Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile (2019) directed by Joe Berlinger

After a bit of backlash following the release of this film's first trailer back in January, I am happy to announce that this film is much better than that trailer. So much so that even the director hated it! Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile is a decently well-made film following the trials and punishment of Ted Bundy back in the 1970s and 1980s from the perspective of Bundy's longtime girlfriend Elizabeth Kloepfer. With some great performances from Zac Efron and Lily Collins and an interesting take on this story, this movie is sure to please any fan of the ever-popular true crime genre. Even though this movie's main issue is balancing its tone with the narrative, I still very much enjoyed learning about this story, especially due to my insightful discussion with director Joe Berlinger earlier this month.

This film follows the life of Elizabeth Kloepfer (Lily Collins), a single mom in 1970s Seattle who falls in love with the murderous Ted Bundy (Zac Efron). As Bundy gets caught and arrested for the kidnapping and murder of several young women, Liz turns her head to the fact that he is guilty. Throughout all of the trials and years of court cases, Liz stands by his side, refusing to believe the things he has done due to her blinding love for him. This true story and the horrible events that led up to it are what make this movie so wildly engaging. All of the court and legal scenes were incredibly well-written and provided so much of this movie's drama that audiences definitely need to stay interested, particularly because of Bundy's knowledge and studying to be a lawyer. The element that tied this interest together so well was the performances from Efron and Collins. These two had excellent chemistry together and were both so fantastically convincing in their roles. Collins was able to bring such a naive and tender side to the persona of Liz while Efron's teenage heartthrob status gave him immense power to flip that on its head. Efron was such a good choice for this film, not only because he looks very similar to Bundy, but because it was fantastic to see him in a different type of role. He was savagely convincing throughout this entire film and his obvious charm helped him for this role immensely.

Berlinger's intent with this film was not at all to romanticize Bundy or to get audiences to feel for his "struggles," but rather to show the mentality of the victims and how easy it is to be manipulated. Since this movie is based on memoirs of their time together written by Kloepfer herself, the majority of the movie is through her perspective. As previously mentioned, Efron was a fantastic choice because to Liz, Ted was an incredible boyfriend and loving man. The most interesting part of this film comes from the fact that it's through her perspective, but it is almost inevitable to get at least a little bit of romanticization due to that. However, for a film that is supposed to be through her perspective to make the audience feel for her as a victim, it did not seem that way the entire time. This movie would go on for 25 to 30 minutes at a time without showing or referencing Liz in any way. This directorial pacing was awkward the entire time; the film could not entirely decide on a tone and it took a while to find its flow after jumping around for far too long. The biggest issue is that there were a few different ways of telling this story that were used which would have been interesting on their own, but they frankly did not blend that well together.

The perspective of this film is what drew me in most, but I feel like it could have benefitted from a clearer tone and style. If this movie would have switched between her naive perspective and his murderous and horrible actions, it would have provided such a nice contrast and could have developed their personas a bit better. Even though as a filmmaker you don't want to be disrespectful to the families of Bundy's victims, I feel like sensible violence could have been added in to bring more depth to his horrible actions. But even without this aspect included, I could still really feel the effects of what Bundy had done, especially in the final conversational scene of the film (which is when I was completely sold on Collins and Efron). Another reason why this movie just felt off was because of Berlinger's experience as a documentary filmmaker. This was his first scripted film and even though he is obviously passionate about the subjects that he brings into the light, it was clear that he has not had much experience with narrative storytelling. It was quite difficult for this film to escape the typical feeling of recreation and novelty rather than telling this story with genuine compassion and heart towards the victims.

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile may have a title as long as the time it took for Bundy's girlfriend to realize who he was, but this film does not fail to entertain. Thankfully, the authenticity of the events and the way they are told are accurate or else the tone might make this story feel too much like something that it's not.

My interview with director Joe Berlinger for Silver Screen Beat:

How do you feel about Netflix pulling the first trailer for the film due to criticism from people who said it was glamorizing Ted Bundy and violence against women in general?

I wasn't a fan of the first trailer, to be honest with you. The people who were responsible for marketing the film prior to its acquisition going into Sundance did a trailer that they thought did the job. I wasn't happy with it, but I'm very happy that I got the opportunity to work with Netflix pretty closely on the most recent trailer, which is great.

I've done several things with Netflix now, including Tony Robbins: I Am Not Your Guru and Conversations with a Killer, the Ted Bundy doc series, and they are amazing about working closely with the filmmaker to make sure the tone and the intention of the movie are nicely captured.

As somebody who has spent 25 years doing a lot of real-life, true crime-related, the last thing this movie is doing, in my opinion, is glamorizing a serial killer, and so some of that criticism was very personally painful to me because I've spent a lot of time doing very meaningful things with my films; wrongful conviction, shining a light on criminal justice reform, advocating for victims. That's a big part of what my film and television work is about.

When people say you're a true crime pioneer, as I've been told because of the Paradise Lost series, I cringe as much as I embrace that description. The pioneer part I like. That's cool. But I have a funny relationship with the true-crime phrase because I think it kind of conjures up that image of wallowing in the misery of others for entertainment purposes.

If you look at my filmography, that's the last thing I'm trying to do.

Was one of your biggest intentions when making this film to make the audience feel sympathy for Liz (Bundy's girlfriend)?

Absolutely. You have to understand the experience of the victim and how you become seduced by this kind of psychopath. People are like "Oh, Bundy had a live-in girlfriend? She must've been an idiot." But no. This is the opposite. This is a person who not only psychologically seduced Elizabeth Kloepfer but also the American media and the legal system.

Could you imagine if at the end of a murder trial, if this was a person of color, that a judge would say to him: "Hey, I'm sentencing you to death because what you did was extremely wicked, shockingly evil, and vile. I wish you would've practiced law in front of me because you would've been a terrific lawyer?" Are you kidding me?

That to me is so demonstrative because he was a white male in the '70s who was given all sorts of breaks because of his demeanor, because of how he looks, because he was a law student, because he was white. He was given all sorts of freedoms.

To me, seeing things through Liz's eyes at all times is an understanding of how a victim becomes seduced by a psychopath. She's lucky. I think he actually liked her and kept her alive. But it's that same power that he had over everybody that I think is a lesson that I want my own daughters to know.

Did you feel any pressure to add anything that wasn't factual to the film for the sake of entertainment purposes?

I wouldn't say pressure. The nature of narrative filmmaking is that you have to compress time; that the unfolding of time is not the same as in real life and you do have to take certain liberties. I'm very proud that this film actually hues very closely to real life, but you do have to think in a three-act structure. You have to make it entertaining for an audience.

Truthfully, the biggest issue I probably struggled with is in Liz's memoir where she talks about having found things that made her think twice, like finding a knife in the glovebox of Ted's car, keeping separate apartments even though they lived together and in his apartment finding the bowl of various keys.

There are isolated events that take place over a seven or eight-month period and it's like if you're living with a cheating, alcoholic, or drug-addicted spouse and they claim to be on the wagon or not be cheating. You have an ability to push that aside over time and it's only when it reaches a critical mass in real life that when you have an experience like this that all the clues come together and you're like, "Oh right. I should've realized this all along."

But in an hour and 45-minute movie, the compression of time is so great that if I, in the first act, had Lily find a knife or a bowl of keys, she would've, I think, looked like an idiot to the audience for not catching on. There were just certain things in the memoir that I just had to leave out because time is different in a narrative film than it is in real life and even as it is in the documentary.

What is it about true crime stories, particularly Bundy's, that you think audiences find so intriguing?

People seem to have an insatiable appetite for crime. One of the reasons why I'm so fascinated with Bundy is that I think Bundy, to me, represents the big bang of our current insatiable appetite for crime. Bundy's Florida murder trial was the first time cameras were allowed in the courtroom and there was this new technology called electronic newsgathering. Just a few months before Bundy's trial, most news stations were still shooting their evening newscasts on 16mm film.

So coinciding with the growing fascination of Bundy was this new satellite technology, new electronic newsgathering, which just kind of pushed its way into the courtroom. I think that had a much greater impact than people realized because, for the first time in our history, serial rape and murder became live entertainment for American television viewers.

I think that was a precipitating event to where we are today because you can draw a line from the coverage of Bundy's trial to his execution to just a few years later with the O.J. Simpson trial, which now you have the 24-hour news cycle and this need to feed that monster with stories every day and that trial became this huge turning point to where we are today where we seem to have this insatiable appetite for crime.

On the positive side, though, I think there's been a lot of amazing work. We've seen non-fiction storytelling have an immediate and dramatic effect on these cases, and I think part of the appetite too - people want to know who the next miscarriage of justice is going to be.

Zac Efron's performance as Bundy seemed even more attractive and charismatic than Ted Bundy seemed to be in real life.

 I disagree. What we're talking about is the hold that Bundy had over people was very clear. Women were going down to the Florida trial convinced that he was innocent. Or, if he's not innocent, he's still sexy and there's something about him that makes them want to be in the same room as him. He had that power over people.

Do you worry that your film's portrayal of Bundy, and the fact that there is a celebrity playing his role, could inspire anybody to violence because they're looking for fame and looking to be remembered in connection with somebody famous?

It's hard to know where people derive and therefore you can't censor yourself. Where do people derive their inspiration from? John Hinckely Jr. attempted to kill the president because he was trying to impress Jodie Foster. Should Jodie Foster remove herself from public life? Should any actress remove themselves from public life?

All of these debates, whether it's glamorization or inspiration, are very healthy and good to debate. If this movie was like a gorefest, an irresponsible gorefest, then yeah, maybe. But my movie is an intelligent movie that has some real thought behind it.

If somebody is inspired to be Ted Bundy off of this movie, then I would argue that a different person would be inspired to do something evil off of any kind of movie, so where do you draw the line? I'm not worried. This movie was very responsibly made.

My Rating: ★★★½

Avengers: Endgame (2019) directed by Anthony Russo, Joe Russo

It's finally here. The end of the Infinity Saga and the end (for now, at least) of the 22 movie-long, blockbuster era that Marvel has cemented in film history. Avengers: Endgame is an absolutely stellar piece of blockbuster cinema that has as much superhero action as it does genuine, human story. This film is an absolute triumph in filmmaking and whether or not you are a fan of this cultural phenomenon, it has undoubtedly become engrained in our society forever. Including quite literally every character ever assembled in this entire, expanded universe and a shockingly riveting plot, this will be studied for years to come as the best success in getting people to actually get out of their homes and go to the theaters. Avengers assemble, indeed.

Picking up right after the events of Avengers: Infinity War, this famous group of superheroes find themselves loathing in utter defeat. Not only has Thanos (Josh Brolin) managed to wipe out half of the entire universe, but it seems like he has decimated this comic book team's sense of hope for good. I find it incredibly difficult to discuss what I loved about this film without spoilers, so this is your warning. The arrival of Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) at the Avengers compound 5 years after the fatal snap and after being stuck in the quantum realm is the one thing bringing this team back together. As they all learn about what can be done to reverse the mad titan's actions and bring back half of the universe, the Avengers' sense of hope and justice gets restored. Once again, the Russo Brothers have delivered on an incredibly engrossing storyline that only gets more enthralling as it goes along. Just like this franchise's previous entry, the story is paced immensely well, as my eyes were not distracted from the screen for a split second. The fact that these filmmakers were able to tell the multitude of various stories efficiently without losing their audience will never fail to impress me. What I loved most about this film, however, is its ability to balance the stories of each character and bring such satisfying conclusions to their individual arcs. All 6 of the original Avengers' storylines are concluded in such amazing ways and pave the way for the future of Marvel to start focusing on their younger characters.

Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely's script is the strongest aspect of this film that really brings everything together in such a fulfilling way. The entire first act of this film, after the surprisingly sudden "defeat" of Thanos, contains such a genuine, human story. I absolutely adored the writing in this part of the movie, as it focuses on themes of acceptance, loss, and even touches on depression and coping with inevitable grief. I loved seeing the emotion pour out of these characters and how they accepted the fact that they lost to the evil antagonist 5 years prior. Some of the most realistic and actually believable performances came from this act and I have honestly not seen that much focus and talent come from a superhero film in a long time. Towards the end of this film is when it truly hits audiences and becomes the emotional rollercoaster that fans deserved. And despite the fact that this movie is 3 hours long, it did not nearly feel like it due to the genuinely engrossing story.

As for the fate of our beloved heroes, the way that they were set up and concluded after 5 years of grief was incredible to see. Captain America (Chris Evans) goes back in time to live out his life with Peggy (Haley Atwell) as they finally get their long-awaited dance together. Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), unfortunately, sacrifices herself to get the soul stone for the ultimate defeat of Thanos. Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) is stuck in some strange hybrid state that has yet to be fully flushed out. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) seems to be training his daughter to take over the mantle in the near future. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has seemingly joined the Guardians of the Galaxy and given up his throne to Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) as she becomes the new Queen of Asgard. And as for the man who started this entire franchise, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) himself sacrifices himself through the Infinity Stones one last time to save all of the people that he loves most. I loved all of the callbacks and tying-up of loose ends that occurred throughout this film, especially in Tony Stark's funeral scene. The long, extended shot of everyone attending his funeral is really just a celebration of the entire 11 years of happiness and joy that these characters and stories have given audiences and it was fantastic to see (also where I teared up the most). This film is a flawless conclusion to these iconic heroes' stories and proves itself as a quintessential, nostalgic blockbuster. As previously mentioned, no matter your opinion on the quality or repetitiveness of these superhero stories, the impactful and emotional place that they hold in our culture will never be forgotten.

Perhaps I'm swept up in the nostalgia of the past 11 nerdy years of my life, but Avengers: Endgame is a prime example of how to do a blockbuster right. Not only have the Russo Brothers managed to culminate 11 years of fantastical stories into one tight script, but they have managed to get me to sob at a science-fiction film. I'm still finding it hard to entirely process everything that happened in this movie, but just know that fans and dedicated moviegoers could not have asked for a more perfect ending. And make sure to bring some tissues too.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Stuber (2019) directed by Michael Dowse

I was surprised at how much I actually enjoyed this film, which is just the same amount of buddy-cop content as its title is a quirky, ridiculous pun. Stuber is a fairly generic yet fun movie about a cop chasing after an infamous drug lord who gets caught up in the modern culture of ridesharing. Dave Bautista and Kumail Nanjiani star in this film alongside Karen Gillan and Natalie Morales, all who give decent performances. While Nanjiani is the unsurprisingly comedic standout, I loved the chemistry between this entire cast and what they brought to this unfortunately overplayed genre.

Vic (Dave Bautista) is a Los Angeles cop who is trying to track down a notorious drug lord with the help of his partner Morris (Karen Gillan). Unaware of the current state of technology, Vic's daughter Nicole (Natalie Morales) downloads Uber on his phone and he ends up getting a driver named Stu (Kumail Nanjiani) stuck in the middle of a heated criminal case. The chemistry between these two leads is undeniable and make for some of the most hilarious scenes throughout this entire film. Bautista and Nanjiani provide some of the stalest performances ever, but in a very humorous way. Bautista's stale is a hardass exterior that is trying to prevent anyone from knowing his true feelings while Nanjiani's stale is that of very dry humor and a lack of passion for anything in his life. The contrast between these two paved the way for a hilarious relationship that I truly feel only these two actors could ever pull off. The use of technology and modern jargon surprisingly did not hold this movie's tone back at all, which is one of the main aspects I was worried about. Gillan and Morales were also great in this film but were both only given limited screentime and I honestly feel like could have been put to much more use. Thankfully, the way that the two leads interacted and furthered the story made that much more interesting. And I also loved the fact that our two main stars are people of color. Even though that is fairly commonplace in today's era of film, it was refreshing to see these two not-quite-household-name artists work together in this genre of film.

Michael Dowse's direction was quite generic yet effective. Dowse is able to tell this story, written by Tripper Clancy, very well and it thankfully did not outstay its welcome. My main issues with this film include Clancy's script and the overall mediocrity of the plot. Taking a simple part of our culture and turning it into a feature-length film seems to be a bit of a trend in these star-studded yet forgettable kinds of comedies. Having an Uber driver become part of an intense police investigation is a fun way to get the different personalities of the characters involved, but I thought that there were far too many plot points that were way too convenient or were just simply nonsensical. These unpredictable but convenient story elements such as the sriracha factory and the Lasik surgery seem to be a staple of this kind of genre and they definitely did not work in favor of these characters. These irregular plotlines are due to Clancy's lackluster script and even though his comedy works reasonably well, the whole film is honestly held up by the actors and actresses involved. The music choice throughout this film was not quite on tempo either. There were multiple pop song and strange, ambient music choices that were placed in the most peculiar parts of this story. There is one full-circle joke involving a Styx song that I found amusing, but the rest of the film seemed to be scored by someone with absolutely no experience. All of these elements help the written humor of this movie stand out, but in regards to plot, Stuber contains every predictable relationship quirk and classic plot twist of the buddy-cop genre.

Stuber is a simple film that is a perfect summer time-waster. Once it comes out later this July, I'm certain that audiences with mediocre expectations will find it incredibly entertaining, as did I. I would recommend this movie for anyone who happens to be a fan of these artists or even just want an idiosyncratic time at the movies to escape the heat.

My Rating: ★★★

12 Angry Men (1957) directed by Sidney Lumet

AFI Top 100: #87

I felt like Charlie Day during the entirety of this movie (and in the best way possible). 12 Angry Men is an absolutely perfect film in every aspect possible and I can't believe that it has taken me this long to witness the complex beauty of this script. This movie is a true masterclass in how to write an engaging film and the fact that the entire story takes place in one room makes it that much more impressive. Sidney Lumet's directing along with the script from Reginald Rose has made for one of the most mind-changing and morally shattering stories that I have ever seen. With so many incredible performances for the amount of intricately-crafted characters, this movie has truly set the standard for how to make a basic premise wildly captivating.

Twelve nameless jurors deliberate after a trial in order to determine the fate of a young man who has supposedly killed his father. All but one of the jurors, Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) believe that he is guilty and are all quite strong-willed in the face of the evidence presented to them. Attempting to prevent a miscarriage of justice, Juror #8 refuses to bow down to serving a guilty verdict and over the course of this film, manages to sway every single other person in the room using nothing but his intellect and moral persuasion. This movie is easily one of the most well-written films I have ever watched. The fact that the entirety of the movie is set in one room and based around dialogue interweaving the stories of these twelve people together is absolutely riveting. The way that Rose's script introduces the personalities of all of these people and individually breaks them each down was so interesting to see. I was mostly worried about this film when I began it due to the lack of differential traits between all of the men. They all looked relatively the same and I felt like I was going to endure another case of cinematic face blindness. However, as this movie went on and on, I could almost instantly tell them all apart. Simply throughout their dialogue and emerging characteristics and even without actual names, each of the twelve main cast members became their own, strong character in which an audience member could either gravitate towards or despise. The characters were the undeniably strongest part of this film as they made for such an engrossing narrative. If only more movies nowadays were as complex and socially challenging as this one, audiences would have much clearer consciences and higher expectations for what a great film should be.

The themes and moral challenges behind 12 Angry Men makes the story that much more complex. Rose's script, through the arguments and persuasions of the twelve men, proves itself as a taxing take on moral, racial, political, and social questioning and reasoning along with uncovering personal stereotypes and facing them directly. Each character throughout this movie was forced to face something that they were not comfortable with. Whether it be personal racial prejudice against the Hispanic community from Juror #10 (Ed Begley) or simply wanting to get everything done with to get to a ballgame from Juror #7 (Jack Warden), the way that they were all written together was blended beautifully. Thankfully each character was as developed and complex as they were quirky or else this film would have been a much duller take on a legal drama. And as far as legal dramas go, this film is the epitome of one that can please any kind of audience, as the dialogue and way the characters interact are so genuinely human and understandable. I also loved how this film was able to change the audience's opinion on the alleged criminal. I began the film after knowing the evidence thinking for sure that he was guilty, but after the length that these characters went to prove me otherwise, I was convinced. Accompanied by the airtight and beautiful writing, Boris Kaufman's cinematography was incredible as well. Not once did I feel bored from being in the same room and his use of different framing and movements for the types of characters kept my eyes glued to the screen.

12 Angry Men is the gold standard for screenwriting and deserves much more love than it actually receives. While this story has been adapted many times into theatre and film, I do not believe anything could be nearly as powerful as Sidney Lumet's iteration from 1957. This movie has easily become one of my new favorites and continues to astound me as to how it is so interesting and well-written. I'll be thinking about this one for a while.

My Rating: ★★★★★

All the President's Men (1976) directed by Alan J. Pakula

AFI Top 100: #77

Alan J. Pakula's 1976 film was "the most devastating detective story of this century," but I suppose there is a reason why it was referring to the 20th century. All the President's Men is a very interesting and riveting legal drama about the two men who tried to uncover the truth about the Watergate scandal of 1972. While this film is interesting in the sense that it was made so soon after the scandal actually broke, the plot just does not hold up for today. If there were to be a legal drama investigating some of the corrupt politicians of today, I can see why this type of story would be so popular, but I could not find myself invested in this story due to its lack of relevance. Thankfully the dialogue, performances, and some beautiful cinematography made up for the lack of anything else that I found intensely dull.

Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) and Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) are both investigative reporters working for the Washington Post. While they tend to be on opposite ends of the political and social spectrum, they decide they must combine their talents into uncovering the truth behind Watergate. As they go deeper and deeper into the scandal and start discovering more clues behind what really went on in that building, they become more entangled in a web of lies and deceit that shocked the nation in the 1970s. The script of this film, written by William Goldman, is a direct adaptation of the novel actually written by Bernstein and Woodward themselves. This was the main reason why I found this film to be so constantly dull throughout. Bernstein and Woodward are obviously not screenwriters and have no sense of how to pace a story for dramatic tension and I do not think Goldman had a strong idea of how to adapt it either. This story simply felt so informational throughout and while it was undoubtedly interesting to see how many people were wrapped up in this scandal and had their lives changed, it did not make for the most captivating narrative. I'm sure back in 1976 when this film was released and the Nixon presidency was hot on everyone's minds, this film was a lot more interesting. However, with the lack of expository context in the beginning, it is obvious that this movie is a political product of its time.

Hoffman and Redford's performances were definitely the best aspect of All the President's Men. Despite the often tedious subject matter, their chemistry together is unparalleled. The way that they were able to embody each of their respective characters was fantastic to see and made the dialogue throughout this movie fascinating. Watching through the AFI Top 100 has definitely given me an appreciation for the dedication and talent of actors throughout the 20th century and especially Dustin Hoffman. After seeing him in these various different types of roles and how his persona has progressed throughout those years has definitely helped him to become one of my favorite actors of this period. Alan J. Pakula's direction and Gordon Willis' cinematography helped to make this movie a clean, tangible production and I'm glad that at least those two's creative minds were focused on making the story interesting for the audience. Pakula handled this story very well and even though this film is a bit long, I could not feel any hiccups in the pacing or storytelling. He tried his best to make the repetitive use of sets and themes vaguely interesting and he did a great job in that regard. Willis' cinematography was great as well. Again, for only using a few sets and having limited creative space, he has proven himself a master of his craft. The many wide shots and two shots helped to set the tone of this narrative and along with the nearly ominous use of television in his shots, helped to create a decently tense atmosphere.

All the President's Men is clearly a product of its time. That is not a bad thing at all, but I am just plainly able to see how Oscar bait-y this entire production was for 1976. Even though the story was not the most exciting, Hoffman and Redford provided some incredible performances and their pure chemistry kept me invested all throughout this film.

My Rating: ★★★½

Observe and Report (2009) directed by Jody Hill

Every once and a while, after a long week of stress and analyzing films that are worth my time, I like to kick back and watch a horribly dumb movie as a nice little palette cleanser. Luckily for me, Jody Hill's Observe and Report is available on Netflix and this was the perfect film to encapsulate that mindless absurdity. This movie is a terribly offensive and completely uninspired underdog film about a mall security guard who aspires to become something greater. Containing all of the aged, crude humor that one would expect from Seth Rogen at this point in his career, this movie really does have it all. Yet despite every little detail of what's wrong with this film, there is no doubt that it is still a mildly enjoyable watch when you need to shut your brain off for a good hour and a half.

Ronnie (Seth Rogen) is the bipolar head of security at a local shopping mall at which a perverted streaker has been recently exposing himself to innocent women. As Ronnie tries to track down and find the suspect, he is faced with a much bigger challenge of balancing his own ego with that of the new Detective Harrison (Ray Liotta), who has been assigned to the case. As with most Seth Rogen comedies, they may be full of dumb humor but they have a simple and relatively straightforward plot. There are so many different subplots going on throughout this film that made it incredibly hard to follow. It was obvious that Rogen and his longtime writing partner Evan Goldberg were not involved in the scripting process of this film because it would have frankly been much better. Jody Hill's writing and directing are awful and lead this movie into such an unnecessary path of ambiguity. This movie could not decide which plot it wanted to follow - whether it be Ronnie's dedication to finding the mall exposer or his dedication to becoming an actual police officer (or the dozen other, mini-plotlines that were never fully explored). Because of this, the writing just felt really lazy throughout this whole movie and very uninspired. There is no source material that I could tell this movie was based on and there definitely wasn't a clear message.

The performances in this film surely weren't anything to write home about either. Rogen does a good job of holding his own the best he can and the fact that the script was completely all over the place paved the way for his character being bipolar. Which begs the question of whether his bipolarity was actually part of the script or just arose due to the messy character motivations and development. Liotta plays the typical hardass, this time in the form of a detective also set to close the mall exposer case. Michael Peña, Anna Faris, Jesse Plemons, Colette Wolfe, Aziz Ansari, and Patton Oswalt also star in this film, but none of them were ever particularly scene-stealing. This kind of cast is honestly exactly what I would expect from a mismatched film such as this, but it's nice to see how far all of these artists have come since their more low-brow days in movies of this genre.

The humor that Hill wrote throughout this movie is expectedly the worst piece of this whole production. In films written by Rogen and Goldberg, there at least is always a trend in the humor and jokes that stay funny and come full-circle. In Observe and Report, there was nothing but loud and obnoxious, derogatory humor. The majority of the cheap laughs in this film come from characters yelling obscenities and offensive slurs at each other while getting other laughs from cheap violence and "deviant" sexual behavior. Along with the romanticization of alcohol and drug abuse with Anna Faris' character, this movie's humor is just all-around lazy. This film has not aged well at all and it's offputting to think that this film only came out ten years ago with the type of humor that it has. However, I'm at least glad to see that our culture has evolved to not be complacent with writing like this.

Observe and Report is quite a wild ride of a film and unfortunately, not in a good way. The multiple, confusing plotlines and the entire cast of unlikable characters make this movie such an interesting piece to analyze. And when I say interesting, I really mean "easy to tear down." I love you Seth Rogen, but there's a reason why audiences tend to focus on the current and much better period of your career.

My Rating: ★½

Jaws (1975) directed by Steven Spielberg

AFI Top 100: #56

Everyone knows the music, everyone knows the suspense, and anyone who is anyone knows that this is one of the best thriller/monster/horror films ever made. Steven Spielberg's Jaws is an incredible film with a great cast and a simple but wildly effective story. It's very difficult to truly describe how influential and legendary this movie is without seeing it yourself and being able to draw the iconic comparisons. The characters are complex, the practical effects are groundbreaking, and the edge-of-your-seat cinematography is sure to make the hair stand up on the back of your head. Adapted from the terrifying novel by Peter Benchley, this movie has practically set the guidelines on how to make a horrifying film of this genre.

Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) is the ironically aquaphobic chief of police on Amity Island, a small town whose beaches and town shops get most of their business during the summertime. When a young girl is killed by an unknown attacker, the residents of the island start to get skeptical about how safe the water actually is. Unbeknownst to all of them, there is a predatorial great white shark stalking the beaches and killing people off one by one. With the help of oceanologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and local shark hunter Quint (Robert Shaw), Brody must track down and kill the monster once and for all. This narrative is as classic as it is engaging. There is an endless plethora of monster and water-based shark films nowadays and Jaws has set the bar for how they should be made. Peter Benchley and Carl Gottlieb's script paired with Spielberg's emerging direction makes this film the amazing story that it is. This movie is a film about hunting a killer shark as much as it is about family and the importance of protecting the ones you love. Brody is shown to be such a family man and even though he has gone through a traumatic experience in the water as a child, does not stop when it comes to protecting his own. Brody is the most interestingly developed character throughout this whole film. The divisive feelings in him between wanting to shut down the beaches while simultaneously having to please the mayor and local government is awesome. Being able to see how torn he was between these different motivations is fantastic character writing and makes for such an interesting story. This of course was aided by the often comedic relief of Hooper and the begrudging stubbornness of Quint.

The performances from these main three actors were amazing. Even though none of them particularly stood out among the rest, they have embodied these now iconic characters incredibly well. All of the technical aspects of this film are what help it to become such an intense experience as they all work together beautifully well. Bill Butler's cinematography is so detail-oriented as he has proven himself a master of framing and composition. There are endless perfect shots from this film that are as legendary as Bruce the shark himself. The timeless John Williams' score has become a staple in pop culture as Williams name has become household commonplace when discussing great soundtracks; this film is no exception. The practical effects done for the shark in this film are legendary as well. This part of the movie would not have been as terrifying if it were done in CGI or any other means than realistically. Animatronics have come a long way since the release of this movie, but that does not change how effective the shark actually is. And of course, Spielberg's direction in this movie cemented his career as an incredible storyteller. The narrative moves along so nicely and maintains an amazing balance of human and shark drama. My only issue with this film is the second half during the actual hunting of the shark. This film is paced so well throughout, but in the second half when the three men go out for the hunt, it seems to drag in many places. Every aspect of the writing was necessary to build up to the final, explosive, scene between Brody and the shark, but there were some establishing scenes while the men were on the boat that I just found a bit dull.

Jaws is a classic and a necessity for anyone who enjoys thrilling experiences. For being more than 40 years old, this movie has held up amazingly well and still manages to get a fright out of me. I would, without a doubt, recommend this film and if you hear "dun-dun-dun-dun" behind you, swim as fast as you can (but you may already be too late).

My Rating: ★★★★½

The Wild Bunch (1969) directed by Sam Peckinpah

AFI Top 100: #79

I'm not sure what else I was expecting when watching a western released in 1969 other than a bunch of old, white men trying their best. Trying their best to keep up with the changing landscape, trying their best to stay out of prison, and trying their best to make even a decently entertaining story. Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch is an incredibly dull western filled with performances that I could not even tell apart and a narrative so overused that I feel could have been given even a tad bit of effort. I understand the cultural context of the time and the fact that this is a higher-budget film than most others from that year, but that doesn't change that this film is the epitome of the reason why I can't tolerate this genre. And even better evidence as to why the target audience of this movie was straight, white men. And this is coming from a straight, white man (which we don't need any more of in Hollywood or else they'll keep pumping out movies like this).

Pike Bishop (William Holden) and Dutch Engstrom (Ernest Borgnine) are two criminals who lead a ragtag group of outlaws that call themselves The Wild Bunch. When this group of traditionalist cowboys decide to make one last big score, they must travel down to Mexico to pull it off. What they're faced with, however, is not just the Mexican town's evil general Mapache (Emilio Fernández), but having to face their own mortality while attempting to stay relevant. This undoubtedly seems like a fresh and interesting take on a story of this genre and it would have been if it weren't for the director's over-reliance on graphic violence. The main issue that makes this film so unbelievably dull is the fact that a good hour and a half was solely dedicated to gunfights and tumultuous action sequences. Perhaps people in this time period really were fed up with watching arthouse cinema and wanted nonstop blood and gore, but this movie sure suffered from that. If so many of these unnecessary scenes were taken out, the movie would have honestly been the length of a television pilot. Or better yet, these repetitive gunfights could have been replaced with genuine dialogue or exposition! I could not follow this story in the slightest because of the lack of basic storytelling and this was this movie's greatest issue. Despite one interestingly-choreographed action sequence on a moving train, I simply got lost in the endless sea of flying bullets and oozing blood.

Luckily, the director of this film even recognized his faults during an interview which I have recently seen. While Sam Peckinpah's cathartic use of violence was criticized by many, he even admits that he was wrong to include such graphic scenes. It's nice to see a director realize his own issues and own up to the faults that come with it, but that still does not change the narrative at all. The performances in this film were decent but I could not actually tell you who is who. This enormous cast of characters all fit into the same old, white man category and after the film's grueling 2 hour and 25-minute runtime, I could not tell them apart for the life of me. Thankfully, it really doesn't matter because they all ended up dead in the resolution regardless of the fact that the writing never bothered to make me care about them in the first place. They entered the narrative as motivationless criminals and died that way as well. One of the most apparent issues that I have with this genre is the fact that the writing always seems forced. Walon Green and Peckinpah's script is very weak and is painfully visible in many of the film's attempted narrative development scenes. There were multiple instances in which a character had to (out of nowhere) start his own conversation in order to spew out any kind of information to further the story. The dialogue and writing between this whole cast of characters were so weak as their personalities seemed to blend into one. Lou Lombardo's editing is actually the one redeeming aspect of this film. Even though it was only stylized the way it was to serve the function of the mundane action, it was mildly exciting and reminiscent of the way every action movie nowadays is cut.

The Wild Bunch only adds fuel to my fiery argument that 1969 was the weirdest and most bewildering year for the study of film history. I completely understand the reasons why this film has become such a "classic"; I mean, who doesn't love racial typecasting and mindless gunfights? I just can not understand why people hail this film so much when it clearly hasn't aged well at all.

My Rating: ★★

Unicorn Store (2017) directed by Brie Larson

Brie Larson's directorial debut Unicorn Store is almost as magical and awe-inspiring as its title suggests. This film is a strange, indie flick that was picked up by Netflix recently after its festival circuit a few years back. For as talented and well-versed in current cinematic history as Larson is, I found it quite difficult to follow along with this movie's nonsensical plot points and quirky character elements. Even though the entire cast involved gave out incredible performances and Larson's directing worked very smoothly, it was hard for me to follow along with the majority of this story. And it really wasn't until the very end that I was able to actually figure out what the overlying message was. Thankfully, none of this changes the fact that Kit is one of the most adorable characters ever.

Kit (Brie Larson) is a young woman who, after recently getting kicked out of her dream art school, has taken up residence once again with her parents Gladys (Joan Cusack) and Gene (Bradley Whitford). After taking a temp position at a public relations firm to prove to her parents that she's an adult, she receives a strange letter from a salesman (Samuel L. Jackson) promising all of her childhood dreams to come true. In the form of a unicorn that she had wanted since she was a kid. This sounds like a total blast of a film, able to tap into the childlike and wondrous world of unicorns and never giving up on your goals. Unfortunately, Samantha McIntyre's script is this film's biggest issue. I have read many critics who have stated that this movie is too childish for adults but too adult for children and I could not agree any more with that criticism. I love and adore this story and what it could have become, but I think a more solid choice on the direction of its tone would have greatly benefitted it. This film attempts to tackle more adult issues such as sexual harassment and also more childish themes such as growing up and becoming your own person, but that balance was just not there. Unicorn Store still has a happy ending accompanied by a cute score and colorful wonder, but not much else. This movie is really just a cute way of spending 92 minutes, but thankfully, it's time decently well spent.

The greatest elements of this film that made it so much fun to watch were the performances and Larson's beautiful direction. Brie Larson's performance as Kit was the standout of this entire movie and whether the story was pandering to adults or children, she played the perfect naive and imaginative girl. Her art skills and quirky personality led to one of the cutest characters I have ever seen and her unrelenting optimism was so commendable. Kit's cluelessness in regards to the scary things and dark themes of this film made for one of the most wholesome and lovable characters. I also loved Samuel L. Jackson's performance as the salesman of the store. I have noticed a lot of his roles recently becoming more exuberant rather than dark and dramatic and I honestly love it. His career has gone in enough dark places where he should be allowed to play these fun roles. Joan Cusack, Bradley Whitford, and Mamoudou Athie as Kit's friend Virgil were all also great in their roles. Larson's directing throughout this film was incredible. Despite the script being messy and weak at times, it is clear that she has a great handle on how to tell a story. She nailed the aesthetic and feel of this world while pacing a story out in a nice, quick time.

Unicorn Store is a very charming and magical little film that manages to just barely get by on its cute and (almost) relatable story. Even though this movie definitely suffers from finding its exact target audience, I still love and appreciate Larson's directing and overall efforts when it comes to telling a story that is important to her.

My Rating: ★★★

Shazam! (2019) directed by David F. Sandberg

Whatever god you pray to, take a moment tonight to thank him for this film. In my case, I pray to David F. Sandberg and his incredible revitalization of the DC cinematic universe. Shazam! is an amazing superhero film that taps into the pure heart and joy of childhood that any audience member can adore. Breaking the trend of darker themes and doom and gloom that has become symbolic with DC films, this movie is such a refreshing break from that tone and proof that this cinematic universe has found its feet and is heading in the right direction. Paired with such energetic performances and an adorable story, I have never felt this delightful about a DC film since Christopher Reeves' Superman days.

Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a foster kid who always runs from the families assigned to him, scared of making a lasting kind of connection. After hesitantly befriending the kids of a new foster home, he runs away yet again but finds himself stuck in a strange land and gains the power of the mystical wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsou). Learning to harness his powers as a goofy adult (Zachary Levi) and balance his family life, Billy also learns he must stop the evil supervillain Dr. Sivana (Mark Strong), who wants to take his powers from him once and for all. The writing in this film from Henry Gayden and Darren Lemke was the most extraordinary aspect. Based on the characters of the same names from DC Comics, Shazam may be one of the most powerful and flamboyant superheroes but is unfortunately much lesser-known. The balance in this film between the source content of the comics and the screenplay is what makes this story stand out so much. Not once was the audience left behind in a state of confusion after introducing something random solely for the sake of pleasing deep-cut comic fans; in fact, the simplicity of this film is what makes it so successful. The age-old tale of good vs. evil was introduced early on in great backstory for Sivana while paving the way for Batson's story as well. Sivana never wanted world domination or for humanity to end, he just wanted Shazam's powers as he felt he had been wronged as a kid. Because of that, this movie felt much more small-scale than other superhero films of this time and that honestly was a perfect choice.

Sandberg's directing makes for the pure joy that emanates from this film. He was able to perfectly encapsulate the feeling of a kid turning into a superhero and the little wonders that come with that. Without pandering too much to children or too much to adults, his balance of this tone was amazing. Zachary Levi and Asher Angel's performances only added to this as well. Both of these actors playing the same character were such a good match with each other and their chemistry was so tight that I could not even tell when either of them took over. The pure, fun energy that radiated from them during so many of this film's child-like and wondrous scenes was so exciting to see. This also is aided by the movie's quick editing from Michael Aller and the bright colors of the production design from Jennifer Spence. Along with Aquaman, this movie is undoubtedly the brightest and most colorful of the DC films, which just gives a nice extra layer of hope for this studio's future films.

The best element of this film, however, is the tender message behind the superhero action of it all. This movie follows the life of Billy as he tries to track down his mom, who he believes simply lost him as a child. Once he finds out that she purposely didn't think she would be able to care for him, his sense of true family becomes shattered. However, with the addition of the other foster kids in the home that Billy is put into, he is able to find the true family that he knows he can love and trust. Not only does this movie shed much-needed light on the foster system, but the way that this family interacts is also so genuinely wholesome. Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer), Mary (Grace Fulton), Darla (Faithe Herman), Eugene (Ian Chen), and Pedro (Jovan Armand), fostered by parents Rosa (Marta Milans) and Victor (Cooper Andrews) are all such good choices for their roles and made such an authentic and diverse family. Along with a few humorous scenes that tied their lives together, Billy is able to find his home with them. This message of finding your true family is beautiful and never ceases to warm your heart. I also had no idea that the Shazam family would be making their appearance either, so that was such a pleasant and well-earned surprise.

Shazam! is pure, comic book joy and such a refreshing break from the dark days of superheroes in both the Marvel and DC cinematic universes. Levi and Angel are fantastic as the role of Billy Batson and the endearing message behind this movie never fails to miss its mark. I would strongly, strongly suggest this film (even if you're not a superhero fan), as it provides one of the most fun times one could have in a movie theater.

My Rating: ★★★★

Batman (1989) directed by Tim Burton

Arguably the best iteration of these iconic characters ever made, Tim Burton's superhero classic Batman is an extraordinary feat in 20th-century blockbuster filmmaking. Many point to this film when discussing the birth of the often-dreaded franchise era, but I do not think there could have been any better choice of film to kick off this generation. This movie may not take too much from its original source material but that honestly does not matter when it comes to its storytelling. Batman provides such a clean and simple story on its own while setting up a sequel very nicely. Along with iconic performances from Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson and a timeless Danny Elfman score, this film is an incredible classic that never ceases to entertain.

At this point in our culture, we all know the origin story of Bruce Wayne and his vigilante alter ego Batman. It has been done countless times in television and film to the point of the idea of parents being killed becoming a joke. But for those who for some reason don't know, Bruce Wayne is an orphaned billionaire who takes up crime-fighting as the Batman, a ruthless and terrifying figure that haunts the criminals of Gotham City. When a crime boss named Jack Napier becomes a more threatening force in the city known as The Joker, Batman is forced to face his past to fight his present. This film was the first time on camera that mainstream audiences have seen the darker origin story of this character and how he came to be and I adore the way that Burton sets up this world. The writing throughout this film from Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren is especially incredible, as it provides an extremely concise story that any audience can easily get on board with without having to be a connoisseur of comic history. Even though the root of this story comes from the classic comics, the way that Burton presented it was amazing. This movie really did not require a sequel due to the clean way that this story wrapped up, but that's just the way things worked after this movie kicked off the blockbuster phenomenon still happening today.

The writing and directing in this film was amazing but the elements that really make this movie unforgettable are the performances, score, and overall design. Michael Keaton stars as Bruce Wayne alongside Jack Nicholson starring as The Joker. Their respective performances were fantastic as they brought so much life to each of their roles. Keaton will forever be many audiences' favorite Batman and he definitely holds his own as the playboy crime-fighter. While some actors who have played this iconic character are better as either Wayne or Batman, Keaton fit the role of both so incredibly well. Even though he apparently despised the role during production, Nicholson was fantastic as the Clown Prince of Crime. Even though his look and stoutness may not exactly fit the comic persona of this villain, Nicholson brings such a different and passionate energy to his antagonistic presence. Equal parts hilarious and terrifying, Nicholson will forever be the perfect Joker.

Burton's style is very (thankfully) evident in the production design of this film, done by the late Anton Furst. Their work together on the sets of this movie makes for one of the greatest experiences to see on screen. The way that the different sets play into the feel of this film is incredible. It truly feels straight out of a comic book and the almost childish ways that the Joker commits his crimes contrasts so well to the dark hero work of the protagonist. The legendary Danny Elfman composed the catchy score for this film as well and is really a part of telling this story as much as the writing or directing. The main Batman theme will forever be impounded into my head, as it is still used in so many different types of media. The music in this film works so well with everything else to tell the story and the nostalgic feeling that I get listening to it is incomparable.

Batman is the pure definition of a comic book brought to life. The production design, acting, music, and every other minuscule detail put into this movie make this story so wildly entertaining. I can only imagine being a kid in 1989 when this film opened in theaters and the pure joy that it brought to many different faces: the same way it does to me and many others still in this day and age.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Coco (2017) directed by Lee Unkrich, Adrian Molina

I'll be honest when I say that Disney films typically do not do anything for me. Every film's narrative is milked to such a large extent simply to get some kind of emotional response from the audience while disguising the fact that there's really nothing special about the story. Sure, I love the animation and the overlying themes are always cute but it's rare that one actually impresses me. Which is why I love Coco so much more than many others. This film is a surprisingly great story about the power of music and how it can resonate throughout generations of family. Even though it has the exact same beats as any other film of this genre, I loved the representation throughout the film and the powerful message that Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina actually make fresh.

Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) is a young boy living in Mexico with his often overprotective family. They act this way towards him because of a wrongdoing by his great-great-grandfather who left the family to become a musician. Despite being tight-knit and respectable, Miguel still decides to pursue his passion for playing the guitar and on Día de Los Muertos, he finds himself trapped in the land of the dead until he can get the courage and blessing to get home. This narrative, while cute in itself as the story of Miguel never giving up on his passions, is more of a focus on the importance of family and not harboring old grudges. I loved this aspect of the writing, as it gave audiences a much wider look at the family's journey through the many troubles and hardships of their past. Aided of course by an adorable and child-friendly way of telling the story, the way that the skeletons of Miguel's family were used to help his adventure was incredible to see. These amazing designs and creative forms of storytelling were, of course, due to the backgrounds and culture of the characters. What makes this film stand out so much amongst others is the representation. The entire lead cast and their characters are of Spanish and Mexican descent which paved the way for such an authentic experience that did not attempt to water down the culture of these people whatsoever.

While I did enjoy the characters and relatively fun story, this film is still plagued with mediocrity and a constant state of pandering. The story still follows every single beat that one would expect from a film of this genre and even though there is nothing particularly errant or nonsensical about the story, I get easily bored of the same tale over and over again. The themes may be presented in different ways with various characters and slightly amusing comedic relief, but it does not change the fact that this studio has a formula for raking in cash and doesn't ever want to abandon that. Say what you will about other Hollywood studios and conglomerates, but Disney has undoubtedly figured out the perfect combination of nostalgia and social relativity to sell their mediocre products by the millions. My biggest creative complaint about this movie, however, comes from the style of animation that has been overused to the point of distaste. There were only a few shots of this film in which I could actually feel that technological magic from the animation, but the majority of this movie is pressed out of a cookie cutter to form into whatever story may be needed. The opening sequence was intriguing but I really wish that Disney would start to take some more creative risks to make the visual storytelling aspect of their films more enjoyable. But this will always be overshadowed to audiences by the addition of the goofy companion character; in this case, Dante. He was a really cute dog, though.

Coco is a great piece of animated cinema that, while generic in most of its aspects, succeeds in providing something fresh in terms of representation and decent visuals. While I was able to easily follow along with the predictable plot, I did at least really enjoy the catchy music and fun characters that Unkrich and Molina have created.

My Rating: ★★★