Platoon (1986) directed by Oliver Stone

AFI Top 100: #86

One of my biggest complaints about Francis Ford Coppola's classic Apocalypse Now was that it seemed to take advantage of the people and culture of Vietnam all for the sake of showing how horrible that war actually was. This comes off as darkly ironic to me and even though the movie still brings awareness to the gruesome tragedies of that time, Platoon is really just a case of "Coppola walked so Oliver Stone could run". Platoon is a fantastic war film showcasing not just how horrible our country acted during the war but also a mighty slew of young talent that would grow up to become household names, for better or worse. This movie does everything that Coppola's wanted to and thankfully without the excessive violence and lack of character development that was visible in his vision of this story. Despite the subject matter not aging well in regards to its relevance, I loved this movie and how it portrayed the absolute horrors of the United States' time in Vietnam.

Platoon follows a young soldier named Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) as he begins his yearlong shipment out to fight in Vietnam during the '70s. Even though he was not chosen by the draft, Taylor volunteers to fight for his country but soon discovers the hellish landscape that the war has created in the fight against both the enemies and his fellow soldiers. There are a countless number of comparisons between this film and Coppola's, but I feel like that is the best way to get my point across about why I enjoyed this so much more. What I truly appreciated about this film much more than any aspect of Apocalypse Now was the idea that every decision made by U.S. soldiers and every life they chose to take was up to their own free will. No one was necessarily making them pull the triggers and kill innocent Vietnamese villagers, but the soldiers decided to do that purely based on their pent-up rage about the situation that they were put in. I feel as if deep down, the hatred radiating from many of this film's characters was simply due to their basic desire for safety and wanting to go home. This was such an engaging theme for this film to tackle, and it made way for a lot of riveting character development, especially in how Taylor's humanitarian views contrasted that of the other soldiers. Taylor was the most captivating character to watch during this entire film because of these actual traits that Stone's script gave to him. I adored the framing narrative of Taylor's narration and the letters to his grandmother. Not only did it give the film and its characters a more human feel, but it also had a much more pleasing direction for the audience to follow along with, which is arguably better than Coppola's extravagant, Hollywood Renaissance tone.

Apocalypse Now seemed to show that war against the Vietnamese people was inevitable, which it really was not. The sense of nationalism that audiences get from watching fighter jets mindlessly obliterate villages while "Flight of the Valkyries" blares is nothing short of a cinematic spectacle, but does absolutely nothing when it comes to being unbiased about what happened in the years the USA was in Vietnam. This movie tells the story of what went down in Vietnam in a much more multi-dimensional way than any other film. The honesty that comes out of Platoon is what makes it feel much more authentic, as the characters in this film were not there to purely destroy anything in their path but rather because they were forced. I loved the scenes with the soldiers bonding over getting high and talking smack to each other, because it naturally felt like what soldiers would actually be doing. A leading theme in regards to the film's black characters, including King (Keith David), Harold (Forest Whitaker), and Junior (Reggie Johnson), is that they all vehemently opposed the war, but had no choice because of the country they lived in. Their audible careless attitudes made for such an interesting dynamic between all of these characters and definitely showed that people of different backgrounds and nationalities will always have different opinions when it comes to going to war with foreign countries. All of these themes and ideas that Stone's script introduced were played out excellently by the cast. Charlie Sheen, Willen Dafoe, Tom Berenger, Francesco Quinn, and others were fantastic choices for their roles. They all balanced perfectly on the line of upcoming stardom with lesser-known potential, bringing fantastic life to their characters.

Platoon is an extraordinary feat in storytelling as Oliver Stone's direction makes this film a highly memorable and touching experience. Despite being released more than a decade after the war's end, this film cements itself as the most honest and progressive look at how our country, unfortunately, handled themselves in the 1970s. Boasting a then unknown cast of talent, this movie has truly become a war classic and an important part of film history.

My Rating: ★★★★

Support the Girls (2018) directed by Andrew Bujalski

The worst type of feeling is being late to see a film from a previous year that you just know would have made its way into not just your list of favorites, but your heart as well. Andrew Bujalski's Support the Girls is definitely one of these films, as it might have been one of the best ones of 2018. This movie is an incredibly warm and honest look at a group of working-class girls working for a roadside bar and grill called Double Whammies operated by a loving manager. This entire cast makes this film truly come to life, as each character is fleshed out in such painfully real ways that will make the audience feel for them more than anything else. While some may see this film as exploitative of these actresses, the script and energetic performances from the cast completely prove that otherwise, paving the way for one of the most down-to-earth and realistic films as of late.

Lisa (Regina Hall) is the manager of a roadside "sports bar with curves," a meeting place for the local folk of the small town in Texas where she lives. Over the course of one day, everything that she is accustomed to gets tested, but despite so much drama going wrong in her life, she knows that she will always have her employees, and more importantly her girls, to fall back on. The greatest piece of this film, both written and directed by Andrew Bujalski, is how raw and authentic the story and its characters are. Lisa is written to be the most caring and dedicated manager who truly puts up with everything. Throughout everything that she has to handle, however, it is plain to see how much she cares for and supports the girls that work for her. Through the restaurant's policies and five golden rules, a healthy and loving environment had been created in Double Whammies and under Lisa's care, it is obvious how rigid she is on enforcing these rules, and for good reason. Mirroring the production of this film, I could see how comfortable the actresses were telling this story, despite how uncomfortable and slightly taboo the subject may be. The employees were also a huge part in telling this story, as each character was developed so well and each stood out on their own. Maci (Haley Lu Richardson) was the hopelessly optimistic and loyal right-hand woman to Lisa and would do anything for their restaurant. Jennelle (Dylan Gelula) was the new recruit that was willing to push the boundaries of right and wrong in order to make a bit more money. While these characters were given the most time on screen to develop and show the various personality types, all of the other girls worked very well to tell this overall story. I simply adored how all of these characters came together to create this authentic setting and how the script was not afraid to incorporate so much real-life drama into the film, especially in Lisa's arc.

As the new sports bar named Mancave was moving into town, it was interesting to see how much Double Whammies contrasted the nationwide franchise, particularly regarding how they treated their employees. A great aspect of this script was how they included this local competition and to see how much more hard work and care goes into independent restaurants. This created some much-needed drama to pair alongside the drama going on in Lisa's life with her husband and former employees stealing money. There was so much emotion put into writing the stories of these girls and I loved how Bujalski directed them all as well. Bujalski never relies on solely showing off the bodies of the actresses or taking a hard turn into dark drama, but hovers on the line between them to create a great balance of tension and authenticity. This film absolutely radiates pure heart and the way that he treats these characters is clearly out of love. The indie tone that he also established helped with this too, as anything he could have done to make this story feel more "Hollywood" would have ruined its effect. Matthias Grunsky's cinematography is another critical part of how the movie feels. The slightly shaky camera and vast use of wide shots make this world feel so empty when it needed to, but so loving in the right moments as well. Hall, Richardson, and the rest of the cast's performances in this film helped to tell its story in such a genuine way. Once again, I could tell that the cast felt comfortable in this world and that is beyond important in telling this kind of tender story. Not to mention that the last, cathartic scene of this film feels so well-deserved.

Support the Girls is a fantastic, feminist film that deals with struggles of the middle and lower class in such honest ways that are beautiful to see. Accompanied by a cast full of thoroughly talented actresses and perfect cinematography, this film accurately paints a picture of the pure heart and devotion that goes into supporting your second family.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Network (1976) directed by Sidney Lumet

AFI Top 100: #64

Another one of Sidney Lumet's incredible directorial feats, 1976's Network is a fantastic satirical film showcasing the many issues surrounding the television industry at that time. Although many of this film's aspects may have been a bit exaggerated for dramatic effect, the performances and the script lend themselves to creating a decently intriguing story. Released in a time when the business of the small screen was as harrowing as the business of film in today's age, this movie has a fantastic story interweaving the many subplots to create an engaging narrative. Even though the direction might not have been paced all too well, this is still a great film to analyze, especially to see how Lumet's style has evolved over the years.

After countless years of reporting for UBS, Howard Beale (Peter Finch) has an existential explosion live on air one night and threatens to commit public suicide. While UBS wants to fire him, the failing television network's executives see an intense spike in ratings and realize that they need to keep Beale's voice to survive. With a cast of characters all turning on each other for the sake of the network, they end up exploiting Beale in this look at how far one would go for the views. This movie attempts to cover a variety of topics, not just the exploitation of damaged individuals, but also themes such as betrayal and differing personal values. Things that I loved about this movie include its examination into these characters and how they interacted when faced with how to keep their company alive. Despite this film feeling a bit too long for its own good, I enjoyed the relationship between Max Schumacher (William Holden) and Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) and how their contrasting motivations led to their interesting subplot. Diana's story is fine on its own as it begins with a great, feminist purpose climbing up the ranks of this network, but unfortunately, she is almost made out to be a villain in this film's second half. I did not completely understand the reason for why she became so narrow-minded and despicable towards the second half of the film, but I'm at least glad that her story was given validity throughout the movie. The way that this cast of characters interacted was great as well, including the slew of other executives such as Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall), Nelson Chaney (Wesley Addy), and Arthur Jensen (Ned Beatty). All of the performances in this film were very charismatic as they each brought a certain light to their roles. This, of course, was aided by the intelligent and concise dialogue in the script written by Paddy Chayefsky. Elegance easily radiated from the pages onto the screen to make every word that was spoken engaging.

While the basic elements of making a film interesting were covered well in Network, there were a lot of the more technical elements that I felt were lacking. The cinematography from Owen Roizman was consistently dull and I could not differentiate many of this film's characters. While that also may be in part because of the lack of interesting production design, there were not that many shots that stood out to me at all. And especially in a film like this which deals with low-action drama, the camera has to be able to adapt to keep the audience's eyes on the screen. Other issues that I had include Lumet's generic direction and an absence of relevance. Lumet's pacing throughout this movie was not very smooth, as I feel this was much longer than it realistically needed to be. I became very unenthused towards the second act, as this could have moved a whole lot quicker. Of course, this criticism is mirrored by a monologue from Max towards the end of his relationship with Diana in which he is talking about their affair as if it were a script. These comparisons were a bit too on-the-nose for me and I felt that much of this film's attempted tension was too exaggerated for the sake of satire. Particularly the conclusion, in which the irony of Beale getting killed live on air was a bit too nonsensical. I also had a lot of trouble relating to this film's subject matter because television is not nearly as important as it once was. I'm certain that television executives are not nearly as lively or involved as many of these characters were, but then again, without that part of the writing, this film would be even duller. I can understand why this film is considered a screenwriting classic due to its exquisite handling of the themes, but I just could not get behind some of its strange choices throughout.

Sidney Lumet's Network is a terrific look into the world of television and how these characters treated each other, even though I'm certain much of this was dramatized a bit too much. Though not nearly as riveting or dramatic as 12 Angry Men, I still enjoyed this film and can appreciate the value of how impactful it must have been when it was released.

My Rating: ★★★½

Toy Story 4 (2019) directed by Josh Cooley

It seems that with each generation that grows up and goes to the movies, there is another film in this franchise to accompany them while being raised. The newest installment in Pixar's most valuable and beloved franchise, Toy Story 4 is frankly a sequel that nobody asked for. With the perfect ending of its predecessor, it is hard to imagine what this film could have done to surpass that emotional level that was set almost a decade ago. However, even though my opinions about its relevance remain the same, I am glad that this film is a worthy addition to these incredible characters' stories. This animated film is actually fantastic on its own and introduces some lovable new toys that help to tell this tale as well. Even though I have some blatant issues with its storytelling, I was overjoyed to once again be a part of these characters' world that I grew up with so many years ago.

Set after the emotional ending of Toy Story 3, Bonnie (Madeleine McGraw) is getting ready to start her first day of kindergarten. While Woody (Tom Hanks) worries about Bonnie not being able to find her place, she ends up creating a new friend of her own, an existential utensil named Forky (Tony Hale). As Woody tries to find his place amongst Bonnie's vast collection of toys, Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and the rest of the gang end up going on a road trip and discover that the world is a much bigger place for a toy than they had ever thought. One of the outstanding worries that people have had since the announcement of this film was whether or not this sequel was really necessary. Since the third film ended on such a heartbreaking yet inspiring note, it is really difficult to put in place any type of story that could top that. All of the reviews that I have read thus far about this film have stated that this movie was really a needed sequel to finish off these characters' evolutions, but I really could not feel that. While its ending is still incredibly emotional, I could not shake off the feeling of why this movie had to be made in the first place. This script, written by a slew of 8 different screenwriters, tells me everything I need to know. This movie had to be written and advised by so many different people that it ended up being just a conglomeration of themes and ideas. Thankfully, this movie does not come off as an easy cash-grab as Josh Cooley's direction managed to tie all of these ideas together very well. Nostalgia is a large factor in this, as this movie is not afraid to play on it for the sake of getting some emotion out of its story. However, this film did have the same small-scale adventure feel that made 1995's Toy Story so creative and unique.

The main issues I have with this film, despite its failure to establish its reason for existing, all come from how the original characters from this franchise were written. More than anything, this movie is about Woody and how his arc comes to an end. I did enjoy how the writers gave him a proper sendoff, but I just do not enjoy how there was so little development with literally everyone else. The first three films in this series do have individual arcs, but they are truly stories of this group as a whole, which is what I love about them so dearly. I felt like Toy Story 4 gave far too much power to Woody's story, making me very unsatisfied with how every other character was treated. Jessie had probably four lines throughout this entire film and her ending did not quite feel deserved. Buzz was written as an absolute moron, as if he had just come out of the box in the first film. I understand that one should not necessarily compare this film to previous entries, but it is very difficult not to with an outstanding series such as this one. Perhaps it is personal bias or perhaps I missed something, but I fail to understand why Woody was given such special treatment in this movie in a franchise based around friendship and togetherness. And even though there is not a conventional villain in this film, the resolution of Woody's story with the rest of the gang will leave you in tears and still manages to be well-done. Audiences will still enjoy this ending, as long as they are fans of the Sheriff and literally no one else.

Despite me being much more critical than I have been in previous years, there is always a lot to love about this universe. It is always fantastic to explore another story with these characters that I have grown up to love so much. Especially regarding the plot of this movie, it was great seeing how huge their world really was and seeing them realize the many different paths that a toy could take in its life. With the reintroduction of Bo Peep (Annie Potts), this movie paved a message of moving on and creating your own path which I adored. Though not asked for, Woody's arc provided a very moving experience for the audience. The absolute standout characters in this film, however, are the new additions, including Forky, Duke Caboom (Keanu Reeves), Ducky (Keegan-Michael Key) and Bunny (Jordan Peele). They were all hilarious as this set of iconic voices fit their roles so well. The humor in this movie surprised me as well at how tight and creative it was. Cooley's direction provided a great blend of genres and when the comedy hits, it hits hard. One thing I also adore about this franchise is watching as the animation throughout the years evolves. Particularly in this film's opening flashback scene, the crispness and detail that Pixar puts into this world is nothing less than stunning.

Toy Story 4, while unfortunately fighting to validate its existence, is still a hilarious and vastly entertaining film that anyone who is a fan of this franchise will undoubtedly enjoy. I had many issues with the majority of the original set of characters throughout this film and the way that they were handled, but I am glad that the main (arguably) character was given such a sweet and heartwarming ending to his story.

My Rating: ★★★★

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) directed by Michael Dougherty

Oh my sweet baby Mothra, you deserved so much better. Continuing the universe established by its predecessor and Kong: Skull Island, Godzilla: King of the Monsters aims to make this new monster-verse even bigger with the introduction of more characters and more titan action. While I have not seen any of the original Godzilla films and can not speak for the mythology surrounding all of the creatures introduced in this movie, I actually enjoyed this film for the most part. Thankfully, this movie has a better balance with the stories of the monsters as well as the human characters, which I know was a large criticism for most when discussing the original 2014 film. Even though the human stories were frankly not that interesting, there is still a lot to like about this addition to the exciting franchise.

Five years after Godzilla's destruction of San Francisco, the world has only begun to get worse as the emergence of new, ancient titans has begun. With the help of scientist Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga), her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown), her ex-husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), and a slew of other almost nameless adversaries, Godzilla attempts to regain his throne from the evil, three-headed King Ghidorah. I word this synopsis in such a way that makes it seem like Godzilla is the main character and to some extent, he is. What I enjoyed the most about this film was the better balance between human stories and the ruthless action that came from the monster scenes. Absent from this franchise's previous entry, Godzilla himself actually takes the spotlight for the majority of this film and it was refreshing to see the titular character actually shine. He makes the audience feel for him in the same way that a wounded puppy makes people downhearted, instead of making people think of him as a heartless monster. As difficult as it can be to make people root for a giant, radioactive lizard, the screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Zach Shields did a very good job. And they did solid work for the characters who were actually able to talk instead of roar and shriek, too. The human story lies at the center of this film, as it revolves around a group of scientists attempting to communicate with the monsters in order to restore a natural balance. The cast in this film is massive, boasting the likes of not just Farmiga, Brown, and Chandler, but also Ken Watanabe, Bradley Whitford, Sally Hawkins, and Thomas Middleditch among many others. It was fun to see this star-studded lineup play their roles in this huge film, but I couldn't help but feel how stereotypical everything was. Each role that the actors played seemed very type-casted and the way that they were all written makes them seem extremely one-dimensional. Because of this, their stories are almost impossible to remotely feel for and the sheer amount of cast involved didn't help either.

Although the human characters' stories were not written very well, I did love the fight scenes between the monsters and the cinematography that helped as well.  Lawrence Sher's camerawork was exquisite and the way that his angles characterized the differences between the evil beasts was phenomenal to watch. The CGI in this film, while typical for a big-budget movie such as this one, also looked fantastic. Every single monster had a unique look to them that made them uniquely stand out, from the dragon-esque aesthetic of Ghidorah to the gorgeously dazzling Mothra. My only issue with the monsters throughout this film is that there were not nearly enough. One piece of the opening dialogue mentioned that there were 17 titans that roamed the earth and throughout this film, we only got to see about seven of them! Going into this film, I was expecting a battle royale with goofy creatures fighting everyone, but instead, I got a player select screen with the majority of the fighters that had to be unlocked. I was a bit underwhelmed by the use of the monsters in this way, as I feel there could have been much more entertaining action sequences around the world with the various titans. Another pet peeve of mine that this film unfortunately fell into is the element of traveling around the world and having graphic cards read where the characters are. I understand that movies like these have to be appealing to audiences across the world, but the constant reminder of globe-trotting gets on my nerves. Especially in a film like this where the characters are going absolutely everywhere possible.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfect summer blockbuster and one that is sure to please audiences from any age range. Though often forgettable and a bit too on-the-nose for me at times, this film is definite fun. As long as you go in expecting some mindlessly ridiculous monster action, you will not be disappointed.

My Rating: ★★★

Shattered Memories (2018) directed by Chris Sivertson

Imagine The Hangover mixed with the worst possible Lifetime original film that you can think of and, well, you've practically got Chris Sivertson's Shattered Memories. While I did sit through the entire thing, this film is unspeakably unwatchable. Not only did I (as well as my whole family) become so bored and started making my own commentary, but I could not see past how unbelievably shattered every aspect of this movie was. This film has the production value of a high schooler's student film but even saying that would be insulting to the creative minds of teenage students. Anyone (and I mean ANYONE) could have thought up a better story than this one and paired with the horrendous camerawork and lighting, I simply can not find one good aspect about this entire production.

Holly (Elizabeth Bogush) wakes up one morning next to the corpse of her previous night's hookup Ray (Brad Schmidt); who definitely isn't her husband, either. While she makes her way around the city communicating with her sisters and band of friends, she attempts to solve the mystery of what happened the night before - before anyone else can discover that Ray is gone. Every issue that I have with this film can be summed up by one shot towards the beginning of this story: when Holly gets dropped off at her house by an Uver. Not an Uber, an Uver. This shot gave me all the information that I needed to know about this movie: the budget was low, the creativity was absent, and the attempted relation to our reality was practically nonexistent. I find it hard to believe that any rational human had agreed to take part in this production as every little detail that makes filmmaking so spectacular felt so robotic and lifeless in this movie. This movie is the epitome of gathering a bunch of white people together and shooting a quaint, little story over the course of a single weekend. Or, at least, that's what it felt like. I would be genuinely surprised if any more effort was put into the creation of this disaster. I suppose I should not be so ruthless when it comes to critiquing films, especially ones like these that I know will be mistakes, but it frustrates me beyond belief when something like this gets greenlit. I will never understand how a film like this one gets made, as the absolute lack of originality astounds me. Either Chris Sivertson himself is a robot or someone fed an AI a thousand hours of Lifetime films and it spat out this script.

I frankly do not want to spend any more time discussing what I hated most about this film, as I'm sure you get the point. But now that I'm worked up, I'm going to do it anyways. Every performance in this film was plastic at best. Bogush and Schmidt, along with others including Eddie Kaye Thomas, Sarah Lind, and Philip Boyd, were completely atrocious. Their over-the-top acting did not fit this film's tone at all, which is a compliment to even say that the film attempted to have a tone. The script, also written by Chris Sivertson, is a travesty in and of itself, as he might as well have been pressing the auto-predict feature on an iPhone. Every line spoken throughout this movie is so one-dimensional and cliched, that it's actually painful to listen to. I may not agree with the messages behind why certain movies are made, but I can at least appreciate that there's a message. If there's one thing that makes me despise a film more than anything, it's a lack of reason. While the story made absolutely no sense and there wasn't a single, cohesive thought in this entire production, one might think that maybe the technical aspects are somewhat salvageable. You would be wrong. The cinematography from Chris Heinrich was at least usable, but showed no basic thought at all. The only shot that sticks out in my mind would be the opening one, as the camera spins to reveal the body lying behind Holly. I must admit that I had a wee sliver of hope with that first shot, but that was quickly dashed away. Anjoum Agrama's editing made for, perhaps, the worst viewing experience I have ever had. Cutting after shots were visibly supposed to end, unfocused color grading, terrible flashback sequences, and audio that didn't even match the actors and actresses' lips are just the tip of the iceberg of what makes this film's post-production literal garbage.

While Shattered Memories sounds like the title of an early 2000s alt-rock song, it's better described as a lifeless husk of a story. Riddled with over-the-top performances, an incoherent story, and editing that will make you puke, it was physically difficult for me to sit and even pretend to feel any sort of satisfaction. This film, in all honesty, makes Tommy Wiseau's The Room look like a decent attempt at filmmaking.

My Rating: ½

The Dead Don't Die (2019) directed by Jim Jarmusch

Whether or not a film is criticized and technically deemed "good" or "bad", I tend to give all movies the benefit of the doubt. I always find at least one entertaining aspect in a film for me to be able to sit through it and feel like I'm not wasting my time. Jim Jarmusch's take on the zombie genre, The Dead Don't Die, is a gleaming exception to this stance of mine and I honestly could not believe that I managed to make it out of this alive (pun intended). This film is an absolutely horrible waste of potential in every way possible, from the story to the phenomenal cast. My stomach was starting to become physically upset by the end of this movie and I have not felt that way about a film in a very long time. Thank god that I had free movie passes because I genuinely would have been upset about spending $9 to see this.

The Dead Don't Die follows a zombie outbreak in the small town of Centerville, home to a huge cast of characters, including police chief Cliff Robertson (Bill Murray), officers Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver) and Mindy Morrison (Chloë Sevigny), farmer Frank (Steve Buscemi), and Hermit Bob (Tom Waits), among many others. As the zombies begin to rise up, the occupants of this small town must fight back and attempt to find out what caused the undead to re-animate in the first place. My many issues with this film can simply stem from the script. Especially for a supposedly satirical film such as this one, Jarmusch's script is one of the most lackluster pieces of filmmaking that I have ever seen. This entire film is full of exposition and very slow rising action as it seemed like there was not a logical place for the story to even go. I kept waiting this entire film for something, nay, ANYTHING, to happen that held any relevance. There was absolutely no plot because the majority of this film was spent switching between the different points of view of these characters and how they all handled the walking dead. Despite the main focus of the protagonists Cliff and Ronnie, there were several other subplots that did not go anywhere and ended with no resolution, such as the kids in the juvenile detention center. This movie could have easily been cut down by half an hour if so much time hadn't been wasted. All of these characters simply meandered around for almost two hours until they all ended up dead, given no character development whatsoever. Not only did I not remotely care about these characters, but I actually wanted them to die just so the film would end. The one saving grace that kept me from walking out of the theater were the performances from the cast. While they were nothing to rave about, Murray and Driver did nail their deadpan characters from the start and I'll give them that.

As for the humor throughout this film, I was anticipating a load of hilarious, dry comedy. As I have not seen any of Jarmusch's other films, I was not sure what to expect, but if this movie is any indication of his style than I am definitely not on board. The trailers for this film are complete false advertising as they try to capitalize on the prospect of Bill Murray acting in a high-action zombie comedy once more. The main problem that the humor in this film suffered from was indecisiveness. I knew I would be in for some dry humor and when it was utilized, it was hilarious! The full-circle gags and running jokes are what kept me the most entertained, but they were so few and far between that the script ended up reaching painfully hard for a laugh. However, the element of breaking the fourth wall being introduced is when everything went even more awry. The constant reminder of the titular song "The Dead Don't Die", sung by Sturgill Simpson, was an (almost) clever motif that popped up countless times throughout this movie. The acknowledgment of the theme song and the conversation between Cliff and Ronnie about reading various parts of the script was amusing dialogue at most, but did not fit the developed tone. This movie could not decide what it wanted to be, as that confusion led to me squirming in my chair with forced chuckles. Jarmusch had so much potential to deconstruct the many tropes of the zombie genre, but I suppose Zombieland did that about a decade ago, and much more successfully.

Along with the confusing fourth-wall-breaking, this film tries its absolute darnedest to be self-aware and intellectual, but the lack of a prominent theme led to a horrible conclusion. Even though a touch of conscious comedy was thrown in (Adam Driver's Star Wars keychain), it could not redeem this film's absence of focus. In a film directed by a cult filmmaker such as Jarmusch, I always try to see what the storyteller was trying to tell the audience. The not-so-subtle message about the environmental dangers of fracking was clearly evident throughout this film and it apparently also causes the undead to rise from their graves. As strange as it was, I could get behind this message, but Tom Waits' character Bob took the story in a whole other direction. His eavesdropping and narration throughout the movie touched on society's materialistic views and how our constant need for consumerist goods are killing us; also lazily seen in blatant shots of the undead holding their phones and grumbling "WiFi" like a horde of, well, zombies. I simply could not decipher what Jarmusch, at the core of this film, was trying to say and I don't think he did, either. But at that point in the film when your message is already too far gone, why not just say fuck it and throw in a UFO to abduct Tilda Swinton? Wait, that did happen. And the fact that so many unnecessary celebrity cameos also riddle this small town could never save this messy pile of garbage.

The Dead Don't Die is a massive disappointment. While I can not say that it was one of my most anticipated films of this year, I was still looking forward to seeing Bill Murray act again in a dry comedy with a great cast such as this one. What I got, however, was the worst waste of an hour and 45 minutes I could have ever imagined. And the icing on the cake is that the image of Adam Driver holding Selena Gomez's decapitated head is forever engrained in my brain.

My Rating: ★

Flower (2017) directed by Max Winkler

Bad decisions but good intentions practically sum up the entirety of the themes throughout this movie but this film remains indecisive as it attempts to choose one or the other. Max Winkler's Flower is a darkly comedic slice-of-life film that tries its hardest to be a carefree, feminist (almost) coming-of-age story, but fails to provide any sort of satisfactory ending for its audience. Mostly relying on shock value and incredibly dark twists and turns, this movie presents itself as being so groundbreaking, when in reality it does not really accomplish anything. Despite some expectedly solid performances and an indie tone that could not have been more exaggerated, I found it really hard to get into this film as much as many others apparently have.

Erica (Zoey Deutch) and her friends Kala (Dylan Gelula) and Claudine (Maya Eshet) are a trio of teenagers that make money off of exploiting perverted men and their sexual desires for underage girls. When Erica's mom Laurie (Kathryn Hahn) marries a man named Bob (Tim Heidecker), they move in together along with Bob's son Luke (Joey Morgan), freshly out of rehab. After learning more about her new step-brother, Erica finds out that Luke was inappropriately touched by a former teacher of his named Will (Adam Scott) and together they work to get their revenge. This story had the potential to be an immensely dark and uncomfortable look into how these awful kinds of men think (or a comedy about these girls and their hilariously dark business), but that was wasted by lackluster subplots. As the main plot progressed and carried on as I typically expected, the ending threw me for the strangest loop. This film turned from a really gloomy comedy into an offsetting love story that did not fit at all. The last fifteen minutes of this movie took such a weird twist that was completely nonsensical and the sudden love story between Erica and Luke was unsettling, to say the least. Not just because they were step-siblings but mostly because of the absence of any romantic development. Winkler's direction was not the greatest choice for this film either, as I feel another director could have achieved a much clearer storytelling path. And while this movie undoubtedly carries a signature, bleak tone that could only be achieved by an indie of this type, I just feel like the characters within its world did not fit in it at all. It is strange enough the way these characters interact with their true intentions, but what was even stranger was the complete lack of focus on what this script was trying to say. This movie's clustered story did not blend well with its direction in the slightest.

My biggest issue with Flower, however, is that I just could not get attached to any of its characters. This script, written by Winkler himself, Matt Spicer, and Alex McAulay, featured a slew of characters that were all written so strangely in a way that is widely unrelatable. While the premise that these girls use Erica's relentless sexuality to exploit these men could have led to an awesome film, the way that they interacted with each other and behaved at home just seemed a bit foreign to me. I could not feel for Erica because of her brashness and blind confidence but I also could not feel for Luke because of his role in the unnecessary relationship between the two. The main reason that I was not sure how to feel during this movie is after the girls and Luke accidentally kill Will. Even after Will's emotional plea and Erica's attempt to stop him from drinking the beer, it is never revealed whether or not he was actually a pedophile like the film set him up to be. This made me wary of whether what Erica did was right or not and because of this ambiguity, I found it hard to sympathize with any of her actions past that point, especially because that subplot seemed to be almost instantly dropped. Things that I did like about this story, however, were its minor feminist element and the performances from the whole cast. Erica's audacious personality stemmed from her feminist beliefs that she could do what she wanted with her body, which was great to see. She reiterated multiple times throughout this movie about how she simply enjoyed going down on guys and how it was no big deal for her. As nearly cocky as her character might have been, I did really enjoy this aspect of her. All of the performances in this film, in fact, were great; despite many of the characters not working well together, each actress and actor definitely held their own.

Flower is a strange and interesting movie that had the potential to touch on so many different aspects of its story but refused to give any of them a full chance. I can understand why many would enjoy this story, but I found this film far too messy to even enjoy. Thankfully, I was really only here to thirst-watch for Adam Scott and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the film's main characters shared the same opinion as me, if only briefly.

My Rating: ★★

The Spectacular Now (2013) directed by James Ponsoldt

It's time to play my favorite game: is Miles Teller actually a good actor or am I still riding the high that I get every time I rewatch Whiplash? James Ponsoldt's The Spectacular Now is an interesting romantic drama that touches on many, many themes; often too many for its own good. While the basic premise of this film is interesting enough, the way that the writers developed it left me with a lot of questions. Adapted from the novel by Tim Tharp of the same name, this movie feels mostly like a conglomeration of everything that audiences have seen in this genre of film before. While that is not necessarily a criticism as much as it is a dull observation, I was thankfully still able to find many things that I loved about this film, from (most) of the performances to the cinematography and certain elements of the writing in-between.

Sutter (Miles Teller) is your typical, extroverted, high school partier that has troubles with his grades as much as he does his on-and-off girlfriend Cassidy (Brie Larson). When he meets and connects with the average "nice girl" Aimee (Shailene Woodley), he is forced to re-evaluate various parts of his life and what he really wants out of it. What I loved most about this film are the many themes that it touches upon throughout its runtime. While the multiple subplots and developed relationships tend to get messy and unfocused, I did appreciate how Ponsoldt attempted to handle all of them. The script, written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber could not decide on one element of the drama for these characters to focus on. I do understand that in order for these characters to be more than one-dimensional that there needs to be multiple aspects to them, but I feel like these characters were not given enough sensical time to develop. Sutter dealt with his reluctance to give up his ex-girlfriend Cassidy, his nonexisting relationship with his estranged father Tommy (Kyle Chandler), and his newfound love for the best character Aimee. However, these personal conflicts were not paced very well on-screen and instead worked against his favor, making Sutter seem like an asshole. It was very difficult for me to sympathize with his actions and emotional outbursts, but I feel like I would be able to if he wasn't written so sporadically. Perhaps it is also due to Teller's stale performance that created the distance between me and him.

Aimee, on the other hand, was portrayed excellently by a superb performance from Shailene Woodley, but was sadly not given enough of her own time to develop as a character interesting enough to keep my attention. Her entire arc revolved around making Sutter happy and doing anything for him while only having a slight touch of her own personality. Not to mention that the minor details and complexities regarding her character were almost instantly thrown away just for the sake of her falling head over heels for an absolute buffoon. I feel like one of the main issues plaguing this film is the incredible cast but horrible casting. Each actress and actor involved in this film are amazing in their own right, but they just don't have the greatest chemistry. Especially since Teller and Larson look far too old to be graduating high school seniors. Woodley and her character's best friend Kristal (Kaitlyn Dever) were the only ones who were cast relatively well, as they actually come off as teenagers. The rest of this cast is loaded as well, including Jennifer Jason Leigh as Sutter's mother, Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Sutter's older sister, and Bob Odenkirk as Sutter's boss. The issue is that while each performance is decent in themselves, they only exist to serve Sutter's story, which is troubled by design. This made the conclusion of the film so ambiguous and unsatisfying that I wish would have been explored more. Ponsoldt's biggest flaw in this film was ending it right where it could have gotten more interesting. The first two acts of this movie seem to be relatively lighthearted and funny but as the third act becomes self-exploratory and actually interesting, it is abandoned for a quick resolution.

Pieces of this film that I did love, however, were its theme of alcoholism and the cinematography from Jess Hall. One of this film's consistently built-upon themes was the characters' use of alcohol. Sutter is always seen with a flask drinking away his problems and ignoring what is right in front of him while he inadvertently affects everyone around him. I loved how this film was unafraid to show that teenagers do in fact drink and that it can become an immense danger to others. This is especially representative in one scene before prom when Sutter gives a gift to Aimee which ends up being a flask full of booze. To me, this symbolized Sutter passing on his problems to her and plaguing her with issues that necessarily did not need to exist. As frustrating as these characters' dependence on alcohol can be, it was gripping to have it in the back of my mind knowing the dangers that it causes. The cinematography from Jess Hall was also fantastic. Many extended shots created the easygoing yet tense feel of many of these scenes. Regardless of the lighting, Hall made sure to show how these characters interacted in their most basic forms. It did not exactly match the dialogue of each scene, but it added a nice layer of authenticity that made this film's environment welcoming.

James Ponsoldt's romantic drama may not be as spectacular as the title suggests, but I adored this movie and the world that it built. I would still recommend The Spectacular Now as it contains many of the elements that make a film of this genre engaging. Despite its inconsistent mediocrity throughout, this movie is definitely worth checking out.

My Rating: ★★★

Men, Women & Children (2014) directed by Jason Reitman

Even though this film is relatively unknown (at least to me), I am surprised that I have not heard more about it. Men, Women & Children is a solid, relationship-driven drama about the dangers and precautions of technology in the modern age, although it comes off as very forgettable at times. While this film might seem a bit dated and exaggerated, I loved how these characters interacted and the interweaving stories that came from them. The most prominent aspect of this film is its massive cast of both established stars and younger, up-and-coming stars that, at this point in 2019, is incredible to see how far these artists have come. With some great direction from Jason Reitman and a fantastic use of graphics and music, this film is absolutely worth checking out.

Men, Women & Children follows the lives of a multitude of families and people living in a small town, including Don (Adam Sandler) and his wife Helen (Rosemarie DeWitt), Patricia (Jennifer Garner), Donna (Judy Greer) and her daughter Hannah (Olivia Crocicchia), an unlikely relationship between Tim (Ansel Elgort) and Brandy (Kaitlyn Dever), and many, many others. Exploring how 21st-century technology affects our everyday relationships, from romantic ones to how we often view ourselves, this film is a great example of showing how harmful it can be to people of different ages, genders, and home environments. What I loved most about this film is how the script was able to tell so many different stories at once. Written by Jason Reitman and Erin Cressida Wilson, this movie takes a whole slew of characters and throws them all into the modern world having to deal with the hazards of constant communication. From Don and Helen's crumbling marriage due to their sexual problems to Donna and Hannah's strange, almost exploitative, mother-daughter relationship, every different subplot throughout this film was so interesting. Each one could have made a case for its own main plot, but the way that Reitman weaves them all together was done decently well. My main issue with this script is the fact that there are so many characters. It is indeed engaging to see all of these stories spread out across this wide cast of people, but there were so many to the point of me not entirely caring about certain ones. The characters that I truly cared the most about were the disgraced football player Tim and Brandy, the girl with whom he starts a very unlikely relationship. Brandy's extremely overbearing mother Patricia was the main cause of the troubles between these two and even though her character was written to be way too exaggerated, I loved the development of Tim and Brandy's story together, as heartbreaking as parts of it may be.

I honestly think what would have made this film much stronger is to shift the focus of the effects of technology on solely children or adults. Even though there are many other films that have tackled this subject a bit more clearly, I would have been much more engaged if the film had just told the adults' stories or just told the children's stories. The combination of the two was an understandable choice, but it became messy at times. I actually think that these stories would work far better as a Netflix mini-series or an episodic, anthology film. One of the directorial choices that I also could not get behind was the framing narrative of the satellite floating throughout space accompanied by narration from Emma Thompson. I understood the logic of having that carry the film due to the subject matter, but I just do not think that the philosophical undertones and existential themes necessarily fit the tone of these characters and their stories. The aspects that I loved the most, however, were this film's soundtrack, graphics, and the performances. The subtle use of music throughout this movie to set the tone for each scene was so clever and while this movie's sound design was quiet, it helped to establish a tense and modern environment for these characters. Every performance in this movie was fantastic as well, from Adam Sandler (he does much better in films not written by himself) to Ansel Elgort and everyone in between. It is obvious that these actresses and actors care about their respective characters and I have nothing but praise for their dedication. And finally, the use of the phone and laptop screen graphics throughout this movie was fantastic. While it is not the most creative or original idea, especially now, it was a perfect and well-utilized choice for this film's subject matter.

Men, Women & Children is an amazing drama with an all-star cast that, while it has good intentions in its message of technology, is often too generic for the audience to get attached to its characters. I still love this story, however, and the way that it was told. Despite many of these characters being a bit flat and the script relying too much on certain stories, I would still recommend this film and its ability to showcase the casts' diverse acting abilities.

My Rating: ★★★★

Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016) directed by Taika Waititi

Made of equal parts familial love of Disney and quirky cinematic style of Wes Anderson, Hunt for the Wilderpeople is a strange but undeniably entertaining little indie film from the mind of New Zealand filmmaker Taika Waititi. I have heard about this film for quite some time but it never crossed my radar until recently as I discovered it on Hulu. While this movie is nothing at all like Waititi's beloved What We Do in the Shadows, there is an exceptional charm that stays with its entire production, as lackluster and meandering as the story may be. This film is a great mix of childish, dry comedy and harsh, violent reality, but thankfully that did not take away from its overall tone. With some great performances and an eccentric soundtrack, this film definitely proves how wide the stylistic range of Waititi can stretch.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople follows the troubled character of Ricky (Julian Dennison), a young foster kid who gets put under the care of a rural couple named Bella (Rima Te Wiata) and her convict, outdoorsman husband Hector (Sam Neill). When his aunt Bella suddenly passes away, Hector tries to get Ricky back into the foster care system. Realizing the criminal ramifications of this for both of them, the two decide to evade capture in the vast forests of New Zealand. This script, penned by Waititi and based on the book "Wild Pork and Watercress" by Barry Crump, is arguably one of this film's most divisive aspects. Many of the elements of this film that I loved and did not quite enjoy stemmed from this original story. The best parts of this film come from the dynamic between the indie humor and the often scary reality of surviving out in a dark forest. There is a signature type of comedy that is present in New Zealand films such as this one and the absolute dryness of it all is honestly so enjoyable. There was not a single "laugh-out-loud" moment of this entire script, but rather the subtle and clever jabs that these two had at each other provided for this film's delight. However, throughout this movie, there were many moments of dark drama, such as the scene with the two fighting the pig and Hector having to euthanize his own dog Zag. These dark scenes were scattered throughout this film in such a brilliant way to remind the audience how desperate these characters' situation actually was. Even though one could rightfully argue that this film has issues with picking a consistent tone, I still enjoyed seeing how these characters interacted inside of Waititi's world.

The performances in this film from Dennison and Neill were incredible as well. Their chemistry together was a strangely perfect choice despite their characters' constant bickering and seemingly hatred towards each other. What made them so interesting, however, is that even though they were not the biggest fans of one another, they had to work together to survive in the wilderness and from being caught by the police. This dynamic made these two so hilarious to watch and there could not have been a better pairing. This also makes the ending of the film so much sweeter, as Hector realizes how much he cares for and wants to be a part of Ricky's life. The emotional payoff of this film was done very well thanks to Waititi and I'm happy to see his creative forces at play, especially in an adventurous and almost naive story such as this one. One of my main issues with this film, however, also comes from the idea that this entire story was so naive and almost superficial. While the plot gives way for an emotionally-satisfying conclusion, I feel that the substance throughout the story was a bit ambiguous. A story about a foster kid who is trying to survive with his reluctant uncle could have leaned into its comedy more or focused more on its tension, with the latter being the most probable choice. This movie deals with an often depressing subject matter with lightheartedness and ease, but I can see how many would not be okay with that. This film's themes of love and childhood should not be taken with a grain of salt and the subtext of a fun and wondrous adventure does not necessarily play into those themes very effectively.

Taika Waititi's Hunt for the Wilderpeople is a lesser-known but relatively strong film held together by not just his style, but the dedication of the cast. While the director's signature comedic tone is very evident, this movie also surprised me with its great use of bleak drama. I would definitely recommend this film, especially if you are a fan of Waititi like me and enjoy seeing how diverse and peculiar his filmography can truly be.

My Rating: ★★★½

Brightburn (2019) directed by David Yarovesky

I don't think I have ever been as underwhelmed by a high concept horror film as much as I was with this one. Capitalizing on the superhero genre of today's culture, Brightburn is a supposed horror riff on said genre. A darker take on the classic Superman story, this film attempts to take a well-known premise and flip it on its head by making the expected hero a villainous murderer. While this movie was very effective in producing some great jump scares and shock value, there was such a lack of focus in the writing that ended up making this film appear incredibly lazy. James Gunn's involvement as a producer in this film is very evident and I am glad to see him back making some low-budget horror stories, but even his creative style could not bring this film out of its sheer mediocrity.

Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle (David Denman) Breyer are a rural couple living in the town of Brightburn, Kansas, who are having trouble conceiving until one night when a spaceship crashes in their yard with a baby boy on board. The couple decides to raise the boy as their own, naming him Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn); but as he gets older and realizes he has powers, his personality takes a turn for the worse as he decides to use these powers not for good, but for evil. This story is relatively familiar, as the classic tale of Superman provides the foundation for this film. However, the script written by Brian and Mark Gunn takes this classic tale and completely reverses it. Well, almost completely. My main issue with this film is how lazy its story actually was. While this film was unafraid to market itself as an "evil Superman" story, there was quite literally nothing else to the story that made it stand out as anything but that. All of the elements of that kind of story were included in this film, even down to the fact that the only thing that could hurt this alien was pieces of its homeworld (Brandon's kryptonite). This entire film was very predictable as it seems like a cheap way to kick off a new, dark, superhero universe. The least that these writers could have done is make me care about the characters. Since this story is so familiar to audiences, I feel like a re-write of the script or any other kind of creative input in its production would have been beneficial since it is painfully dull. This could have easily been an interesting exploration into parenthood or a psychological investigation into what makes a seemingly innocent kid turn bad, but this film missed out on all of those possible opportunities.

I also did not appreciate this film's ambiguity in regards to Brandon's evil turn. It is never quite made clear why Brandon becomes so sinister, whether it be some form of possession or just a mental snap, and the characterization of him does not make any sense at all. Despite its failed execution, I did love the production value of this film. With only a meager budget of around $7 million, this crew did manage to at least make an entertaining horror film. And despite the script not making me care at all about these characters, the whole cast definitely puts in their all and definitely deliver some great performances. This film is the perfect kind to watch when you need some cheap jump scares and a tense environment, which thankfully was accomplished very well. Yarovesky's direction might not be the most stylistic or original, but he was absolutely able to make me feel squirmish, especially as Brandon was flying around at super speed in his goofy, octopus mask. The element of this horror film that kept me engaged the most, however, were the grotesque and graphic scenes. While that may seem a bit neanderthal to be most entertained by the violence, it was mostly the way that they were paced out. This film is directed fairly well and paces out these scenes within the context of the story very well. The movie would cut from a woman having a piece of glass stuck in her eye to a sweeter and more naive scene of Tori having hope in her son. Then the movie would cut from a man choking on his own blood after shattering his jaw to Kyle sharing a fun dad-son day with Brandon. While this definitely makes the parents seem slightly ignorant to the fact that their son is a vile murderer, it at least provided a fun dynamic to watch.

Brightburn is, unfortunately, such a waste of potential for an interesting idea. Even though its premise makes it seem like a money grab, at least it was decently entertaining. Not to mention the eye-rolling inclusion of Billie Eilish's "bad guy" during the epilogue sequence, but that's beside the point. I would still recommend this film, however, as it succeeds in being terrifying but disappoints in providing anything new to the genre like it had promised.

My Rating: ★★½