most of the action scenes throughout this movie. The groundhogs, killer ants, and the aliens in the conclusion all looked a bit too cartoonish for my taste. I suppose it just did not blend well with the practical effects that were also used. Multiple scenes were also ridiculously cheesy and even for an exaggerated semi-fantasy world that this takes place in, did not make any sense. These scenes include Indy hiding in a refrigerator during a nuclear blast and Marion driving a Jeep off a cliff, onto a low-hanging tree, gently dipping into the river below, and proceeding to fall off of three consecutive waterfalls. While this provided some humorous relief for the characters, I feel that it just pandered to the younger audiences too much.

The last part that I know many people did not enjoy was the addition of Indy's son, Mutt, played by Shia LaBeouf. In my opinion, I enjoyed the reveal of how Marion and Indy had a son together, but the character himself was quite annoying. LaBeouf is a great actor, but Mutt was written way too arrogantly for his own good. And it doesn't help that he literally swung through a jungle with a bunch of monkeys and just so happened to land right where he wanted to. This over-abundance of confidence got irritating very quickly.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a solid entry into the world of the famed adventurer. Even though it is not as engaging or groundbreaking like the original trilogy, I believe that this film incorporates enough creativity to make this character worthy for a new age.

My Rating: ★★★

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) directed by Steven Spielberg

In my second favorite film of this franchise, Spielberg delivers another addition to Professor Jones' remarkable adventures. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is an amazing example of how a sequel should be. While it reminisces back and makes connections to Raiders of the Lost Ark, it still manages to be an exciting and original story all on its own. Add in Indiana Jones' father Henry, played by none other than Sean Connery, and you've got an absolutely incredible film.

I wholeheartedly love this film for a number of reasons: its humor, characters, and storytelling. The best part of this movie is the inclusion of Daddy Jones, an amazing performance by Sean Connery. Because of this character, this movie has the most and some of the best humor in the entire franchise and it is well-deserved. The introduction of Connery's character makes for some of the best scenes in this film. Indy and his father's clashing personalities create excellent dialogue and make the audience love Connery that much more. It truly shows his range too, as he can go from playing a stern and handsome James Bond to an intelligent but socially inept father. All of the visual gags in this movie work very well too, including the blimp fight scenes and the horse-whistling in the opening sequence. While I know many are opposed to learning about Indy's rambunctious upbringing, I personally loved the flashback scenes that opened this film. It told a lot about the character of Indy while providing a solid motif to reference back to throughout this movie. And let's not forget the absolutely iconic scene where Indy gets an autograph from Adolf Hitler in the flesh.

The actual plot is another piece of this movie that makes it so phenomenal. The writing in this movie harkens back to the original film from 1981 with its use of storytelling and cinematography. A lot of the elements were very similar between these two films, such as Professor Jones teaching at his school and the adventure being a personal, religious-type quest. I loved these comparisons because the audience is able to see how Indy has aged and progressed in all of these years of being an adventurer. I also noticed for the first time around that every Indy film has begun with the Paramount logo transitioning into a nature shot to set up the mise en scène. These kinds of camera subtleties are what make these films so incredibly engaging. The tone of this film is also much more grounded and not too outlandish like Temple of Doom was; Last Crusade fits perfectly as a globe-trotting western.

One thing that I had actually forgotten about in this film that surprised me this time around was that Elsa, played by Alison Doody, was the antagonist of the movie. I love this type of twist in a movie and especially how it fits into this overall franchise. In every film, Indy has a female love interest, no matter how strong or vulnerable, and this film is no exception. Except that it flips this trope around and reveals her to be the adversary. This twist was incredibly well-done and brought a new set of challenges for our main hero. My only issue with this movie's plot is its reliance on puzzle-solving. I personally think that there could have been a better blend of action and suspense when it comes to the brain-benders that Indy and his crew have to tackle. Raiders handled this more effectively, as it did not have as many scenes where the audience might lose interest.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a nearly perfect film. Despite some story elements being a tad bit repetitive, this is an exceptional sequel that surpasses its predecessor by miles. I would strongly recommend this movie to any fan of the genre or someone who has never heard of Harrison Ford's famous adventurer for them to get a true glimpse of how engaging the character of Indiana is. Unfortunately, next up is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, so wish me luck with that.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) directed by Steven Spielberg

In a span of only three years since the release of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Spielberg knew that he had created an unforgettable franchise led by an even more unforgettable character. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a solid sequel to its predecessor and provides an adventurous story that once again harkens back to the serials of the 1930s and '40s. However, this installment is my least favorite of the original trilogy. Reasons include some unnecessarily heightened character choices, a terrible female character, and a slight twinge of racism that could have been avoided.

Racism and poor treatment of women are two of this film's biggest issues. There was nothing said in the dialogue or the treatment of any of the Indian tribes that outwardly announced that it was offensive, but rather some of the design and story choices are what made it clear. Luckily, nothing in the actual character of Indiana showed any bit of this unfair treatment, but it was simply in the way the indigenous people were portrayed. At the ceremonial dinner scene, Indy, Willie, and Short Round were all brought out many different types of strange foods: certain bugs, snakes that were still alive, and for dessert, the brains of a monkey. While I'm sure there is some truth to how different cultures eat differently, the way that this food was presented mocked the Indian people in a way. The story almost treated them as savages as Willie and Short Round were very obviously disgusted by the food. This was written as a source of comedy, of course, but the extent the writing took this scene was too much. This view was also seen in the underground ritual scenes when the Supreme Highness was shown using voodoo to hurt the sacrificial people, and later, Indy himself. I understand that this writing choice was not a problem back in 1984, but that would now be considered wildly unacceptable and just did not sit too well with me.

The character of Willie, played by Kate Capshaw, was another problem. Her romantic relationship with Indy was very forced and even though the writing gave them time to develop, there was actually no reason for her to even be a part of the story. She was simply thrown into the mix when Indy and Short Round were escaping the ballroom in the opening scene. Throughout the entire film, Willie was portrayed as being the "damsel in distress" or the hyper-exaggerated "girly-girl" and it became such a nuisance. This trope has been overused so much, and I was really hoping for her to be written as more of an independent, stronger woman like Marion from Raiders of the Lost Ark. She is easily the worst-written of Indy's female companions through the franchise. I think a part of her writing had to do with Indy's exaggerated qualities as well. Since Spielberg knew Indiana Jones would become such a popular character, I feel like he attempted to write him more as a Han Solo type and this did not bode well. In this film, Indy used slightly derogatory terms towards Willie and he was written as more of a womanizer, which I did not appreciate.

I did adore, however, the relationship between Indy and Short Round, played by Ke Huy Quan. Short Round is my favorite aspect of this film and I would have loved to have seen him in the different stories throughout the rest of the series. Their relationship showed that Indy truly has a heart of gold, no matter the age, race, or sexuality of someone. Their playfulness towards each other and the comedy that came from it was so entertaining. Story-wise, this film is pretty basic but works in every possible way for a sequel. I enjoyed the different type of storytelling that was used for Indy in the land of India that he was unfamiliar with, as the full, curious, adventurer side of him was shown. His arc was great too, as it put him in not just the spotlight, but also in some vulnerable spots when he was in danger. This provided the other supporting characters an opportunity to shine by saving him and creating a story of their own; not just focusing on Harrison Ford's absolutely jacked bod the entire time.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a worthy follow-up to Spielberg's 1981 classic, but just a bit weaker in some areas. Even though a lot of the character choices have not aged very well, this film still provides an incredible story to add to the many adventures of the amazing Indiana Jones.

My Rating: ★★★½

A Futile and Stupid Gesture (2018) directed by David Wain

Will Forte has been a driving force in odd, offbeat humor for years. Getting his start on Saturday Night Live, like many talented artists have, led him to a great career in comedy. So to see him play Douglas Kenney, the creator of National Lampoon and outright enemy of SNL, was very interesting. A Futile and Stupid Gesture is an often entertaining but tonally confusing biography film that succeeds in the telling of the information but fails to create a bond between the characters' lives and the audience.

The best aspect of this film was, unfortunately, the aspect that it focused the least on: the actual telling of Doug's story. This movie was a cross between a documentary and biopic, but those two genres could not blend well together at all. The film begins with an older version of Kenney that the audience is assumed to believe is the actual man. Throughout the movie, he reappears in certain scenes to narrate what is going on in his younger life. I thought this technique was incredibly original and engaging, but there was not a lot of it. It seemed like he only showed up during the most pivotal moments of Doug's life, but I feel this narrative technique could have been explored much deeper. However, the twist at the end of the film when it is realized that Kenney committed suicide made for a really good moment. As for the biographical information, it was extremely interesting learning about Kenney's life and his inner demons but this movie relied too heavily on side characters and their humor to make an emotional impact on me.

Will Forte fit this role of the famous creator of National Lampoon very well, regardless of his age. I still would have preferred to have seen a different actor for Doug when he was in his younger, college years, though, despite the meta-narrative joke about Forte looking like he was 27. It just did not seem continuously appropriate to have Forte in these scenes. Especially when Kenney's lifelong best friend Henry Beard was played by Domhnall Gleeson, who is only 35. In fact, Gleeson's Henry Beard may have been the best performance of this whole film. He brought a lot of dry humor in the movie while creating a very compelling relationship between his character and Forte's. The entire cast was chock full of comedic powerhouses, but they didn't all completely work for me. Even though that was one of the jokes was that none of the actors look "exactly like the real people." Even though the cast was a bit strange, the ending food fight scene of the film had a whole lot of heart and I appreciated the full-circle references.

David Wain, the director, was definitely off his game in this movie. Because of my problem with the telling of the narrative, the whole movie ended up being structured and paced very strangely. And despite the fact that the way they presented the narration was clever, there is just something about it that does not sit well with me. I simply did not appreciate that they made up an older character of this famous writer who has been dead for more than 30 years, as it seems a tad insensitive. But perhaps that dark irony is exactly what Doug Kenney would have wanted. I also did not enjoy the treatment of women, minorities, or anyone who was not a straight, white male in this film. I completely understand the events that were told were true, but in the form of this movie, the characters learned nothing from their mistakes. There were no repercussions for their actions, and I am certain that in reality, Kenney was a deeply disturbed man who carried the burdens of his awful treatment of women and others around him. I would have enjoyed seeing more of an exploration into his psyche rather than relying on intolerant, racist, and misogynistic jokes to carry the humorous story of his career.

A Futile and Stupid Gesture is a decent watch to learn more about the career ups and downs of Douglas Kenney, but in the narrative sense, fails to provide any clear form. While some of the characters' choices and the design throughout were a bit campy, I still relatively enjoyed this film for what it attempted to be.

My Rating: ★★½

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) directed by Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

I don't think that when Homer wrote The Odyssey around the 8th century B.C., he was expecting it to transform into George Clooney worrying about finding the next can of Dapper Dan to hold his luscious hair up in. However, that is one of the most entertaining aspects of this film. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is an incredibly well-made retelling of the classic tale from Homer and has so many amazing elements that make it unforgettable.

The greatest aspects of this movie lie in its storytelling. This film is a semi-modern retelling of the epic tale The Odyssey. While this film is obviously not as long or detailed as the classic novel, it has all of the perfect elements to keep the audience entertained without getting too caught up in the lore of it all. This movie follows three escaped convicts, Everett (George Clooney), Pete (John Turturro), and Delmar (Tim Blake Nelson) as they run from the police forces who are tracking them down. Along the way, they run into a cast of different characters, all relating to established characters from the epic book. Other performers seen throughout this film include John Goodman as the bible salesman (the Cyclops) and Holly Hunter as Everett's wife Penny (Penelope). This entire cast was incredible and made this 1940's-era tale so compelling. Especially George Clooney, who brought the majority of the much-needed humor and vivacity throughout the story. I loved how while the story told the dark tale of three convicts on the run, it still gave some much-needed room for comedic development. This is what I truly believe sets this film apart from the typically-dull Southern atmosphere that many movies create.

The setting of this movie also contributes to why I adore it so much: its Depression-era America background paired with the characters makes it so interesting. As for the story, I love how the Coen brothers paced this film with the many iconic moments from the novel. They did not try to retell the entire trying tale of Odysseus and I am thankful for that, as this film might have been hours upon hours long. Instead, only the most critical scenes were included that helped tell this particular story while keeping it a tale of its own. My only issue with this is that while there was the main plotline (finding the treasure), some of the modern-retold scenes were a bit forced and did not accompany the overall story.

The most memorable part of this movie has to be its timely soundtrack. The country and bluegrass-style music that was used throughout set an incredible tone for the story. Especially being set in what appeared to be the middle of nowhere in many scenes, it brought so much life to this dreariness. The cinematography in this film was incredible as well, as can be expected from Roger Deakins. Deakins is a frequent collaborator of not only the Coen brothers but also Denis Villeneuve and Sam Mendes. He has proven himself to be an excellent cinematographer with an eye for the absolutely beautiful. This can be seen in how he framed the three convicts in so many shots of this film, putting them in objective lights as they developed throughout their story.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? is undoubtedly one of the most charming movies of all time. While it does not necessarily follow one distinct plot line, it nails the retelling of the epic adventure of Odysseus. The setting, cinematography, performances, and the marvelous soundtrack truly make this movie an epic of its own.

My Rating: ★★★½

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) directed by Drew Goddard

A lounge singer, vacuum salesman, shifty priest, two strange sisters, and a cult leader walk into a bar. Or rather, a hotel. What happens next makes for one of the best films of 2018. Bad Times at the El Royale is Drew Goddard's second film that he has both written and directed, after 2012's The Cabin in the Woods. Reteaming with the latter's Chris Hemsworth and bringing in a fresh cast of amazing talent, Goddard manages to deliver a wildly entertaining film that is certain to please any fan of the noir-thriller genre.

The El Royale, an infamous hotel on the boundary of California and Nevada near Lake Tahoe, is home to countless strange occurrences. This film follows the lives of seven strangers whose paths diverge during a heavy storm at the bi-state establishment. Aspiring singer Darlene (Cynthia Erivo), Father Daniel Flynn (Jeff Bridges), traveling vacuum salesman Laramie (Jon Hamm), and nervous bellboy Miles (Lewis Pullman) all cross paths one night as they check in to the hotel. While each of these characters brings their own peculiarities, things get weirder when two sisters Emily (Dakota Johnson) and Rose (Cailee Spaeny) show up, pursued by eccentric cult leader Billy Lee (Chris Hemsworth). All of these guests aim to discover what really lies behind the walls of this eerie hotel, as long as they can survive until morning to find out.

Creative and original screenwriting is an art form that, nowadays, is quite rare to find in a filmmaker. The majority of large studio films tend to be style over substance, but luckily, this film has an incredible amount of both. Each film that Goddard has written tends to be completely varied in genre. From Cloverfield to The Cabin in the Woods to The Martian, he has made it clear how diverse his skill set is. Bad Times at the El Royale is a 70s-set, Tarantino-esque, crime thriller that is not only self-aware but cleverly references its inspirations. Goddard's storytelling ability transcends many other modern writers and he does so by simultaneously paying respects to Tarantino while also poking fun at him. Many of the choices throughout this film seem like an homage to the infamous director, including the set design, flashback sequences, unnervingly upbeat soundtrack, and the transitional techniques. Yet the way this story plays out is more of a riff on the crime genre itself.

The characters' motivations and their reasons for being at the hotel are not fully explored until the third act of the film and while this may seem boring to some, it only increased the tension that was built throughout. There were a number of twists and turns that had the audience in shock as they were hidden quite well. One of the most interesting aspects of this film is how its characters interact with each other. It is impressive that Goddard is able to write with such timely correctness, absolutely nailing the politics and mannerisms of different classes of people in the 1970s. The dark and dry humor that was utilized in the dialogue seems to be a defining aspect of Goddard's scripts too, as he effortlessly combines well-written comedy in the drama of the story.

Goddard's entire script was spectacular, but like most of the screenplays he has written, he has not been the director of the production. That should have been the case here as well. His ideas in his writing will always shine through, but his directing is not always impeccable, and the story did not flow as well as it could have been had it been handled by a more experienced director. The pacing throughout the film was strange as the third act dragged on for too long of a time, introducing new concepts that were not given enough time to be fully fleshed out, despite how intense some of the revelations were. Granted, concluding the story of these seven strangers is no easy task, but the resolution could have been given a bit more attention. There were a few plot points that are never fully resolved but still manage to succeed in keeping the audience on their toes, even after the credits roll.

Carmen Cuba's casting (say that five times fast) was absolutely fantastic. Each member delivered an exceptional performance and fit their respective characters flawlessly. The two best performances came from the young Pullman and the talented Erivo. Pullman played the fidgety bellboy Miles and brought an unbelievable amount of emotion to his role, while Erivo played the confident singer that carried a tense background with her at all times. The audience will undoubtedly find themselves rooting for these two the most and for a good reason.

Once again, composer Michael Giacchino strikes with a marvelously intense score, which paired wonderfully with the soundtrack's lovely pop songs of the 60s and 70s. Seamus McGarvey's cinematography and Lisa Lassek's extended editing were utilized excellently here as well. McGarvey nails the framing of the shots and Lassek incorporates exciting montages with long, dramatic, takes beautifully.

Bad Times at the El Royale knows no such thing as a sophomore slump for director Drew Goddard. While this film has its issues with pacing, practically every other element was masterfully executed. Goddard has truly proven himself as a modern master of the art of screenwriting, as he carefully intertwines his characters' stories to keep the audience guessing. This satire of the crime genre is absolutely worth the watch and is guaranteed to make you laugh, cry, and everything in between.

My Rating: ★★★★