Paddleton (2019) directed by Alex Lehmann

Two things about any movie that will undoubtedly draw me in: Mark Duplass' bleak humor and Ray Romano's teddy bear of a voice. Paddleton is an excellent example of an independent buddy comedy that does not necessarily try to be anything too special - and doesn't really need to, either. This film is a strangely humorous but heartwarming look at two close friends and the unfortunately fatal circumstances that they must try to cope with. I love how quiet yet loudly emotional this film was and the often depressing narrative that came with it. Audiences may have seen this kind of film countless times before, but my tastes will always be much more geared towards touching stories like these regardless.

Paddleton follows the close lives of best friends and neighbors Michael (Mark Duplass) and Andy (Ray Romano) as the former attempts to cope with the news that he has an incurable form of cancer. Michael decides that he wants to end his life on his own terms with a fatal prescription and takes a road trip with Andy to get it from a private pharmacy, while also finding out along the way what made his life and friendship so special. The writing surrounding how these two interacted and what they experienced together is the most touching aspect of the entire story. Michael and Andy are introduced in the exposition without any kind of dialogue or background as to why they were such close friends or why they were living by themselves in their apartments, but none of that information is really needed. Through a lot of this film's nonverbal communication and visual storytelling, it is obvious that they care for each other more than anything else and that is all this narrative's friendship really needs. The dialogue shared between the two is some of the driest but most realistic I have ever seen in a "comedy of dramatic proportions" such as this one. Watching these two interact really made me feel like I have known these characters and all of their life struggles. This is definitely due to Duplass and Romano's fantastic performances and how much chemistry they have together on screen. I have not personally seen any of Romano's more dramatic roles before, but I thought he was excellent throughout this movie.

Independent films of this genre typically have a formula that works for them and this movie was not really an exception. A small cast of characters, a personal but slightly vague story, and a touching ending usually seem to be the set rules, and this movie followed just that. Even though that might seem dull or generic, I always tend to focus on and enjoy the little, creative details that make each film stand out, and in this case, it was the titular, tennis-like game that Michael and Andy invented and played against each other. Small, peculiar offshoots of the plot such as this game always make independent stories that much more interesting and strangely relatable to me. These little eccentricities are what help me get more engaged in whatever the story is trying to tell and they also make the endings that much more devastating. I believe that the moral premise of this film is really just to find yourself and enjoy what life has blessed you with, as there are some unfair things in this world that you can't really control. This message was spread out through the whole movie, and even though the conclusion is tame and predictable, doesn't take away from how emotionally impacting it is. Nathan M. Miller's cinematography and Christopher Donlon's editing are fairly generic, but since Duplass and Lehmann's writing is the greatest part, it does not distract from the almost mute ups and downs that these two friends share on their bleak road trip.

Paddleton is a heartbreaking but inspirational look at mortality and how close friends are able to cope with it. Even though this kind of narrative is not new at all, it is so refreshing to see two big names like Duplass and Romano do something smaller and more personal such as this film. I absolutely love this movie and would definitely recommend it, as long as you're willing to have your heart broken down but simultaneously built back up.

My Rating: ★★★★

Bonnie and Clyde (1967) directed by Arthur Penn

AFI Top 100: #42

"She was fearless and crazier than him. She was his queen. And God help anyone who dared to disrespect his queen." This may be one of the most meme-able lines from the 2016 anti-hero disaster of a movie, but no film truly fits it better than Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde. This movie is an interesting look at the late lives of the two lovers as they rob banks and take no prisoners across the country during the Great Depression. Despite some fantastic performances from the two leads and a fun yet obviously predictable story, I feel like this film is a let down in more ways than I had expected.

This movie starts off when the two infamous gangsters first meet, as Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) tries to steal Bonnie Parker's (Faye Dunaway) mother's car. The two instantly fall for each other's strange, illegal antics and begin their crime spree across the country, dragging along Clyde's brother Buck (Gene Hackman), his wife Blanche (Estelle Parsons), and a young boy named C.W. (Michael J. Pollard). Since this film is based on the true stories of the couple, it makes this script a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand, I did not enjoy how little buildup or conflict there was in this movie. The entire plot seemed to revolve around the two of them and their struggle to keep up their illegal reputations while staying alive. The majority of the high-energy scenes were simply them running away from the police or having a shootout. There seemed to be no end goal or motivations for either of these characters, both for what they were doing and why they were doing it. There was some decent writing and dialogue that Bonnie and Clyde both shared in many personal scenes, but it all seemed like filler to me. The reason that I am so conflicted on this aspect of the writing is that I know it is all a true story. Even though I personally did not enjoy how this film was more of a "slice-of-life" look at the two, I have to remember that everything in this film actually happened and dramatizing any of it for dramatic purposes would make many plot purists and historians very upset.

The same issue goes for the treatment of female characters in this movie. Bonnie was plainly pushed aside by Clyde and disregarded just because of her gender in many scenes, but that is most likely how he was in reality. Clyde Barrow was a very manipulative man with evil intentions and while this could be seen in some of the scenes, I feel like the writers tried too hard to get the audience to feel for what these two were doing. The romanticization of their actions was definitely just the writers wanting the audience to see their actions through a different lens, but it did not work for me, particularly because of their lack of motivations. And even the way that Bonnie and Clyde were shown as having remorse and guilt about killing a few people and robbing a few stores seemed very tame to what they were actually like in reality. Although no one may truly know how they felt in the moments they privately shared together, this film seemed to pander too much to the wishful thinking of moviegoers.

Elements of this film that I loved, however, were the performances, cinematography, editing, and the use of violence. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were excellent as the maniacal lovers and brought so much life to these infamous criminals. They both had so much energy in their respective roles and brought the much-needed light to the mediocre script. Dunaway was particularly fantastic, as her character showed the most changes throughout the narrative. As unfortunately poorly as Clyde treated Bonnie, Dunaway showed that in the most subtle and exquisite ways. This also has to do with the incredible cinematography from Burnett Guffey and editing by Dede Allen. The camera work was fantastic, especially in the expository sense that built this world very well. Allen's editing was also incredibly quick and smooth and holds up surprisingly well compared to many action films of today. The use of graphic violence in this movie had never before been seen and still proves revolutionary. Seeing different people getting shot directly in the head or riddled with bullets was, I'm certain, intensely shocking at the time, and its effectiveness still remains.

Bonnie and Clyde is bounds better than many other films of the late 1960s, but still leaves me with so many questions. Even though their characters were not as explored as much as I would have liked, two lively performances from Beatty and Dunaway make up for this developmental absence. Overall, this film is undoubtedly a classic of risky Hollywood style of this era and makes for a very exciting watch.

My Rating: ★★★½

Swiss Army Man (2016) directed by Dan Kwan, Daniel Scheinert

I've been looking forward to seeing this film for a while now. Not because I'm a huge Daniel Radcliffe or Paul Dano fan, but because from the trailers, it seemed like the perfect amount of heartfelt but wholly fucked-up. Lo and behold, Swiss Army Man delivered exactly that: a sweet and funny story about friendship that has just the perfect amount of offbeat dialogue and ridiculous, almost slapstick antics. Even though the message and overall narrative are quite a mess, I mostly enjoyed this film for its primal humor and quick editing. This movie is a quick watch that provides some generic laughs; I just simply don't agree that this film is nearly as deep as many independent film fans seem to think.

The audience is quickly thrown into this dark comedy by being introduced to Hank, played by Paul Dano, as he is stranded on an island literally on the edge of killing himself. With seemingly no hope to be found, Hank plans to end it all, but not before he sees the body of another man wash up on shore: Manny, played by Daniel Radcliffe. Hank soon finds out that Manny's corpse has extraordinary powers; powers that they both might be able to use to find their way back home. This peculiar plot is a flawless demonstration of how independent film can truly be something out-of-the-ordinary. A weird story such as this one would never be seen in bigger-budget Hollywood cinema and that fact gives this movie at least some of its charm. I loved the humor and dialogue shared between the two leads as they constantly grow and attempt to re-learn from each other the basic joys and struggles of life. There is a certain simplicity to this film that makes it at least entertaining, and for that, I applaud it. The witty lines back and forth were very well-timed and this is mostly due to their deadbeat performances. Both Dano and Radcliffe, as simple as they were, brought a decent amount of life to what could have been much blander characters. Despite its scarce redeeming qualities, my feelings throughout multiple points of this movie were perfectly summed up by Mary Elizabeth Winstead's final line: "what the fuck?"

This film's biggest issue is not how juvenile most of the humor was, but rather that nothing was made out of it. This film's plot follows the two guys and how their friendship grows over the course of their forest adventure trying to make their way back inland. Every single time that I would think a clear message was developing or every time the potential for a sweet moment was created, it would be interrupted by a literal fart joke. Daniel Radcliffe's character is first introduced as this farting corpse and that crude humor carries his comedic momentum whenever there is a pause in the pacing. While this pause could have been used for actual development, the writers resorted to these cheap laughs. Thus, there was no coherent message or moral from this film that one could really distinguish, mostly because of the consistently ridiculous humor. This made it very hard for me to take this film seriously, especially towards the ending. Once the two friends make it back and Hank finds the house of Sarah (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the girl in the picture, it is made clear that he had been stalking her, which definitely subtracts from any kind of sincerity that was trying to be built. After this revelation, Manny ends up sailing away and off to a (supposedly?) better life in a very abrupt ending. The writing and directing from Kwan and Scheinert could have used a lot of work in order to make this movie not so difficult to relate to.

A few of the technical pieces that I did enjoy, however, were the editing and the writers' use of Manny's weird abilities. Matthew Hannam's editing was very quick and intuitive, making good use of the short runtime and humorous montages. Hannam was definitely able to nail the dark and offbeat tone of this film through the way he cut it, particularly the two characters' actions. As for their actions, not many special effects or crazy stunts were performed in this movie, which is definitely noticeable due to its independent budget. However, that was not a bad thing, as the way Manny's strange movements and multi-use body worked for the camera was hilarious to watch unfold.

Swiss Army Man is exactly what one could expect from an independent film about an indestructible corpse that learns the true meaning of life and friendship. With some decently comedic performances from Dano and Radcliffe, I got many laughs out of this film, but nothing else. The lackluster story and message, unfortunately, killed any potential that this film had to become anything greater or more memorable.

My Rating: ★★½

Personal Shopper (2016) directed by Olivier Assayas

As suggested to me by countless critics and fans of independent film, I finally got around to seeing Olivier Assayas' Personal Shopper, now that it's on Netflix. Kristen Stewart puts out an incredible and heartfelt performance which gave so much life to Assayas' touching screenplay and graceful direction. As a devoted fan and critic of film, I try my absolute hardest to like, or at least appreciate, what other fans and critics do. However, I suppose I just simply could not connect to this film on the same level that others have. This haunting movie is a sincere ghost story at its core, but it falls directly into a type of dramatic subgenre of independent film that I just can not seem to develop a taste for, akin to First Reformed. Despite my personal disinterest in this moody style, I still relatively enjoyed this narrative for what it was.

This film follows Maureen, played by Kristen Stewart, a young woman living in Paris whose twin brother has recently passed away while she was working as a personal shopper for an A-list celebrity. Along with shopping for celebrities, Maureen doubles as an attempted medium and tries to reach out to the spirit of her brother. Things only get more complicated, however, when an anonymous stranger begins reaching out to her through text messages. The plot of this film is definitely just the perfect amount of "off" to make the story interesting enough to be engaged in. The audience is thrust into the strange world of Maureen's life and career without much notice or detailed exposition, but thankfully Assayas' writing and direction make it clear what kind of weird story we are in for. These may be my personal favorite aspects of this whole film, as it was obvious how tender and careful he was in crafting this story. As previously mentioned, this mysterious style is not exactly my forte, but I loved seeing how raw and natural this story was. Stewart's performance absolutely helped my opinion as well, as she pleasantly surprised me with how incredible her acting actually was. I must admit, I have always dismissed her as the girl from the Twilight movies, but she has definitely impressed me beyond words with her subtle body language and perfect execution. The only issue I have with her character is the script trying so desperately to show that she is straight when we all know better than that.

Pieces of this film that I did not particularly enjoy, however, were its ending, editing, and over-reliance on smartphone screens. While the final scenes of the movie are definitely its most widely-discussed and controversial in terms of its message, I just do not like ambiguous conclusions such as these. Maybe the ghost haunting her was her brother the whole time or maybe it was just a figment of her imagination that she used to cope with the loss. The ending does nothing to clarify this and while that was probably the intent, I much prefer narrative satisfaction over introspective analysis. Marion Monnier's editing was also a bit of a distraction for me. While she effectively smoothed out any kind of bumps in the story, I have never been and never will be a fan of fade to black transitions and this film had plenty. Perhaps that is more of a French filmmaking style, but those transitions were used to end nearly every scene and it almost took away from the film. The last part of this movie that I could absolutely not stand was a minor part of the script. The entire conversation that occurs between Maureen and the stranger happens on her phone. No matter how riveting a story is or how important phones are in a script, I will never enjoy watching someone text back and forth. This took up a large chunk of the dialogue's time and it was very bothersome. I understand that my issues with this film may seem trivial, but they are just the little details that will make or break a movie experience for me.

Personal Shopper is another fantastic example of a film that furthers Assayas and Stewart's creative endeavors together. Even though I have never been a fan of ambiguous endings or offbeat creative choices, I adore and respect the amount of tender care put into this narrative. If there is one thing for certain, though, it's that I will definitely be thinking about this film for a while, especially its peculiar ending.

My Rating: ★★★½

Await Further Instructions (2018) directed by Johnny Kevorkian

Have you ever walked into your garage and glanced at a tub of extension cords, wondering if it could come alive at any moment and possess your body? Well, wonder no longer because Await Further Instructions is here to tell you exactly how that would happen! This film is an incoherent mess of horror that does not seem to serve any purpose. An absolutely awful script and meaningless character motivations make this movie the jumbled heap of under-saturated garbage that it appears to be. And yet, despite this movie's student-film feel and completely nonsensical plot points, I couldn't help but keep watching. If there is one element that this film is good at, it's making the audience wonder what the hell could possibly happen next.

This film follows Nick (Sam Gittins) and Annji (Neerja Naik), a young couple who are visiting Nick's family for a traditional, British Christmas. After one night of high tensions and the struggles that come with family dinners, Nick and Annji decide to leave but find out that they can't due to a strange, black substance that covers their home, not letting them outside. The television gives the family instructions on what to do next while the tensions quickly turn into bloody chaos (pun intended). What drew me in the most about this film was the picture displayed on my Netflix screen of a character with wires wrapped through his head, seemingly possessed. This decently interested me and while I knew I was in for a C-grade horror story, I hoped for at least something creative. The biggest issue with this film, however, is that it does not even make use of the one supernatural element that it seems to be marketing. As the family slowly goes insane when they begin getting picked off one by one, the audience is left to wonder the entire time about who is controlling them or what the horrific substance on the house is. These questions are never answered, however, and as each character was killed off in strange ways, nothing seems to connect. So once the evil, monster wire bundles attack in the last five minutes or so, I was left feeling so unsatisfied as to what the meaning of any of it could be. This whole movie is really just an exercise of "how many illogical different ways can we off our characters without seeming repetitive?" without attempting to tie together any of these important plot points.

Gavin Williams' writing and Johnny Kevorkian's directing are absolutely this film's two biggest issues. They were so horrible, in fact, that I am not even sure if Williams and Kevorkian ever even met to discuss the film they were making. Williams' screenplay is chock full of cheesy clichés and almost obsolete character development or motivations. Every character seemed to be taken right out of a textbook full of familial archetypes and their dialogue blatantly displayed that too. This was, of course, most apparent in the opening scenes at the family dinner. Since this is a British film with British actors set in (you guessed it) Britain, I was not expecting what they fought about to be politics. But strangely enough, it seems like American politics were written into this film about a British family, which made no logical sense. I really do not think every country on Earth argues about the same topics that we do in America and I found this entire scene to be unbelievable. But then again, this family is apparently a prehistoric one that doesn't even own a basic flat screen TV, so who knows?

Perhaps the screenplay was one that built tension very well, but Kevorkian's directing took that opportunity far away, nearly breaking this film. The pacing was unbearably awkward as each family member was killed in some weird, unexplainable way. The wire monster that had infested the entire neighborhood did not rear its ugly head until the last few minutes, which honestly would have made the rest of the film a *slight* bit better. And to end the film with a shot of a baby and theme of apparent rebirth, akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey, did not help to clear any of this film's confusion. The performances, cinematography, and editing were all very standard as nothing stood out, but at least those aspects seemed to work well together. However, despite this movie's lack of coherence in practically every aspect, I could not help but be entertained. This movie provides pure, dumb fun in the most ridiculous way and for that, I applaud it.

Await Further Instructions is definitely a film that I will be unapologetically forgetting about in the next few days, even hours. There is not a single piece about this movie that even tries to make it somewhat cohesive, but honestly, I can not say that I was not entertained. Thankfully, I was in a good mood and did not expect much as I watched this or I would be writing a much harsher piece right about now.

My Rating: ★½

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019) directed by Mike Mitchell

EVERYTHING IS... pretty mediocre, I suppose. 2014 saw one of the most original, funny, and heartfelt animated films of recent years and this sequel works exactly the way a sequel should: bringing back fan favorites and not being as good as the first. The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part is an entertaining, family-friendly adventure that does not contain nearly the same amount of creativity or risk-taking of its predecessor. This movie plays a lot of its choices safe, which makes it a lot less satisfying than the first film's abundance of adult humor. Even though this film has a lot of good aspects backing its story and an absolutely loaded voice cast, it does not exactly live up to the hype that many were expecting.

Five years after the events of The Lego Movie, Emmet, Wyldstyle, and the rest of their plastic crew are living in Apocalypseburg, a hardened society that formed after the Duplo invaders attacked. While Emmet attempts to toughen up like Wyldstyle wants for him to, a new, intergalactic threat comes and kidnaps Emmet's friends. To prove himself, he sets out to save them from these new enemies and learns the true meaning of friendship and being yourself along the way (as if audiences weren't already getting that message pounded into their heads from every animated film of the past decade). The writing in this movie is what sets apart this franchise from anything that Disney, Dreamworks, or anyone else could think of making. As hilarious and self-aware as the first film was, I simply did not feel that with this new installment. Many of this film's jokes and characters behaved the exact same way as the first one and did not seem to provide anything new in terms of humor or even story. As amusing as it is for a company like Warner Bros. to make fun of themselves through comic book references or licensing issues or whining about not getting called back by Marvel, I feel like this subgenre of comedy has been exhausted at this point. This is why I feel like The Lego Batman Movie worked so well; it embraced the world that was already built and created something entirely new out of it. The recycling of jokes and over-reliance on Will Arnett's Batman to carry every scene in this addition to the franchise was quite a dull experience. Even though Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's influence is easily seen, I would have really liked to have seen some new writers freshen up these characters and this new story.

There is nothing extraordinarily bad about this film, but rather just disappointing. Despite this sequel's mediocrity, I still enjoyed many things about. The voice cast once again nails their characters and brings so much life to these inanimate pieces of plastic. Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Nick Offerman, Tiffany Haddish, Will Arnett, and Alison Brie are incredibly perfect in their roles and the level of talent that they all bring with their voice acting is incomparable. Especially Chris Pratt, as he practically voices two different versions of himself throughout this film. One of the most hilarious and self-aware parts of this film that I enjoyed was the inclusion of Rex Dangervest and how he was an amalgam of every part that Pratt has previously played (with the sad exclusion of the lovable Andy Dwyer). He and his arc turned out to be one of the most enjoyable parts of this whole narrative. The humor in this film still manages to have its quick and witty timing, which of course gives this world its trademark spunk and the soundtrack is once again catchy pop that will indeed get stuck inside your head. As annoying as the catchy song for this movie may seem, I'm actually impressed with how clever and well-utilized the music has been throughout this franchise.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part is a fun film that children will definitely enjoy a whole lot more than any other audience. Thankfully, the whole cast brings their same energy and the story is filled with the same amount of nostalgia and pop culture references. Despite not being as mass-appealing as the first installment, this semi-worthy sequel still manages to provide an exciting watch at the theaters.

My Rating: ★★★

Salt of the Earth (1954) directed by Herbert J. Biberman

Herbert J. Biberman's 1954 piece of social cinema Salt of the Earth is the perfect example of a film that could have had a much bigger impact if its cultural era were not so distorted. This movie revolves around a miner's strike in New Mexico and the feminist role reversal that went along with the story of the miners' wives. Unfortunately, this movie was blacklisted due to its writers and director and was unable to get its progressive message out to audiences of the time. Even though this film is not well-made by any means, its cultural significance surpasses much of the other cinema released during the blacklist era and provides for a decently interesting story.

This film follows Ramon and Esperanza Quintero, played by Juan Chacón and Rosaura Revueltas, a couple living in New Mexico during the miners' rights strike of the '50s. The film's supposedly main conflict revolves around Ramon and his coworkers' fight to get safer working conditions, but the true plot reveals itself to be the wives picketing for better living conditions. Even though these two protests were equally important to the people of the time, this movie tends to focus itself more as a feminist narrative. Not many films during this time had the gall or even will to do such, but this movie did not hold back on its story, flipping the genders' roles on their head. This was the most interesting aspect of the entire film, as it was very refreshing to see a story focused on women. Even though they were fighting for their husbands' and families' rights as well, the way that all of the women were portrayed was shocking, but in the best way possible. Many of the simple things about them, including the way they dressed, talked, and danced seemed like something out of a film that would be made today. Which, of course, is not to complain about the way they were represented, but quite the opposite. It was incredible to see all of the women's interactions and lives intersect as they formed their own protesting committee. All of these empowering aspects, unfortunately, make sense as to one of the reasons why this film was so controversial and eventually blacklisted. Audiences were not used to seeing such progressive cinema, which makes the cultural context of this film so fascinating today.

Despite this movie's best intentions with its feminist story, it was very difficult to watch. Michael Wilson's writing and Biberman's directing were great, as they seem to be the only technical aspects of this film that knew how to tell a coherent story. This movie was shot on location in New Mexico, which gave it a very earthly and realistic feel, unlike the amateurish cinematography. Stanley Meredith and Leonard Stark's camerawork was as dry as the dirt of the land this family was living on and displayed almost no creative efforts. The way this movie was filmed makes it look a lot more boring than the subject matter actually is, which was quite unfortunate. One minor part of the production of this movie that I purely enjoyed was its inspirational qualities. In many of the shots and set pieces, I could relate this story with that of similarly-structured films like Roma. These comparisons were fantastic to be able to draw, but the acting is what truly took me out of this environment. I appreciate the natural dedication to his craft, but Biberman should have stuck with trained actors instead of actual miners and wives during this strike. The acting from every cast member was very rehearsed and in turn, made every scene feel so ungenuine. I would have felt much more emotion towards the hardships these characters had to face if there was an assembled cast that could effectively do their jobs.

Salt of the Earth is an interesting take on a feminist story of the 1950s. Despite its production value being noticeably less-than-mediocre, the reason why and when this film was made gives it its best quality. Thankfully this piece of cinema has historical significance and a quick runtime or else it would not be nearly as engaging.

My Rating: ★★★

UHF (1989) directed by Jay Levey

As cinematically-awful and horribly-made as this film is, I will never stop enjoying it. UHF is the feature film debut of "Weird Al" Yankovic, my childhood comedy idol, who I still admire to this very day. His decades-long career will never be forgotten as he has truly proven himself as the king of pop culture parody. If you were to take one of his ridiculous yet hilarious parody songs of the 1980s and turn it into a feature-length film, this would be quite an accurate representation. Even though it is obvious that Yankovic has never had any experience with writing a screenplay or developing characters, this movie is all one could ever ask for from the comedy musician.

"Weird Al" stars as George Newman, a down-on-his-luck guy whose imagination always seems to get in the way when it comes to stabilizing his work and love life. When his uncle wins a rundown TV station in a gambling bet, he hires George to be its new manager and revitalize its dwindling audience with new programming. If this plot sounds absurd and half-conceived, that's because it definitely is. One of the most memorable and hilarious aspects of Yankovic's creative brain is that he has the power to humorously parody almost anything. His musical ability to flip popular songs on their head and bring new meaning to catchy melodies is incomparable so one might think that would translate to a screen as well; especially since the plot revolves around numerous, offbeat TV shows. As completely random and peculiar as the different show ideas he creates are, they did not blend well with the narrative at all. I could painfully feel the contrast between Yankovic's lack of screenwriting knowledge and director Jay Levey's commitment to creating a cohesive plot. These aspects were fine on their own: Yankovic's weird mind made his fictional television programs hilarious and Levey's directing attempted to bring together these ideas into a story, but they simply could not mesh well together. It is almost as if the writers of the Naked Gun films threw together a bunch of their recycled visual gags and punchlines and tried to salvage a plot from them. While they work fine as skits on their own, they just do not fit into the flow of this story, which is already lazy by nature.

Where this film gets its greatest humor, however, is its actual parodies of other popular films of the time. Even though the story has more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese, many of the parody scenes work for the forwarding of the plot very well. The introduction sequence parodying Indiana Jones and the final chase sequence parodying Rambo are two of the funniest parts of the entire movie. I feel that these scenes work so well because they combine Yankovic's ability to parody with the actual plot of the film. Instead of stealing runtime by distracting the audience from the plot, these scenes work the way they are intended to for the narrative. That being said, this film still manages to be wildly entertaining. There are so many memorable scenes and lines that I still quote to this day, as this movie is a definite visual representation of the zany and colorful mind of the parody songwriter. Sprinkle in the fact that Yankovic actually gives a fairly decent performance as George and you've got a commercial formula for success. Despite this movie's lack of experience in regards to production quality or technical prowess, it is still the perfect 80s film to spectacularly display how culturally important "Weird Al" was and still is to comedy culture.

UHF, while overly-reliant on visual gags and cinematic parodies, succeeds as one of the greatest cult classic films of the 1980s. This movie is by no means an achievement in filmmaking, but it proves itself as an achievement in the hilarious content that "Weird Al" Yankovic is able to provide across different mediums.

My Rating: ★★★½

Schindler's List (1993) directed by Steven Spielberg

AFI Top 100: #8

What an ironic time for me to actually have time to sit down and watch a film over three hours long. After this week's controversy surrounding Liam Neeson, I realized that I have never actually seen any of his "classic" roles in which he shows off his actual acting abilities. Schindler's List, one of the most hailed war films of all time, is definitely just that: a great war film. While it may not be particularly to my taste, I enjoyed this masterful movie and the haunting story that it pounds into the audience. Liam Neeson does provide a fantastic performance alongside Ralph Fiennes, as the two make this depressing story so powerful and undoubtedly Oscar-worthy.

Schindler's List is the true story of Oskar Schindler, played by Liam Neeson, an enamelware factory owner who also happens to be a part of the Nazi party. When the Germans started occupying Poland during WWII, he ends up using his fortune to buy more than 1,000 Jewish citizens for work at his factory so they would avoid their unfair executions. This story is obviously the most discussed aspect of the film, as it shone more light on what actually happened to Jewish people back during the war. Up until the release of this film, there was knowledge but no widely-accessible visual horror of the kinds of terrible things that Jewish people were having to go through. Even though Schindler is the protagonist of this film and his story paves the way for the A-plot, I couldn't help but feel that this film's true purpose was to just recreate and display the horrors of the Holocaust. Which, 25 years ago, would be truly horrible to experience for the first time. This film did portray the events in a respectful way (by watering it down with a more feel-good story), but I have become so desensitized to these kinds of images, mostly due to my 21st-century schooling. Spielberg's direction blended these two plots together very well, but seeing all of these things happen to the Jewish people did not personally affect me at all, since I have seen gruesome content about this period since grade school. One may say that I am a fake film buff for not appreciating the incredibly painful runtime, but I was simply not affected by the slightly extraneous scenes that diverted my attention from the titular story.

What I did very much enjoy about the story, however, is how Schindler developed as a character and became the most integral part of this story. His sincere interactions with the Jewish employees and his swindling of the Nazis he was close to made for the most interesting plot to follow. Neeson nailed this role as well, providing a genuinely human performance as the *fake* Nazi he portrayed. Ralph Fiennes also co-stars in this film as Amon Goeth, a friend of Schindler's and devoted Nazi. Fiennes' performance was fantastic and thankfully, the writing did not attempt to humanize his behavior. Despite their close friendship, the contrasting relationship between Schindler and Goeth was incredible to see. Janusz Kaminski's cinematography was the most prominent technical piece that made this film look as extraordinary as it is. Every single frame of every shot of this film could honestly be a painting and I would not notice the difference. This movie is absolutely gorgeous in every sense of the word, from the camerawork to Michael Kahn's editing to the entire production design. Even though I feel like the choice of black and white and the little girl's pink jacket motif was a bit on-the-nose, I still loved the gritty and desolate look that this film had.

Schindler's List is yet another example of the emotional and stylistic range that only Spielberg would be able to pull off. This film provides a very interesting story and despite a lot of the scenes being unnecessary, I loved how beautifully it was told. War movies will never be my cup of tea, but I would definitely recommend this one.

My Rating: ★★★★

What We Do in the Shadows (2014) directed by Jemaine Clement, Taika Waititi

If you're a fan of The Office or Twilight or anything in between, this film will be absolutely perfect for you. What We Do in the Shadows is an exceptional comedy from the New Zealand masters of satire, Taika Waititi and Jemaine Clement. I have personally heard so many good things about this movie and have only recently discovered that it is on Amazon Prime. This mockumentary-style film is incredible in terms of comedy storytelling and I am honestly surprised that more films haven't taken notes and tried new things with the way they tell their stories. The three leads provide amazing performances and make these vampires' lives so human and hilarious.

Jemaine Clement, Taika Waititi, and Jonny Brugh star as Vladislav, Viago, and Deacon, respectively, three vampires who share a flat together and try to live as normal members of society without abandoning their bloodsucking faith. These three characters really make this film as outstanding as it is. Their interactions and developed relationships almost put this film into slice-of-life territory, but in the funniest way possible. What I enjoyed most was how they completely humanized vampires. Even though I'm certain there isn't a current, widespread panic about how vampires' lifestyles are out-of-the-ordinary, I loved how close I ended up feeling towards this small pack of friends. Every action that they take and every small inconvenience they face was something that any (human) person could relate to and I believe that, at its core, this film is just an examination of roommate and clique culture. This was also due to the mockumentary style of the film, as it even opens with a fictional "New Zealand Documentary Board" title card to further its satirical authenticity. The film crew was supposedly wearing crucifixes during the "filming" of these characters' lives in order to survive documenting their daily lives. Richard Bluck and D.J. Stipsen also nailed the camera feel that Michael Schur has perfected in his number of TV sitcoms to give this look into this close-knit group of vampires the most authentic and genuine feel ever.

One of my favorite production aspects of this movie is its design. From the art department to the makeup to the set design, this movie was entrancing. Not only did the camerawork help to convey a silly, spooky, environment, but the whole set and costumes wildly impressed me; especially for having a smaller budget of 1.6 million. Clement and Waititi's writing throughout this film is also amazing. Their awkward but clever style of situational comedy was a fantastic choice for this story. One thing that makes comedies stand out to me most particularly is their writing, rather than cheap gags, and this film is a great example. Not much exposition was needed to set up how these characters lived, but the audience gets plenty of that information through the humorous storytelling. There is not much that I can say about the style of writing other than how smart and well-timed it all was. There were not many scenes that I directly burst out laughing, but rather many jokes took a second to come full-circle, which was a great effect. The only aspect of this film keeping me from giving it a perfect score is its repetition of humor. I suppose there is only so much lore surrounding vampires, zombies, and werewolves that can be explored in 1 hour and 26 minutes and I felt like a decent chunk of the humor was just repeated jokes. This may be a criticism of mine for this film, but I feel like that is why I am most excited for the rebooted TV series that is beginning in March. This film felt like a very long episode of a supernatural sitcom and I am glad that Waititi has recognized that and adapting it on his own.

What We Do in the Shadows will undoubtedly stand out in my mind as one of the most creative and hilarious comedies ever. While I may not have been laughing out loud the entire time, it is hard not to appreciate the complex levels of humor and character development that they all go through in such a short runtime. I would absolutely recommend this film, as it is truly an outlier among the sea of dull and formulaic comedies of today's age.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) directed by Dan Gilroy

From Dan Gilroy, writer and director of 2014's Nightcrawler comes Velvet Buzzsaw, a leap in the Hollywood direction that Netflix is trying to go. This film is interesting on many levels, given that it is one of Netflix's first original movies after officially becoming a part of the MPAA. This can be obviously seen in its absolutely loaded cast and big-budget elements, but it also, unfortunately, makes it vulnerable to the downfalls of this kind of cinema. This film is a decently-directed horror romp that fails to balance the main aspects of the genre: thrilling suspense and relieving humor. Despite the incredible cast carrying the entire movie, the script and pacing degraded the production as a whole too much for me to take the story seriously.

This film revolves around the world of art criticism and distribution and focuses on several characters that have been corrupted by their greed rather than actual appreciation for the artists' craft. My favorite part of this film was its cast and their undeniable chemistry together as their respective, peculiar characters. Morf (Jake Gyllenhaal), Rhodora (Rene Russo), Josephina (Zawe Ashton), Gretchen (Toni Collette), Coco (Natalia Dyer), Damrish (Daveed Diggs), Piers (John Malkovich), and Bryson (Billy Magnussen) are all heavy influencers in not just their fictional world of art, but also in how the story plays out. This cast is insane and even though they do not all interact with each other, the way that they bring out the setting of this film through their performances is great. The other big piece of this movie that I really enjoyed were its technical parts such as the production design and cinematography. Despite the lack of story buildup and as strange as it sounds, the death scenes involving the cursed art were beautiful. The creative ways that Gilroy was able to incorporate each characters' internal fears and past experiences into how they died was fantastic to see. Robert Elswit's camerawork was very interesting too, even though it was not necessarily groundbreaking or breathtaking. I loved his use of framing and the contrast between many elements of each character in the foregrounds and backgrounds.

Ever since this film's trailer was released earlier this year, I have been engrossed in the setting and horrific premise. A horror film set in the world of art criticism must lead to some amazing, metaphorical content, right? To some extent, yes. Gilroy's message throughout this movie, while creative in its delivery, was a bit too painfully obvious. The fact that every character who became obsessed with their greed were the ones that ended up getting killed was interesting to see, but amusing at the most. It did not help that Gilroy's writing and directing was just mediocre at best. This entire film was purely just a series of rising actions that led to nothing. I was expecting for there to be a final confrontation involving the spirit that had possessed the art or for one of the main characters to overcome its grasp, but nothing of the sort happened. I spent the entire duration of this film watching the creative ways these art brokers died, but these deaths did not really mean anything as it did not raise the stakes for any kind of main conflict. The tense horror scenes were done very well, accompanied by the haunting music, but I did not feel any kind of satisfying resolution to this story. Perhaps this also has to do with the limited dialogue. As interesting as it was to set a horror film in the world of art shows like these, I found myself lost in the way these characters talked to each other. I'm definitely no industry professional when it comes to art criticism and so I had a very hard time relating to anything they were saying.

Velvet Buzzsaw is a film about art critique that critiques the world of art. For a movie that contains a satirical message of "passion over profit," it is surprisingly devoid of passion. Gilroy did not completely nail the execution of this movie, as I feel like it was stuck in purgatory between satire and horror, not entirely able to choose which to focus on. I still enjoyed this film for the performances and fresh ideas, but I was overall completely underwhelmed.

My Rating: ★★★

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017) directed by Chad Stahelski

Well, at least we were finally able to see what John can actually do with a no. 2 pencil. John Wick: Chapter 2 is a film that almost seems unnecessary, but, fortunately, ends up building this world quite well. The story is nearly a carbon copy of the story from its predecessor, but thankfully the incredible action and a continually stoic performance from Keanu Reeves keeps this sequel afloat. I am glad that I was finally able to see this installment, as it definitely has built up my anticipation for the next one in a few months, but I was still let down by this film's lack of originality in terms of a script.

John Wick: Chapter 2 starts off directly after the events of 2014's John Wick, as we find our titular hero attempting to get his car back from the Russian gang that stole it from him (AND killed his poor puppy). Accompanied by his new, unnamed dog, Wick ends up taking revenge on Santino D'Antonio (Riccardo Scamarcio) after he gets sucked back into the hitman life he so desperately wants to leave. There are multiple good and bad aspects of this type of revenge story. The good include the fact that it is a direct continuation of the first and that it paves the way for some new scenery and locations for this infamous hitman. I really enjoyed how this story picks up directly after the events of the first. This makes for a very smooth transition back into this world and helps the audience really feel for John and the amount of pure bullshit that he keeps having to go through. I also loved how a good portion of this movie took place somewhere besides New York. The Big Apple seems to be a very easy place to write in an action film and I was overjoyed to see a change of pace as Wick traveled to Rome to complete his mission.

The bad aspects of this type of revenge story, however, include the fact that this entire story followed the exact same beats of the first one. The reason why I feel like so many people resonated with the first film in this franchise is that it took a simple plot idea and twisted it just the right amount to keep the revenge trope fresh. Millions of audience members can definitely relate to the pain that John felt when his dog died and this small element of the writing really defined the character, which made the initial film unforgettable. This sequel, however, takes the revenge plot and does absolutely nothing new with it or its main character who we were supposed to ultimately feel for. Sure, we were able to see more of how the secret hitman organization was run and got some new characters for John to face off with, but the story was, unfortunately, painfully dull. At a certain point in this film, I honestly only kept watching because I knew that the action would be exciting, despite this installment not being co-directed by David Leitch and his remarkable fight choreography skills. While John Wick made audiences actually feel for this retired hitman's struggles, this film sadly reverted back to a predictable plot and very minimal development. As for the dialogue, it quickly became annoying hearing John constantly mutter multiple times "yeah, I'm back" or anything along those lines.

Fortunately, pieces of this film that I did love were, of course, the action and the main performance from Keanu Reeves. Wick may be one of the most refreshing action characters of this decade and this second installment definitely continues that tradition. From the concert in Rome to the gruesome scene with the pencil to John running away from dozens of killers in broad daylight (apparently every citizen of New York gets a hit list mass text), the action throughout this movie was fantastic. And Keanu Reeves is definitely the reason for this as well. He still embodies this amazing character even if the writing did not do him (or his new pup) justice. Reeves is the master of this type of role and just like Tom Cruise in the Mission: Impossible films, knows exactly what he does best and is not afraid to exploit that for pure entertainment.

John Wick: Chapter 2 is a bit of a disappointing sequel to the first, but still impressed me with its use of mesmerizing action and an unforgettable hitman antihero. Despite this film's failure to give anything new to the action genre, I would still absolutely recommend this, especially if you are a fan of this (soon-to-be) trilogy.

My Rating: ★★★½