Se7en (1995) directed by David Fincher

David Fincher's 1995 crime thriller Se7en is an interesting drama containing some incredible elements. Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt shine as the two leads in this film, a soon-to-be-retired detective and a cocky, up-and-coming one who are tracking down a clever killer that murders based on the seven deadly sins. While the script is simultaneously the best and worst part of this film, Fincher still directs a very entertaining and engaging crime drama with much of his signature style.

The script of this film, written by Andrew Kevin Walker, has some of the best characters, development, and narrative, but also some of the dullest and most predictable plot. The two characters of Somerset, played by Morgan Freeman, and Mills, played by Brad Pitt, were the most interesting parts of this movie. These two actors characterized their roles excellently and brought so much life into these characters. Their development, shaped by the people around them, was very "textbook screenwriting"-style, but it worked well given their circumstances. Other roles that were personified very well were Tracy, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, and the killer John Doe, played by Kevin Spacey. They aided the main characters very effectively to create a decently interesting crime plot. The writing done by Walker was much more efficient and exciting towards the conclusion of the film, however. Only once all of the story's little details and plot points came together full-circle is when the script really stood out to me. The main issue behind much of the script is that it is not quite memorable. The entire story was built up effectively and served its purpose, but this led to a satisfying but ultimately generic conclusion. Despite the fact that basing a crime drama around the seven deadly sins is original and creative, the rest of the story was painfully predictable.

While I am certain that many Fincher fans will disagree, Se7en is not the best of his work, as the style and directing throughout is woefully underwhelming. Fincher is known for his peculiar, unforgettable characters and introspective, twist endings that truly make an audience contemplate themselves, but this movie did not accomplish either of those. The main problem plaguing the directorial style of this film is its mediocrity. It almost felt like a made-for-TV movie or an episode of a TV show and appeared to have the production quality of one as well. The cinematography and editing in this film are, again, very subpar compared to what Fincher's work has become known for. The camera work is highly forgettable with the exception of a few, well-framed environmental shots while the editing attempts nothing original to keep the audience interested in that technical front. Color grading was also a problem while I viewed this film, as it comes off very dark and dirty. Even though this was the set tone for the film and the colors matched it, much more could have been done to make the scenes look not as unappealing.

One of the best aspects of this film, however, is its use of motifs and recurring themes. The most obvious theme is the use of the number seven and how it plays into the film. Not only are there seven deadly sins that John Doe's murders revolve around, but much of the smaller details in the film include this number. The entire story in this film takes place over seven days, Somerset arrives for dinner at seven o'clock, and Tracy's decapitated head is delivered at seven o'clock in the climactic scene of the film. Another prominent theme is "good cop, bad cop" as Somerset and Mills must learn to work together to catch the murderer. This paves the way for a lot of entertaining and comedic dialogue between the two and lays a solid foundation for their relationship. One detail that I wish would have been given more focus, however, was the innocent people killed for their sins. While John Doe provides some minor explanations at the end of the third act, I personally would have liked to seen how each person that killed was guilty of that sin in more detail.

Se7en is a mildly engaging thriller with some great aspects but an often nondescript story. Even though the script might not be entirely convincing of the characters, Pitt and Freeman deliver some very bright, passionate performances in this dark, crime world of New York City.

My Rating: ★★★

Reservoir Dogs (1992) directed by Quentin Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino's breakout film Reservoir Dogs may be the most creative script he has ever written. Showing the before and after of a pack of anonymous criminals deciding to pull off a heist without ever showing the heist is such an interesting idea. This film has some great performances from the cast involved and despite a few dated references and derogatory terms (which have now become synonymous with the director), Tarantino delivers an engaging, quotable thriller that has truly defined his filmmaking style.

Having watched this film when I was younger, I remember it completely differently. Perhaps it was because of my younger brain not putting the pieces of this story's puzzle together or perhaps it was just me infatuated with the song "Stuck in the Middle With You." Either way, now that I have rewatched this, I'm able to process it in full. The greatest parts about this film are definitely its characters and its script. Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, and Steve Buscemi star as the leading pack of criminals pulling off a jewelry heist. All of their performances were incredible as each gave such a distinct and different personality to their character. The best aspect about these characters was that they were all written to be such different people. This multitude of clashing behaviors leads to some of the greatest dialogue, which is what Tarantino has become known for. The amount of memorable banter and verbal assault really creates a rich environment of distrust amongst the lead characters. This is also mostly because of the fact that the entire film is dialogue, as the actual heist or diamonds are never shown. This take on the heist genre is incredibly original and solidifies Tarantino as one of the most clever screenwriters ever.

Tarantino has never been one of my favorite directors; not because of his incessant mistreatment of his actors or the many horrid accusations about him (those surely don't help), but because his style remains constant. Going into one of his films nowadays you almost have to prepare yourself for an almost three-hour-long, nonlinear riff on a certain genre. Reservoir Dogs, as a directorial debut, is an escape from this expectation; not just because of its quick runtime, but because it has more of a focus on the script. The writing in this film is absolutely stellar and distracts from the fact that Tarantino was still finding his footing as a director. None of the cinematography or environments are particularly exciting throughout this film. In fact, it looks like it could have been shot in one day. But there will always be something new and subtly comedic that I will find as I watch this movie which is what is truly the mark of a great filmmaker.

While Tarantino usually has a small role in most of his films, I respect how he did not cast himself as the main character for this debut. His character of Mr. Brown was very minor as he only had one or two lines as he focused more on his directing style. Which was incredible, given that he has launched the nonlinear style into American cinema very fluently. Some small elements of this film that I was not particularly fond of, however, was the reliance on profanity and the handling of one of the minor characters. In today's culture, Tarantino is often criticized by many (myself included) for relying on excessive profanity and using the n-word as a derogatory insult. While this is more fitting in his films such as Jackie Brown or Django Unchained, it still calls to question whether or not he, as a white man, should be morally allowed to write such dialogue. Without getting too far into that debate, I can see how this trend of his began, even in this film and I wish that had not become a trademark of his. I also did not like the handling of Edward Bunker's character Mr. Blue. He did not have any lines whatsoever and was simply written off as being killed at the scene, which makes me wonder as to why Tarantino even wrote him in the first place. In the film's overall context, this character has done quite literally nothing: no dialogue, no memorable actions, nothing. Mr. Blue really came out of the blue and then disappeared without any development.

Reservoir Dogs walked so Pulp Fiction could run and I don't think audiences give enough credit to this film for paving the way for Tarantino's nonlinear style. While this movie does not necessarily have the same lasting effect on pop culture as his second film does, I appreciate and adore what Tarantino has done to flip screenwriting on its head.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018) directed by Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

It takes something truly special to keep me interested in a western, but have the Coen brothers write, produce, and direct an anthology film and I am all aboard. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is a beautifully-shot and engaging compilation of stories around different parts of the Old West that is absolutely deserving of a longer theatrical run. While some segments are far stronger than others and the tone switches very quickly, they flow together very smoothly to make for an exciting collection of western serials.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs  |  The titular segment of this anthology film is the most universally entertaining one. O Brother, Where Art Thou?'s Tim Blake Nelson reteams with the Coens to portray a gunslinging, song-singing, cowboy notorious for his murderous but humorous tendencies. This was a clever move to start off the film with this segment, as it combines the Coens' best talents: dark humor and bleak drama. Nelson is fantastic and brings so much full feature-worthy potential to this white-clad cowboy along with some fluid choreography and very suiting, ridiculous humor. However, I honestly wish that this character would have had more of a connection to the rest of the segments to connect them in some way, but I adore the writing that the brothers have done in this introductory piece.

Near Algodones  |  The second installment of this anthology has a more simple premise as James Franco stars as a bank robber in one of the more stronger segments. This has a more modern-western style and again, has a great blend of action and black humor. I loved the simple writing behind Franco's robber character and the elegant use of framing as he is introduced. However, the representation of Native-Americans in this short became an unfortunate recurring theme throughout the rest of the film, showing them only as "savages." For as progressive and creative as the Coen brothers are, I expected a bit more from them in that aspect.

Meal Ticket  |  In what might be the darkest, dullest, and most brooding segment of this film, Liam Neeson and Harry Melling star as a traveling impresario and a limbless stage performer. I am thankful that this story was only towards the middle of this film, as it was an expected lag in the overall story. The overly dreary tone and predictable ending were painful to get through, and the two leads were vastly under-utilized. Even though it was an interesting take on the different kinds of artists that lived in the Old West, this story itself was not that engaging.

All Gold Canyon  |  Tom Waits is one of the most talented singers and actors working today and absolutely shines in this segment. Waits plays a gold prospector that makes his living traveling through the California mountains panning for gold bits. I really enjoyed the single-character narrative of this segment and the focus on his personal journey. The twist in the writing was handled very well too and made for one of the only happy endings in this entire film. I would have liked to seen much more humor in the writing, however. This character had so much potential to be more humorous, but I feel like that opportunity was missed. The environmental cinematography from Bruno Delbonnel was absolutely gorgeous, especially in this story, even though this is the first Coen brothers film to be shot digitally. Which makes sense, though, as the CGI used for the forest animals was surprisingly spectacular.

The Gal Who Got Rattled  |  The Gal Who Got Rattled is my absolute favorite segment of this entire film, pairing a charming love story with the tragedy and despair of the Oregon Trail. Zoe Kazan and Bill Heck star as Alice and Billy, two trailblazers who fall in love after a monetary dispute with Alice's horse-keeper. I absolutely loved the naive and gentle tone set by this film's segment and how it became an Old West tragedy in its conclusion. My only issue with this story was, again, the portrayal of Native-Americans and their "savage" ways, but I suppose since the Coens were truly going for a classic western feel, then that prejudice was a part of the culture. Besides this one small issue, this segment has the most engaging and lovely dramatic narrative. May President Pierce bark forever.

The Mortal Remains  |  The final piece of this movie revolves around a group of passengers in a traveling stagecoach who are all going to Fort Morgan. This segment was very dialogue-heavy which created a lot of room for character development, even within only 25 minutes or so. I loved the clashing of the different personalities and how they interacted with each other in this spacially-tight environment. This was also the only story of this film not shot on location, as it was shot in a sound stage. This was a smart move, however, as it made the tone very cute, in a haunting way. I do not think this was the best installment to end the film, however, as the conclusion was very open for discussion. I took the final scene as symbolism for getting into heaven as the "reapers" dragged the body up the stairs, but this segment was too vague to create an overall satisfying conclusion for this anthology film.

Starting out very strong and ending on a more confusing note, this film takes many turns with the stories that are being told. However, I will never be able to deny that the Coen brothers are distinct and articulate masters of their filmmaking craft. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is a fantastic anthology film that combines some of the best comedic, musical, and dramatic aspects of the Coens brothers' talents.

My Rating: ★★★★

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) directed by Denis Villeneuve

Continuing my thirst watching of Ryan Gosling, I decided that it was time to finally see this film that I never got around to from last year. I have not seen Ridley Scott's original film yet, but being such a big fan of Denis Villeneuve and Roger Deakins, I knew I was in for a treat. Blade Runner 2049 is an absolutely gorgeous, aesthetically-pleasing sci-fi adventure film that is a technical masterpiece. However, it does not bring much else to the table other than the extraordinary talents of the director and cinematographer duo.

For a typically high-octane genre, this film is surprisingly calming in all of its technical aspects, which was my favorite aspect of the entire production. The dialogue spoken is so distinct and articulated, even to the point of enhancing the mannerisms and personalities of each individual character. Ryan Gosling's K was very professional and stoic, contrasted by his sensual and smooth VR girlfriend Joi, played by Ana de Armas. All of this film's sound design was absolutely brilliant, done by the masterful Theo Green. The action scenes and environmental sequences were mesmerizing, creating one of the most original, futuristic settings I have ever seen. One of my favorite scenes in the film was one of the very first: the fight scene between K and Sapper, played by Guardians of the Galaxy star Dave Bautista. Every detail, from the boiling kettle to the crunching of the wall as K was thrown through it, sounded magnificent. The score also aided in making this film's audio so memorable. Hans Zimmer, modern-day scoring legend, creates this score that truly makes the movie's most intense scenes as enthralling and engaging as possible.

The most Oscar bait-y aspect of this film, however, is the obviously glorious directing and cinematography from Denis Villeneuve and Roger Deakins. Like previously mentioned, I knew I was in for some delicately extraordinary camerawork when Deakins was on board and that is exactly what I got. His expansive use of the camera showed off the most minute details to make this apocalyptic future so personal, no matter which characters were human or not. The color grading in this film is legendary as well, as the palette helps to give so much life to each shot. The directing from Villeneuve is incredible as well. He is able to tell this film's story so elegantly as he handles these characters and beloved story with extreme caution. The pacing in this film impressed me so much too, as it did not feel relatively close to 2 hours and 44 minutes. Villeneuve has proven himself an expert at drawing audiences in and not letting them go until his epic has concluded.

My biggest, most disappointing issue with this movie was its script and plot created by the characters. Even though I have not seen the original film, I should be able to follow along relatively well without relying on researching plot synopsis online. I was not able to do this, unfortunately, as I was constantly lost in this overwhelming world. A relatively easy-to-follow plot surrounding K's true origins was introduced at the beginning that I understood, but with the introduction of every new plot point and twist, I simply could not follow along. I feel like there was a bit too much reliance on Villeneuve and Deakins to carry this film and while they absolutely did, it was quite lacking in story. Not to mention that Harrison Ford's character Deckard was not revealed until the end of the second act, which harmed the overall coherence very bad.

Blade Runner 2049 is a breathtakingly beautiful movie with a Kubrick-level intensity of "one perfect shot." This film is very relaxing to watch due to its incredible sound design and aesthetic, but the script is lacking a lot of coherent story. This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful that I can use this film as ASMR to put me to sleep.

My Rating: ★★★½

Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot (2018) directed by Gus Van Sant

Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot may be a lengthy title for a simple biopic about the life of cartoonist John Callahan, but it fits his impact perfectly. This film is an engaging and emotional story about Callahan and his troubled legacy that encapsulates the late artists' life very well. Even though many of this movie's technical elements were a bit distracting and did not blend with the writing, I still enjoyed this film for the touching story that is was aiming to tell.

Gus Van Sant adapted and directed this film from the autobiography of the same name written by John Callahan himself. The script is great and provides some very interesting insight into the life of John after he was paralyzed at age 21. The struggles that he had to go through with finding his true birth mother and dealing with his alcoholism aided in telling his troubling story extremely well. Joaquin Phoenix embodies these struggles very well and gives an incredible performance. The other surprising standout performance, however, was from Jonah Hill, who plays Donny, John's hippie AA coach. Hill gave a very emotional performance in this film as well and brought a lot of life to his character that wasn't even necessarily in the script. His battle with AIDS and also leading the group of alcoholics paved the way for a lot of solid dialogue for his character, especially between him and the others. Even though Jack Black and Rooney Mara were not the focus of this film and only in a few, select scenes, they portrayed their characters well too. Especially Jack Black, who I had never seen in a decently emotional role before. These performances are what truly carry this film and the chemistry shared between the entire cast was undeniable.

While Van Sant does an incredible job of adapting the novel into this script, his directing was not quite on par. The main issue with this film was that its tone was very messy and all over the place. It is almost as if Van Sant was attempting to have an indie tone for this biopic but with A-list star power behind it. While this can be pulled off in many movies, the different elements driving this film clashed too hard to achieve that. The pacing was also a big problem for me, as the movie started off very humorously but did not transition into the more dramatic parts well. The editing was very quick and even though the dialogue matched up between John's different scenarios, it was paced much differently than the rest of the film. It could not quite find its footing until the flashback sequences of John's drunk driving accident leading to his drinking. Once Rooney Mara's character Annu and John's aide Tim, played by Tony Greenhand, were introduced, that is when the character development and much richer story began to play out.

Another distracting part of this film was the cinematography done by Christopher Blauvelt. In almost every scene, whether it was for comedic or dramatic effect, there were very quick zooms and pan-outs that seemed very amateurish and made it seem like a documentary, especially during the heartfelt AA scenes. I'm certain that was what Van Sant was aiming for, but it was not a good choice for the telling of this story. This really diverted my attention from the story that was being told and falls into that same category of attempting to achieve an indie tone. The only technical piece of this film that I really enjoyed was the animation of John's cartoons into the film. Those animated sequences flowed very well with the script and provided a lighter breath of air from the darker parts of his life. I only wish they had focused more on John's rehabilitation-through-art phase of his life in the script, as that is what he became known for.

Joaquin Phoenix and the rest of the cast shines in this subtle but powerful biopic of the late, Portland-based cartoonist. Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot is a decently-written story of this paralyzed artist's journey that is carried by the actors and actresses involved, despite some issues with the pacing, directing, and cinematography.

My Rating: ★★★

La La Land (2016) directed by Damien Chazelle

This is truly straight, white, romantical culture enveloped in one film, huh? I am not sure why it took me more than two years to finally see this incredible movie, but now here I am, hopping on the bandwagon. La La Land is a superbly-directed and aesthetically-gorgeous musical that really hits all the right notes. Yes, I did use that pun and yes, I believe this movie deserved every Academy Award that it won. With standout performances from Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone and unforgettable directing from the young genius Damien Chazelle, this movie is bound to become an instant classic.

Every little aspect of this movie pulled me into the Los Angeles setting and didn't let go until its magic had pulsed through my every vein. I am blown away at the aesthetic behind this film and its story that was so passionately told. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone star as Sebastian and Mia, two struggling artists who are looking to achieve their dreams of becoming stars. While they form a magical relationship through music, they attempt to stay true to their personal goals while chasing after each other's love. I have constantly joked about Gosling for years, but I know now of his true, unbridled talent of acting, both subtly and extravagantly. I have been a fan of Stone's as well, and she shines so brightly (like a city of stars) in this film. I especially loved the pure chemistry shared between the two and their main plotline. After all of their charming ups and dramatic downs and even when Mia was revealed to be married to another man in a shocking twist at the end, I could still feel their beautiful energy together. That one simple shot at the end of Sebastian and Mia looking at each other and appreciating what they had built, even if it was without each other, was absolutely astounding. Both were amazing, as well as some smaller roles from J.K. Simmons and John Legend.

I must be honest in saying that I have never been a fan of musicals before, as I believe there is too much of a focus on music rather than interesting storytelling, but this film nails both. The jazz-fueled and vintage-like soundtrack aided so much in telling this story and did not distract me from the plot as much as I thought it would. My main reason for finally seeing this film, though, was to see how the directing from Chazelle had evolved since his big-screen debut of Whiplash. Even though these two films are wildly different, Chazelle completely engulfs his audience in classic-styled, show tune-like musicality and beauty. He truly knows how to build an engaging and foot-tapping world, whether it be derived from catchy dance sequences or intense, anxiety-ridden scenes. The lighting in this film, especially during many of the fantasy song scenes, was absolutely beautiful and highlighted this movie's primary color palette as well. This film is a spectacular combination of wonder and magic, drawing me in through every second, thanks to Chazelle.

The cinematography by Linus Sandgren was my personal favorite technical aspect of this film. It was very personal and even though this more subtle style is not seen much in musicals, worked very smoothly with the characters. I also noticed and very much appreciated Chazelle's signature style of whipping back and forth between two characters' actions, akin to the closing scene of his previous work. He really knows how to make an amazing film centered around the genre of jazz, but my one issue with this theme of his work is that some of the character motivations and lines seem a bit recycled. I noticed this as Sebastian was talking about Charlie Parker and other influential musicians. In Whiplash, Miles Teller's character Andrew discusses the same things and seems to share many of the same personality traits and dedication as Sebastian. This might just be me being the nitpicky critic that I have evolved into, but I believe that Sebastian could have been given a bit more originality.

La La Land is truly everything that I was hoping it shaped up to be. Gosling has definitely cemented himself as one of my new favorite actors. Now that I have seen and analyzed the themes shared between Chazelle's three biggest films of his young career, I can confidently say that First Man needed more jazz. Much more jazz.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Instant Family (2018) directed by Sean Anders

From Sean Anders, the writer and director of Daddy's Home, Daddy's Home 2 and writer of We're the Millers comes a new film about a different type of dysfunctional family. Instant Family is a truly special family comedy centered around the foster care system and adopting children. Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne star as Pete and Ellie, a couple who wish they could raise kids, but without the struggles of infancy. Through the foster system, they end up adopting a trio of siblings that cause more trouble fitting in than they had expected. This film is a very heartwarming comedy about raising three kids that shines light on not just the adoption system but adjusting into becoming a loving family.

The story and relationships developed throughout this film make it truly one-of-a-kind. There have been plenty of movies about the struggles of raising kids and adjusting to being a family, but none quite like this one. After going through the initial training and a humorous encounter with one of the dreaded teenage foster kids, Pete and Ellie decide on adopting Lizzy (Isabela Moner), Juan (Gustavo Quiroz), and Lita (Julianna Gamiz), three siblings who come from a drug-addicted mother. This film functions differently than others of the genre because of its instantaneous introduction of children. As mentioned in the title, the kids have to instantly bond with Pete and Ellie instead of being raised since birth. When they first begin living together as a family, it is almost as if they are simply houseguests who will be staying for a while. Once they learn throughout the movie, through their hilarious trials and saddening tribulations, to get along with each other, the love can be plentifully seen. The character developments between the parents and kids, especially between Pete and Lizzy, were amazing to see as they unfolded. There was an abundance of heartfelt moments throughout the story that validated Pete and Ellie as parents and their pure joy in this life-changing experience was so delightful.

Heartfelt and comedic true stories that are told well are hard to come by but this film manages it excellently. Instant Family is the true story of writer and director Sean Anders and his wife's journey to adopting three kids. He includes an initial disclaimer at the beginning of his true experience of adopting and mentions local adoption centers in the credits. Adoption and the foster care system have never been given much of a priority in films, but I hope that this one will bring the normalization of these families into fruition. Anders also includes plenty of humor and lightheartedness throughout the story to balance out the dark, harsh realities that they faced. Some smaller, more comedic roles are occupied by Octavia Spencer, Tig Notaro, Margo Martindale, Joan Cusack, and Iliza Shlesinger and all of them are portrayed very lightheartedly and witty. The humor in this movie is obviously handled very well, as it balances out the dark parts of the story too. The re-introduction of the siblings' mother, the handling of the family by the court system, and the creepy school janitor make for some of the most intriguing parts of this movie. Since Pete and Ellie had not had previous experience with kids, it was so interesting to see how they handled their new situations.

The only critiques I have of this film are its generic plot and the authenticity of the foster care scenes. This movie follows the same formula for many family comedies, as the audience is introduced to the parents and their wacky lives, the kids get into trouble, and they all end up happy together. While this has been proven to work for this genre of film, I would have liked to have seen a slightly different take on it, since Pete and Ellie have a slightly different take on children. The foster system scenes in the expository parts of the movie played out very well, but the ease of adopting these children seemed strange. I personally have a few friends from my high school who were orphans and spent their entire childhoods in the system and from what I have heard from them, it is not nearly as simple as this movie described. However, this is a true story, and if Anders and his wife did not have any of those troubles, then that is amazing! It only felt a bit simplified at times.

Instant Family is one of the sweetest and most pure family films I have ever seen. This movie teaches us that despite not being raised by blood, anyone can be a part of a family if enough love and care are put in. While not many of the issues surrounding today's foster care system were addressed, I still found this true story of Anders' adopted family to be one of the best feel-good films of the year.

My interview with director Sean Anders for Silver Screen Beat:

How did the dynamic of creating a movie inspired by your own life work?

Well, it's not inspired by my family and my experience but also the experiences of a lot of other families that I've met along the way, so I never felt like Mark Wahlberg was playing me and I never felt like this was my life on the screen and that made it easier. We're telling a fictional story that was inspired by my life.

But on the other hand, virtually every emotion that they go through along the way, as well as several specific situations, were taken directly from my life. It was very emotional and kind of embarrassing because I would be behind the monitors just completely in tears.

Could you talk a little about the scene near the beginning of the film when we see the faces and the ages of the kids up for adoption on the screen?

That's a very real moment because my story started the exact same way the family's does in the movie. I made the joke that Mark Wahlberg makes in the movie and my wife thought it was kind of interesting and then we wound up looking at a website and you see the real faces of real kids. In that scene, when you see those pictures, those are pictures of real kids that were adopted from foster care, including my own.

How much of Pete and Ellie's struggles relate to you and your wife's experiences as a couple going through the process of adopting?

Almost all of it! Like I said before, there's that transitional time that's really hard and it can turn you against each other and it can just wear your patience thin and it makes you really question the choices that you've made. But then, once it starts to change and once the family starts to really fall in love with one another, it all becomes worth it. That stuff is all very real.

What is it about family that interests you so much as a filmmaker?

It's just the most basic thing in the world. My writing partner John Morris and I both have families - he has two kids, I have three kids - and being dads is just such a huge part of our lives. I also think my own family that I come from has always influenced me, even going back to the Adam Sandler movie That's My Boy that I did. When we got involved with that, the thing that appealed to me was the father-son story, which is something that I really wanted to do. There's some element of family in almost everything that we do and there probably always will be.

Do you plan on tackling any other genres of film in the near future?

We're producing a horror movie right now that we're hoping is going to start production soon. We've also been working on a thriller that is almost like one of those 90s thrillers and it's something that we've been talking about for a while and I've been wanting to do a big adventure movie for a long time. We're looking to branch out into a lot of different areas.

How do you think your experiences as a comedic filmmaker will influence your work on something like a thriller?

I think that there will be an element of humor to everything that I will ever probably do. There's an element of humor in every aspect of my life. It's interesting because we've done a lot of big, physical comedy - a lot of broad, crazy things - and I think a lot of people tend to write that stuff off as just silliness or whatever. But it's actually really fun to construct a big, physical comedic set piece and I think of it as kind of like a fight scene from a kung-fu movie because it has to have a premise and it has to build from a place and it has to lead to some kind of a punchline and it usually has a twist in it and you're incorporating visual effects and special effects. Putting all of that stuff together is really fun. I believe that doing some more serious action or adventure movies would incorporate a lot of the same building blocks.

Editor's Note: This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

My Rating: ★★★½

First Man (2018) directed by Damien Chazelle

I can guarantee you that this movie is not nearly as colorful or exciting as this poster makes it out to be. Still better than Bohemian Rhapsody though, First Man is a fairly generic biopic about Neil Armstrong's life and his journey to being the first human to set foot on the moon. However, this film does serve its purpose in being an interesting exploration of man and space while providing beautiful production design and a good score. Even though Ryan Gosling is mediocre throughout this performance, I still appreciated this film for what it was.

The greatest parts of this film include its score, production design, cinematography, and most importantly, the emotions brought about in me. Justin Hurwitz's score was amazingly terrifying and brought so much emotion to each individual scene. Most notably in the scene when Neil was attempting to straighten out the shuttle so that it could land in the correct spot: the score during this was terrifying and reminded me a lot of the threatening music in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The production design in this movie was incredible too. From the NASA station to the actual surface of the untouched moon, every bit of the mise-en-scène was beautiful. This was aided by the camerawork done by Linus Sandgren, as the majority of the shots were very personal and not afraid to openly express their emotions. Ryan Gosling contributed to these emotional moments as well, proving that he is more than just a pretty face. His performance was absolutely top-notch in this film and personified Neil and his troubles excellently. From the expository death of his young daughter to his landing on the surface of the moon, he nailed his role as the legendary astronaut.

First Man does a solid job of fusing emotion into Neil's life and everything that he had to go through, which is the purpose of a biopic in the first place. My biggest takeaway from this film is my improved appreciation for their journey. I was not aware of every single event that led to Neil and his crew landing on the moon. Neil living with depression was the overarching trait that brought so much of his personality and motivation for fighting so hard with NASA. On top of his emotional state, having to also deal with the deaths of his three close friends in a wiring accident was quite rough for Neil, but created so much more motivation for him. Seeing everything this man had gone through along with the rickety and uncertain technology surrounding the Gemini project made me appreciate this part of American history much more thoroughly.

My biggest issues with this film are its directing, character development, and tone. Damien Chazelle, Oscar-winning writer and director of Whiplash and La La Land, should not have been in charge of handling this story. I personally adore his filmmaking, as Whiplash will forever be one of my favorite films, but his style did not mesh well with this story, given that he did not write the mediocre script. His brand of personal and jumpy cinematography is excellent, but felt a bit off, especially during the film's most crucial scenes. This is most likely due to the fact that Chazelle has not handled a biopic or true story before because the tone of the movie suffered. The plot was very monotone during the whole movie and did not build, climax, or fall in any kind of emotional way. I became quite bored during many of the extended launch and space sequences too, which created a runtime that was far too long.

All of these aspects make it clear that Chazelle directed but did not write the movie, because he would have been able to balance out these parts much better. This includes the character of Neil's wife Janet, played by Claire Foy. She was vastly underdeveloped and only served as a generic, 1960s housewife with no say in Neil's life. This was obviously not true, as the film concludes with a personal shot of the two of them reflecting on their individual journies, but Janet's was painfully undermined.

First Man is a fairly engaging biopic about the hardships and struggles that Neil Armstrong had to push through in order to make first human contact on the moon. Even though this was certainly not Damien Chazelle's finest project, I did enjoy learning more about Armstrong's life and how much he absolutely deserved what he accomplished.

My Rating: ★★★½

The Lego Batman Movie (2017) directed by Chris McKay

Who would have ever thought that a plastic toy company from the 1930s could produce such a heartwarming and funny family film? After the success of 2014's The Lego Movie and the fan-favorite character of Batman voiced by Will Arnett, DC has once again teamed up with Warner Bros. Animation to create The Lego Batman Movie. It is truly a shame that DC does not spend all of their time and effort into making their live-action movies as good as this animated spectacle. This movie is one of the funniest and most original pieces of comic book cinema in recent years and has a little bit of something to please everyone.

While many superhero films of this day and age follow a set formula, this movie does not. The writing, plot, and story in this movie are so clever and original and I personally find something new that I like each time I watch this. The plot revolves around Batman being a more vulnerable and caring father figure as he learns to adapt to life with a family. His constant brooding and vigilantism are tested when he comes to realize that he may not always work best alone. These relationships between the characters are not only well-developed but hilarious to watch as well. Most of this humor comes as Batman inducts Robin (Michael Cera) and Batgirl (Rosario Dawson) into his gang of crime-fighters and the struggles he has with letting them into his own life. The comedy in this film is utilized brilliantly and blends with the more heartfelt parts as well. However, the relationship between Batman and Joker is the funniest part of this movie. The fact that the writers flipped the "relationship-problems" trope on its head as a hero and his villain was incredible. I also loved the number of voice cameos and other pop culture references, such as Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Jenny Slate, the eye of Sauron, the Wicked Witch, and Voldemort among many hilarious others.

I do not have much to say about The Lego Batman Movie, other than I absolutely love it. The animation in this film is a bit choppy but I feel like that was the intent, given that all of the characters are plastic toy figures. Even though all of the characters move and interact in ways that the actual toys can't, so much life is in every single character and their respective voice actors aid in that as well. I also adored the soundtrack and its unabashedly glam-pop style. While this film opens as Batman is monologuing over a black screen, setting the supposedly dark tone for the movie, it takes a turn throughout the film as he learns to accept his new family member. I love how the tone evolves with the development of Batman throughout this movie, paving the way for the closing song, "Friends Are Family."

The Lego Batman Movie is such a surprising achievement in animated family films and provides something that many other studios can't: an original story with a fantastic voice cast and a plethora of comic book goodness. Even if you are solemnly against this age of superhero movies, this film brings a full plate of fresh content to the genre and I would strongly recommend taking the time to just relax and have a good laugh.

My Rating: ★★★★

Odd Thomas (2013) directed by Stephen Sommers

Combining all the quirkiness of an independently-produced film with the supernatural spectacle of a Dean Koontz book, Odd Thomas hits just the right mark. I recall watching this film in high school when it was on Netflix and while I still have not read any of the books, I love how well this movie stands on its own. However, any hopes of a sequel or continuation of this universe are gone because of the tragic passing of the young and talented Anton Yelchin. He gives a solid and humorous performance in this movie and while a lot of the dialogue and writing in this movie does not make the most sense, I still love this film for what it is.

The best part of this entire film is the simple story paired with some impressive CGI and supernatural design. This film follows Odd, played by Anton Yelchin, a fry-cook in a small southern California town who has the ability to communicate with the dead. He uses his gifts to track down killers and solve local mysteries while keeping his ability a secret from the demons known as the bodachs. Yelchin is able to portray this troubled but humorous character very well and brings a lot of life to Odd. Odd has a girlfriend named Stormy, played by Addison Timlin, who is there by his side no matter what happens. Accompanied also by the police chief played by Willem Dafoe and a close friend played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Odd attempts to unravel a murderous new mystery. This simple plot might seem like something out of Scooby-Doo, but it works relatively well for the characters that are introduced. None of the performances particularly shine except for Yelchin, but the story is engaging enough to make the audience care about the characters. For an independent film, this movie has a lot of decent CGI as well. The bodachs, explosions, and action scenes were done well and it was not painful or distracting to look at, like a lot of cheap stunts that are done nowadays.

Mitchell Amundsen's cinematography caught my eye too. Even though his style seems overly-ambitious and over-the-top in a few scenes, it fit the tone of this film perfectly. The tone is very frantically fun and the camerawork was able to fit that hectic mood. The final part of this film that I have adored since I originally watched it was the twist in the writing at the end. Re-watching this movie allowed me to put some more of the pieces together to prepare myself for the emotional realization that Stormy had been dead since the mall shooting. This twist is still hidden very well and for a first-time viewer, they definitely will be shocked. And I especially love the ending of the film as Odd travels to Las Vegas to start his full-circle work on what he and Stormy had originally planned. This heartfelt ending was a very solid way to make this film a one-off and provide a great story without the reliance on cliffhangers.

For someone who has never read any of the Odd Thomas books, I found this film to be very effective in its storytelling by itself. However, the writing of the characters' personalities and mannerisms did not translate to the screen very smoothly. My biggest issue with this movie is its dialogue. While some could argue that it is written in its quirky way for the sake of maintaining the more lighthearted tone, it does not make sense for a standalone movie. It almost seems like the relationships between the characters and the way they talk to each other was developed in the books but not on the screen. This made a lot of the lines, especially between Odd and Stormy, very unauthentic. Another problem that I had with the writing was giving Odd his self-described power of "psychic magnetism," which helped to lead Odd to any upcoming trouble. In my opinion, this was simply a cheat to get Odd into the next scene of the film, helping to further the narrative. While it was a comedic way to move the story along, it just seemed very convenient that he was able to simply walk around to discover the antagonist.

While it is obvious a lot of this film's budget went towards adapting a Dean Koontz book with lots of special effects and not the writing, I appreciate it for its valiant effort. Odd Thomas is a very entertaining and worthy movie with some decent performances and an undeniably fun aesthetic. I would definitely recommend this movie for not just fans of the books, but to support some independent films as well.

My Rating: ★★★½

Her (2013) directed by Spike Jonze

Never would I have thought that I could get this emotional about Siri's love story. Her is an incredibly beautiful film that perfectly encapsulates modern love with a touch of soft futurism. While I have personally never seen a Spike Jonze film before, I now know that I need to. This movie absolutely engulfs you and takes you on a romantic rollercoaster ride that has never been experienced before. With amazing performances from Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, and Scarlett Johansson and an unforgettable aesthetic, this has easily become my favorite romantic film of all time.

Every single performance in this film is utterly spectacular. For the longest time, I have only joked about this movie because of the sexual scene I had heard of between Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) and his OS, Samantha (Scarlett Johansson). I was quite unaware, however, of how beautifully the movie built up to this shared scene and how it was not ridiculous at all. Joaquin Phoenix is amazing and subtle in his role of Theodore Twombly, the soon-to-be-divorced greeting card writer, and masterfully communicates his newfound love throughout only his expressions and quirky mannerisms. Phoenix was an incredible choice for this role and carries almost the entire film. He has to, as the woman he is falling in love with is simply a personality named Samantha that he installed on his electronics. So many scenes focused on Theodore talking with and developing his love for Samantha and were expressed purely through close shots of his face or minute actions he was performing. This is what made Phoenix's performance so personal was not what he said, but what he didn't have to say. Scarlett Johansson shines as the voice of Samantha too, as I could distinctly imagine her in the room with Theodore in every scene, not just on his phone or computer; truly an incredible vocal performance.

The writing and the story of this film has a fairly generic structure but is enhanced purely because of the near future setting. Theodore falls in love with Samantha, has many expected relationship struggles, and eventually learns more about himself which provides a very satisfactory conclusion. The fact that this film takes place in the near future where every human is attached to the wrist to their phones is not only plausible but almost predictive. A better function that it serves, however, is making the relationships between the various characters that much more interesting. Seeing how Theodore's friends, including Amy (Amy Adams) and Paul (Chris Pratt), reacted to his relationship with Samantha was so real yet so amicable. As his friends, they each served their own purpose very well to further this narrative but also had enough distinguished personality to be their own, well-developed characters. Much of this has to do with Spike Jonze's writing and directing. His friendly approach to his characters and stories serves him very well and makes for a very believable story.

One of the most visually noticeable aspects of Her that I adored the most was its color grading and production design. I can not say that I have ever seen a movie with the tenderness and care that just this film's color palette alone displayed. The creamy and soothing colors not only blended in well together but added to this narrative's storytelling agenda. I felt nothing but relaxed during every scene because of the beautiful aesthetic throughout. All of the different sets accompanied this feeling as well, providing very post-modern and simple design. In Theodore's apartment, Amy's apartment, and even in Theodore's office cubicle, all of the design worked to create this gorgeously smooth and simple version of Los Angeles.

Her is a surprisingly touching love story about a man and his operating system and the futuristic bonds that may be created. Through Theodore's many trials and tribulations, he learns to love again and truly brings the audience along with him. I would absolutely recommend this film for date night with that special someone or if you're a hopeless romantic like me, to watch and appreciate the pure loveliness of every aspect of this movie.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Mr. Nobody (2009) directed by Jaco Van Dormael

I was in sophomore year of high school when this film was released in the United States; I remember watching it super late on a school night and hating it. This was before I became interested in film, however, and now that I have finally rewatched it, it has easily made its way into my favorites. Mr. Nobody is an extremely strange, existential puzzle film from Jaco Van Dormael that is an absolute modern-day masterpiece. With an exceptional performance from Jared Leto in his prime and beautiful writing and cinematography, this film is pure, artful, genius in every way.

This film is truly one that you must watch for yourself to experience it and take it all in. Jared Leto absolutely shines in this movie and I believe that his performance was truly Oscar-worthy. His multiple portrayals of his character Nemo Nobody through the different iterations of his life was incredible, as well as the 119-year old mortal version of Nemo. He is definitely one of my favorite actors for this kind of genre as he embodies every role he takes on. All of the other performances by the cast members were done very well but none of them stood out to me nearly as much as Leto's. The production design, cinematography, and editing executed throughout this film were masterfully beautiful as well. The futuristic setting worked very well for Nemo's older scenes and provided a dreadful sense of incoming technology in our society. All of the other set designs for Nemo's life were gorgeous too and utilized color theory brilliantly, especially with the three girls that he eventually fell in love with. The cinematography and editing were very sharp too and helped to progress the existential story very well. There was a bit too much use of motion graphics and CGI for my taste, but the editors definitely had their work cut out for them; for the amount of nonlinear editing and scene transitions there were, the editing done by Susan Shipton and Matyas Veress was incredible.

The writing and plot of this film are what draw me in the absolute most. This film contains one of the most engaging and riveting narratives that I have ever watched. The nonlinear structure and multiple-universe theory that is used in this story is the best part of this experience. While films like Pulp Fiction or Memento use this nonlinear structure, it is not nearly as engaging as Mr. Nobody. The former two films have a simple cut-and-paste formula but the latter film incorporates multiple universes as well, adding layer after layer of raw, beautiful storytelling. This is very, VERY confusing at first watch, but once the intertwining narratives become clear, it is nothing but enjoyable.

Countless theories and explanations have been published online about the film's ending regarding which life of his was the real one or if none of them had actually happened. Here is what I personally contrived from it: I believe that Nemo chose to go with his mother at the train station. This would result in him ending up with Anna, played by Diane Kruger, as their relationship felt the purest and most authentic throughout their time together. This is also aided by the fact that Nemo whispered "Anna" right before he passed away and imploded the universe. The fact that this film brings to mind so many different existential and universal themes is amazing. Every choice you make leads to something else in your life and this "butterfly effect" was incredible to see in the post-post-modern setting. Every aspect of this movie is so creatively executed, as it took more than ten years for Van Dormael to write, produce, and direct. I'm not going to get too much into this movie because of spoiler-y reasons, but I highly encourage all audiences to experience this magnificent film at least once.

Mr. Nobody is definitely not the movie you want to watch to sit back and relax. Films should truly leave the audience thinking and wondering what in the hell they just witnessed. That is what I experience when I watch this film, as I catch something new each time. I would absolutely recommend this movie for anyone in the right headspace to comprehend an existential piece of art like this one. You will not be disappointed.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) directed by Bryan Singer

*sigh*... If only this was directed by Bradley Cooper and starred Lady Gaga.

Bohemian Rhapsody is the long-awaited Queen biopic that has been in development since 2010 with Sacha Baron Cohen originally as the titular role of Freddie Mercury. After going through a multitude of changes behind the scenes, including a change in directors last December, the film will finally hit theater on Friday. Unfortunately, this is just another example of wasted potential. One of, if not the, biggest band on the planet deserves to have an interesting and well-developed biopic about them - but Singer fails to deliver.

Bohemian Rhapsody follows the life of Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek) as he meets a few musicians outside a club who happen to be looking for a new lead singer for their band. These small-time rockers go on to become one of the most influential and adored bands of all time: Queen. While Bulsara evolves into the extravagant showman known as Freddie Mercury, he struggles to fight off his own personal demons. Balancing his personal life, relationships, stardom, and sexuality all prove to be a challenge as Mercury's extraordinary life unravels before the audience's eyes.

Malek has proven himself in the past few years to be one of the most talented and versatile young actors. He was an incredible choice to portray Freddie and captured his essence beautifully. Malek was able to portray the nuanced tenderness yet outwardly flamboyant sides of Freddie throughout the different stages of his life. The chemistry between Malek and the other members of the band was fantastic as well. John Deacon (Joseph Mazzello), Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy), and Brian May (Gwilym Lee) were all integral parts in shaping Freddie into the legend that he is and the actors embodied their respective band members very nicely. The most emotionally believable performance, however, came from Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin, Freddie's first true love interest. The raw acting in their scenes together, especially towards the end of their relationship, was so hard-hitting and truly showcased both Malek and Boynton's talents.

The technical aspects of Bohemian Rhapsody were not nearly as satisfactory as the performances, though. The cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel was very underwhelming and had the potential to be much more creative, especially during the many concert and performance sequences. The editing by John Ottman was also quite underwhelming and outright atrocious in certain moments. While standard in its function, Ottman's editing was cut way too incredibly fast and never left me time to breathe, even during simple conversational scenes. Just because a film has plenty of footage and takes to pick from, does not mean that an editor has to and that is one concept that never entered Ottman's mind. The costuming by Julian Day was impressive, however, giving a very accurate and aesthetically-pleasing feel to every character in every scene. Music obviously plays a large part in this biopic as well and was utilized decently, despite Malek not actually performing the songs, which is ironic considering there's a scene in which the entire band voices their strong opposition to lip-syncing.

When you watch a biopic about a particular musician or band, it's pretty much expected that you'll have left the theater having learned something new about them, whether it's something to do with their personal demons or some other area of their private life that has been previously unexplored. Bohemian Rhapsody did not accomplish any of that. The information that was included about Freddie's life was presented so haphazardly and did not go beyond the surface at all. Freddie's battle with HIV and his relationships with his many partners through the years were a big part of his identity in the 1980s, but these aspects of his life were simply tossed aside as minor subplots. While the film did its job of telling the basic story of Freddie and the band leading up to the 1985 Live Aid concert, it did not delve nearly deep enough into either Mercury or the entire band to make the story remotely interesting. The writing throughout the film also frames Mercury's struggle with sexuality as the main reason for his personal failures and makes it seem like being bisexual was the root of his problems. Again, this iconic musician and band deserve so much more and this film did not do them justice.

The most evident issue with this entire production was the direction from Bryan Singer. Despite all of the horrendous sexual harassment and rape accusations, Singer is a wildly mediocre director. He does not have any notable style, which is a bad choice for a film about one of the most exuberant bands in musical history. Singer brings along his experience with directing X-Men blockbusters to this film, which, again, was a huge mistake. This "grand-scale" mentality is suitable for some of the concert sequences in this film, but not at all for the more riveting, biopic aspects. Imagine going to a concert for a band that you adore, only for them to not play your favorite song of theirs - that crucial part was missing.

Singer desperately attempted to squeeze in every detail of Freddie and the band's lives, but even with the painfully long 2-hour and 14-minute runtime, he could not manage to do that. The story throughout was very unclear and could not decide between focusing on the story of Freddie or the story of Queen. There is not a single one of the band's smash hit songs that were excluded from this film and while classic rock aficionados will be pleased, it felt much too stuffy. Many of the transitional scenes were simply recreations of legendary performances and because of this, it began to feel like a concert rather than a film. An exploration into Freddie's life would have been far more interesting, but this movie has regrettably bitten the dust.

Freddie Mercury deserves much better treatment than what he was given in Bohemian Rhapsody and, despite Malek's royally zealous performance and an expectedly great soundtrack, this film provides nothing more than what a quick Google search could probably accomplish.

My Rating: ★★