Midsommar - Director's Cut (2019) directed by Ari Aster

I had to bump this up another half star because of the extra footage and how well it buried itself inside this narrative. An entire 30 minutes longer, I was hoping that the scenes would not be redundant or unnecessary, but quite the opposite. Every scene that was included in this cut felt absolutely perfect. It emphasized Dani and Christian's relationship a lot more and really, REALLY made you hate him as a character, even more, this time around.

The theatrical cut of Midsommar is not by any means worse, but this just felt so much more natural. A lot more was explained and put into context without abandoning the anxiousness of the ambiguity through some extended conversations and interactions. Sure, some of the added scenes were only there to emphasize the alien qualities of this society, but they fit in nonetheless. Never would I have thought I could manage or remain invested in a three-hour horror film but I was proven wrong.

I can also see why Aster had such a hard time cutting this down to the theatrical version because I honestly prefer this Director's Cut much more. GIVE US HIS 4-HOUR CUT NEXT YOU COWARDS.

My Rating: ★★★★½

The Last Black Man in San Francisco (2019) directed by Joe Talbot

Never before have I seen a story about the destructive and aspiration-shattering tendencies of gentrification told so simply yet so enthralling. Joe Talbot's The Last Black Man in San Francisco is an utterly stunning film throughout every aspect of its production, from its resonant script to its sharp, technical execution. Talbot's direction paired with the script from him and breakout star Jimmie Fails is an absolute match made in heaven, not only for telling these characters' stories but for creating and destroying the fragile love for a city that many hold close to their hearts. This movie will draw in your attention, devastate you, make you laugh, devastate you again, and never let you go: all the while drawing your emotions to their absolute forefront just like mine were. This is undoubtedly one of my favorite films of this year, as the personal and confident style that Talbot has utilized makes this story emotionally phenomenal and completely unforgettable.

Having somewhere that feels like home is of utmost importance to everyone and for Jimmie (Jimmie Fails), that home is the crisp city of San Francisco. After secretly taking care of it for years, Jimmie and his best friend Montgomery (Jonathan Majors) decide to move back into Jimmie's childhood home built by his grandfather. Doing so presents itself as a challenge to both of them, as they realize they must adapt to the completely different and ever-changing landscape of the city that they once adored. This tender and careful story is what brings so much heart to this film. Talbot and Fails' script is incredible, from the dialogue to the development of the characters. Every single line feels so authentic and the way that these two writers tell this story of two best friends and their former home can be often heartbreaking. The subject matter of this film is unfortunate but made for such a moving tale. One of this film's main themes is obviously the reversal of fortune as Jimmie's grandfather was quoted as being the first black man in San Francisco, building his own home and founding a base for generations of his family. When Jimmie sees that he is really the last one left, there surprisingly isn't any spite or hatred that he has towards the white people moving into his city. This characterization made Jimmie such a wonderful study, as he really had every right to fight and hold anger in his heart but found solitude through personal prosperity instead. Truly embodying his powerful quote, "you don't get to hate it unless you love it."

What I found most interesting about this film's script is how it really analyzes the dynamics between people of various races, classes, and even sexualities. Not just between black and white people, but in the black community as well. As Jimmie and Montgomery are moving their stuff into the house, they are ridiculed by another group of friends as being too feminine or "fruity." What was supposed to be a bond between them and the group instead turns into a division of where each person's beliefs really lie. All Jimmie really wanted was to fix up the house to be nice and welcoming and I am so glad that Talbot and Fails did not have to resort to any stereotypes or tropes about black men. This also has to do with the fact that Fails and Majors' performances were astounding. The sheer chemistry between the two as best friends was undeniable and helped bring this story up to the next level. What really made this film, however, was the masterful combination of Adam Newport-Berra's cinematography and David Marks' editing. The incredibly sharp camerawork transfixing on so many different structures throughout this movie was riveting and the cuts that Marks made were perfection. I also loved the mild over-saturation of everything in this film, bringing a warm (but not too comfortable) feel to it all.

With its beautiful, technical prowess, The Last Black Man in San Francisco could have easily been a period piece about a black family in California years ago. The fact that this film was still set in 2019 brought about such a nostalgic feeling and lovable atmosphere that I never wanted to leave. Talbot's direction was part of what brings this movie's aesthetics together so well; his direction made this movie feel like more of a theatrical production that was only even more enriched by its cinematic elements and the poignant, subdued performances. This is a bit meta and reflected in part in Montgomery's small play that he writes, directs, and acts in during the third act of this film, but the fact that Talbot was able to make the entire city of San Francisco fit onto a workable stage felt amazing. His style is so evident that I could have watched the two friends just decorate the house for an entire hour and not get bored. What did disinterest me, however, was how empty a lot of the second act felt. This film lulled a lot and had a bit too many shots that did not exactly fit into the overarching narrative. I felt like a lot of time went by in the middle of this movie that did not carry very much emotional weight or substance and that did not do much for the outcome of these friends' relationship.

Joe Talbot's masterpiece The Last Black Man in San Francisco is an amazing film accompanied by perfectly paired performances and technicalities to tell this heartfelt story. I was not expecting to be this moved by Talbot's storytelling as I did not know what this film was entirely about, but the complex storytelling that he displays here is unmatched. What a hell of a first feature for Jimmie Fails as well and I can not wait to see what pure art he develops next.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Fast Color (2019) directed by Julia Hart

One of the main issues I have always had with superhero films is how special effects, CGI, and action sequences come first. I'm not claiming that this is a hot take or a groundbreaking statement and I also can not blame studios for putting out what their audiences want. Very rarely does a film of the "superhero" genre surprise me with its writing or actual focus on storytelling, but Julia Hart's incredibly underrated Fast Color completely flips this trope on its head. With no affiliation from any big studios or franchises, Hart set out to make what can be boiled down as an independent superhero film. What makes this movie so special, besides its fantastic cast and gorgeous visuals, is that it truly puts storytelling first. Granted, it might not be the most original or compelling family tale ever written, but Hart absolutely delivers an emotional and genuinely human story about someone with supernatural abilities in a passionate way.

On the run for years from the authorities and scientists who wish to study her, Ruth (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) has nowhere left to turn except for her family that she once abandoned. Superhuman abilities run in her bloodline and as she has troubles with controlling them, Ruth knows the only people she has left to rely on are her mother Bo (Lorraine Toussaint) and daughter Lila (Saniyya Sidney). Julia Hart and Jordan Horowitz's script is the harbinger of what makes this film so great yet lacking at times. I absolutely loved the story surrounding these three and the struggles that they had with concealing their powers while trying to live a normal life. This aspect of the story is what made the overall narrative so interesting: having lived with these powers their entire lives, they are comfortable with hiding them until Ruth shows up. This is when they realize that they have to deal with Ruth not being able to control them or access her true potential. The small-scale, family feel of this film is its strongest proponent. Fast Color does what a lot of superhero films don't, which is take time to actually build their characters and write them as people first, superheroes second. Even then, this film never had to take on any of the generic tropes that this genre usually does. Ruth and her family never once thought that they should "use their powers for the greater good" or any clichéd garbage such as that. No generic flashbacks of how they got their powers were required either, as the main theme of this film rather focused on the legacy of a family and how much more important they were to each other than they were to the responsibility of their powers. As I mentioned before, passionate screenwriting overtakes reliance on CGI and not conforming to a typical, superhero narrative made Fast Color so immensely enjoyable and refreshing to watch.

This movie exceeds as both a solid indie film and a message to big studios that you do not need endlessly returning characters and storylines to keep an audience's attention. These messages might not have been as fervent, though, if it were not for the performances from the main cast and their clear dedication to this little story. Mbatha-Raw has been astounding in every role I have seen her in and she is slowly becoming a true scene-stealer no matter what she is cast in. Toussaint and Sidney were great as well, as they all worked together to portray this family in such an honest and relatable way. There were often times when I would forget that they all had powers or that this movie revolved around that aspect of the characters, but I suppose that is a good thing when I am rather drawn into the way they are written as normal people. Michael Fimognari's cinematography and Martin Pensa's editing stood out to me a lot as well. The fluid combination of these two's talents made this film feel much more like an indie film, which solidified its style for me too. Not only was Fimognari able to show how empty their world was through only a few shots and cuts, but he also utilized camera tricks to show the impact of Ruth's earthquakes in a very stylish way which I absolutely loved.

For a film with such a small budget like this one, I am surprised at how gorgeous the special effects were. Some might see them as a bit cheesy and too basic, but I thought they were excellently used. The subtleness of Bo holding the disassembled cigarette in her fingers and the amateurish deconstruction of the bowl by Lila were some of the most personal and mesmerizing shots. And there is no denying that the final scene in which Ruth and Lila unlock their true, colorful powers is one of the most stunning and powerful scenes I have ever seen. My only issues with this story are how many of its driving forces were written. This film's antagonists were extremely forgettable and were simply there to run her through tests and take away her powers. They could have been written with a bit more motive or had more screentime dedicated to their cause. This absence of conflict led to a sadly, emotionless ending. If the stakes for this family had been higher or made more critical with a deeper understanding of the history of their family, the ending would have felt much more deserved, given the almost stereotypical sacrifice and ambiguous conclusion.

Fast Color is a film that I really wish would have gotten a wider distribution, as I believe that it easily could have become a much more popular indie hit. Sadly, due to its lack of marketing and easily-identifiable target audience, this film has become lost, despite only being released earlier this year. I adore Fast Color much more than other, franchise-driven films that I have seen recently and I'm glad that Hart's fantastic script and direction were this story's saving grace.

My Rating: ★★★½

Superbad (2007) directed by Greg Mottola

Who could have guessed that one of the crudest and most infamously foul-mouthed comedies of the early 2000s could also serve as one of the most relatable and generation-defining stories of our time? Superbad is a fantastic, classic comedy movie that, even only back in 2007, took so many risks that would pay off immensely in the long run. I personally haven't watched this since I was probably 12, but after the release of Booksmart (my favorite film of 2019 so far), I decided it was time to revisit this. I was able to clearly see the comparisons between the two this time around and how Superbad practically laid the foundation for its female-led counterpart more than a decade later. With some subtle and not-so-subtle performances and an unforgettably hysterical script, this film is the perfect combination of coming-of-age themes and raunchy humor - all blending to make this one of the best comedy films of the 21st century.

Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera), two childhood best friends on the cusp of graduating high school, have lived their lives with one basic goal in mind: impressing girls and getting laid. When they get invited to their first stereotypical high school party, they are tasked with bringing alcohol in the hopes that they will end up with their respective crushes by the end of the night. Over the course of one night, however, anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. Despite the laziness of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg naming these two protagonists after themselves (which I'm assuming was purposeful), the writing in this film is incredible. Combining both Rogen's twisted sensibilities with the plot functionality from Goldberg will always lead the way for a fantastic comedy - whether you agree with the raunchy comedy or not. Many audiences in 2007 would find this genre of comedy to be highly offensive and inappropriate to show even to mature adults who have some semblance of "taste," but this kind of comedy is what makes this film so iconic. Walk into any high school hallway or classroom in the past thirty years and I can guarantee you that this is what kids sound like. The dialogue throughout this film might be extremely crass and ill-informed at times, but that is exactly what high schoolers speak like. The unabashed horniness and lack of consequential thinking that runs through these characters' minds are actually what happens to two 17-year old boys at that time in their lives and the authenticity of this film still shines through even today. While some particular words and phrases that are used in Superbad may be a bit dated for today, it was really just a product of the time that this film was made. The comedy written in this film is something that truly anyone can enjoy, as the way that it is written serves the situations Seth and Evan get into so well.

One of the aspects of Superbad that stands out the most to me, however, is how progressive and respectful the film actually is. Although these two characters may start out as a bit more reckless than would be comfortable to see, the way that they develop is what makes their characters so solid. Especially when it comes to the more tender Evan dealing with the brashness of his best friend Seth. Progression in the face of crudeness is one of the greatest themes about this movie that I believe makes it so great. Evan was a much more amicable and understanding character than Seth and despite neither of them really getting what they wanted out of their night, the dynamic between the two makes their relationship so genuine. While other comedies might give their male protagonists exactly what they desire, this film's lack of redemption teaches these characters lessons that they otherwise would not have known they needed.

Boasting many similarities to each other, I have tried my hardest to refrain from comparing Superbad and Booksmart, but they are nearly indistinguishable. Besides the latter having two female leads and more liberal themes, the goals, outcomes, and plots of these films are so similar. While I do have an obvious preference between the two, I absolutely adore and appreciate the foundation that Superbad has built for films such as these. One of the most noticeable elements of this genre is how well these films develop each and every character. Just like in Olivia Wilde's debut from earlier this year, Greg Mottola's original take on this story gives so much screentime to the supporting performances. The script gave plenty of great time and dimensionality to characters from Officers Slater (Bill Hader) and Michaels (Seth Rogen) to Jules (Emma Stone) and Becca (Martha MacIsaac), Seth and Evan's crushes. These kinds of people are vital in telling the story of their world and this is something that far too many films often forget. Coming-of-age films are one thing, but movies like these take the much-needed time to establish the world to place the lead characters into. Films in this genre of comedy are almost period pieces of our modern age - focusing mostly on production design, directorial style, and a large reliance on well-written dialogue. While this was all done memorably well in Superbad, the only issue I had was with Mottola's direction. The ending of this film felt far too long and squeezed out certain gags to their last drop and it made the humor, at times, feel like it was beating a dead horse.

I would like to thank Harkins Theatres for offering the double feature of Superbad and Booksmart because watching these films back to back really shows just how similar and progressive they are. Superbad didn't just launch even further the young careers of actors such as Jonah Hill and Michael Cera, but it also provided us with some of the funniest and most quotable scenes of all time. I'm glad that a dirty film such as this one is still as impactful as it was 12 years ago and I believe that young audiences deserve more movies just like this: not only to shock their parents, but to show how painfully relatable every high schooler is with the weird and often taboo topics they experience.

My Rating: ★★★★

High Life (2019) directed by Claire Denis

Forget the sexual tension in the Star Trek series. Move over, shippers and fan artists of Star Wars characters. Claire Denis' new sci-fi film has been crowned the absolute horniest piece of space drama of all time. High Life is one that I have been looking forward to for quite some time, but now that it's available on streaming, I must say that I was quite disappointed in. This film really provides everything that a fan of this genre could possibly ask for: a tired Robert Pattinson, mesmerizing sound design, and a stunningly ambiguous ending. What this film lacks, however, is a script written clear enough to really make its audience feel for any of these characters. While the production of this film, from its cinematography to its editing, are all incredibly masterful, there is a distinct lack of purpose in this story that holds the key to tying this could-have-been masterpiece together. Despite High Life toying about with some interesting themes, this film ultimately proves too high-concept to even make sense of itself.

High above the clouds of Earth and far into the depths of boundless space lie Monte (Robert Pattinson) and his daughter Willow (Scarlett Lindsey). With the dead bodies of his former crew lying around, this story begins to unravel in a series of flashbacks to explain what could have happened on this horrific journey and why they were there in the first place. Exploring various themes of what it means to be human and the precious value of human life, this film is a truly sexual, space-set drama like no other. I am not experienced with the foreign films of Claire Denis, but from what I can tell with High Life, her directorial style seems to be unmatched. She is able to tell this story in such a pristine and entrancing way that I do not think anybody else could have quite accomplished. The way that she brings these characters' stories together to pave the way for such an absolutely buck-wild story was incredible. Her pacing, handling of the script, and ambiguous motivations make this entire movie feel like you are in a trance. Denis' direction also has to give a lot of thanks to the music and sound design by Stuart Staples and Tindersticks. Their simply subtle and airy soundtrack made every scene so captivating to watch regardless of its particular subject matter. Which was a bit of a relief, given this film's main focus is the touchy subject of procreation with an emphasis on unnerving rape scenes. The unabashedly confident use of this kind of content was a bit much to watch at times, but it undoubtedly served its purpose well. Even if the audience is transported in a film somewhere else than Earth, sex and the desire for it will always prevail. And while it might get atrociously ugly with some people, Denis was not afraid to explore these often taboo topics.

I have also not been aware of the recent work from Robert Pattinson since the Twilight series. It is a bit tiring at this point to continue to compare him to Edward Cullen, but I just have not kept up with his work in these kinds of indie films. Which, I now realize, has been my most fatal flaw. Pattinson's performance in this film is astounding and I would have never thought of him as a father figure until seeing the ways he interacted with Willow at such a young age. Pattinson, against the odds of an otherwise completely different film, gave off such a comforting and paternal love that was undeniable. The tenderness of his facial expressions mixed with the careful delivery of Denis' well-crafted dialogue made for such a multi-dimensional character embodied in what easily could have been a basic archetype. I absolutely adored Monte throughout this film solely because of Pattinson's underrated performance.

Where High Life lets me down, however, is with its static script, written by Denis herself and Jean-Pol Fargeau. One little misstep in a script can cause me to start to over-analyze each of the film's problems but the problem with this movie is that it did not have many conflicts to begin with. Other than the inescapable dread of being sucked into a black hole, the audience starts off the film with almost immediately knowing that Monte and Willow are the only ones left alive. Which, to me, makes the conflicts and struggles between the rest of the cast during the flashbacks a bit bare. I did start to care about all of their harsh realities that they were living, but in the back of my head, I knew that it was all pointless. Despite some scenes with a lot of shock value and grotesque special effects, the story remained relatively stale. Perhaps this is due to the shifted focus on the themes of infancy and optimism in the face of danger, but High Life's premise was so high-concept without any ground-level development that the A-plot began to blur. The ambiguity of this interstellar story will elevate this to masterpiece status for many, but it did not work for me in that way.

From its trailers and early reactions, High Life seems like a film that would be right up my alley (and rightfully so). I try not to hype up or exaggerate the grandiose feelings that I get while watching space dramas, but said film has to actually blow me away in order for me to do so. This movie, on the other hand, has only a few elements that make its slow runtime worthy; and by completely leaving out the aspects of the script that make this genre so emotional is what caused this film to be an arguable miss.

My Rating: ★★★½

Little Woods (2019) directed by Nia DaCosta

This sure isn't the first time that Lily James has played a waitress named Debora, huh? It's quite the shame that this quiet, indie drama did not get as much attention as it deserved earlier this year, especially with two big names attached. Even though it is a bit underwhelming and suffers from a lack of focus, Nia DaCosta's Little Woods is an incredibly well-performed and engaging film about the dangers of familial loyalty. Tessa Thompson and Lily James star as two sisters doing whatever it takes to stay afloat and support each other in a small town in Montana and this theme of lower-class morals paves the way for lots of great scenes between the two. Despite DaCosta's direction being too shaky and the script not carrying enough emotion, the undeniable chemistry between the two leads is what truly carries this film.

Ollie (Tessa Thompson) and Deb (Lily James) are two sisters living in the same, small town in northern Montana. After their mother passes away, the bank that owns their childhood home informs them that they have one week to get the money to pay them back. Struggling with their own individual problems and money issues, the two resort to their old, bad habits to pay off what needs to be done. Nia DaCosta both wrote and directed this film and unfortunately, her handling of the story is what hurt this film the most. The subject matter of this movie sets up these characters to lead an almost modern version of a western, but too much time was placed on setting up this film's atmosphere. One of the most interesting aspects of this story was the dynamic between Ollie and Deb and how, regardless of the situation, they knew that they would always have each other's backs as sisters. They both had problems to deal with and the way that DaCosta handled their individual stories was fantastic. However, it was the balance between the two that was never really struck. Their shared motive throughout this film was supposed to be doing whatever it takes to pay back the bank, but that A-plot was often forgotten. Of course, subplots are an integral part of making a film have more depth, but the subplots in Little Woods took too much precedence. Deb's conflict with deciding whether or not to have an abortion and Ollie's conflict with falsely displaying a clean lifestyle to her parole officer took too much hold towards the end of this film. While the final shot makes this movie a clean, full-circle drama, the supposed main plot was never really resolved. I suppose the audience must assume that they were able to earn back their childhood home, but I wish the writing could have better connected those dots.

While DaCosta's direction was far too loose, her script did not seem very passionate either. I'm not sure if this movie was based on any real experiences from DaCosta herself, but there just did not seem to be a goal in mind when she was writing this film. I adore the story and the potential that it had to be a riveting sibling drama, but that was never reached for. It seems like nothing was really reached for, but I'm glad this movie was still relatively effective. The dialogue was also very stale throughout the film and seemed to be pieced together by a typical, dramatic writer. I suppose my main issue with this movie is not what was presented to the audience, but rather what could have been. Thankfully, however generic the dialogue might have been, the performances from Thompson and James are what absolutely bring this film together. They truly made the best of what they were given and embody every scene that they share together. When the two of them are on screen together is when this film's subtle yet amazing qualities come to the surface. I would have never predicted that the two of them could play such compatible sisters, but their embodiment of these characters' predicaments was utterly captivating. I also don't think that either of their performances were exactly award-worthy, but their chemistry as sisters elevated this movie far beyond being a throw-away, indie film.

Thank the casting director of Little Woods for being able to bring Thompson and James together or else this film might not have been as intriguing as it was. This movie has an unlimited amount of potential to carry more emotional weight, but DaCosta's script was unable to really tap into that. Nevertheless, I still very much enjoyed this film and the effort put into this story, as it is brilliantly performed by these two leads.

My Rating: ★★★½

Blinded by the Light (2019) directed by Gurinder Chadha

Continuing the same theme of goodhearted, teenage rebellion as Bend it Like Beckham, Gurinder Chadha's Blinded by the Light is an absolutely electric film that shows what happens when a naive teenager is exposed to the lyrical mastery of Bruce Springsteen. I have yet to see a more feel-good film from this year, as the story and its characters are pleasantly radiant from start to finish. Despite a lot of the writing coming off very flat and the overall message revealing itself as a bit too cheesy, there is no denying that this movie is one of the best of this summer film season. The embrace of following your dreams and maintaining the love of your family was such a fantastic plot point for this film to rely on. Paired with the nostalgic and uplifting lyrics of The Boss, this movie shows that truly anyone can achieve what they set out to, with only a little inspiration in the strangest of places.

Javed (Viveik Kalra) is a disheartened, Pakistani teenager in Thatcher's 1987 Britain who feels like the traditional ways of his family is holding him back from pursuing his true passion of writing. Discouraged by everything that they represent, Javed finds inspiration and solace when he is introduced to the legendary music of Bruce Springsteen. Renewed with a new sense of optimism, he uses the music of this rock and roll icon to help him get into college, follow his passion, and emerge into the world as his own person. The way that I am writing about this film may come off as bit cornier than I typically am, but this is to be expected after seeing this movie. I physically could not stop smiling during this film, especially in its emotional but joyous gut-punch of a third act. Chadha, Paul Mayeda Berges, and Sarfraz Manzoor's script is what brings this movie so much life. From the introductory scene to the full-circle ending, this story was purely written to uplift its audience and it does so in the most cheery fashion possible. Inspired by the true story of a young man and his idolization of Springsteen, this movie touches on a lot of different themes that were all handled in such an elegant way. Outgrowing your parents and emerging as yourself may seem very plastic themes for other viewers, but this film truly resonated with me as strongly as the music of Springsteen did for Javed.

Being a writer myself, I connected so much with what Javed was going through and although my parents were never quite as harsh, it was difficult for me to express my passions to them. One line in this film that stuck out to me the most came from Javed's monologue at the very end in which he says something along the lines of "try to build a bridge to your ambitions without burning the one to your family" and that hit me harder than I could have expected. My family has always been supportive of whatever I do and while this film may contain its exaggerated elements, it was so riveting to me to see how someone of a completely different culture than me would experience that. The political and racial elements of this movie also brought a whole other level to its conflict and while I am not familiar with the doings of Thatcher in the 1980s, Chadha made it very clear how difficult life was for Pakistani people during that time. This experience was embodied perfectly by the rising Viveik Kalra, as his performance astounded me. He was the epitome of a dedicated writer going against the odds to pursue his dream and the talent of Kalra's acting really hit me during the previously mentioned monologue. His sheer emotion and revelatory speech not only showcased how perfect he was as an actor but the touching talents of the screenwriters as well.

One of the biggest complaints that I can completely understand about Blinded by the Light is how cheesy its story and message are. There is no doubt that this film is full of overused clichés and often lazy dialogue, but the way Chadha fully embraces those things to really flesh out her message was wonderful. I also really enjoyed the use of graphics for the song's lyrics throughout this movie. Again, this plays into how cheesy its overall production value was, but that never changed how much I loved it. While I was able to see past the corniness of the story and flatness of a lot of the supporting characters, I still had a bit of an issue with Chadha's pacing and Justin Krish's editing. This film was less than two hours long, but there were multiple points that I felt it could have ended and still been great. So many of this film's scenes could have been cut down by a large amount, as too much context was given than was needed. Even in scenes without dialogue and with a token Springsteen song sprinkled on top, there were so many unnecessary shots that could have been removed to let the audience themselves figure out what was going on. Subtlety always suits audiences best and even though it was not to the point of being offensive, it's often better to let viewers figure out things on their own.

I was definitely not expecting Blinded by the Light to be this good, and it frankly does not have any right to be. Chadha's direction with the phenomenal script and a charming performance from newcomer Viveik Kalra turn this Hallmark-level premise into an undeniably radiant movie experience. So much visible heart and passionate storytelling were put into this film and the amazing story makes that quite obvious.

My Rating: ★★★★

Good Boys (2019) directed by Gene Stupnitsky

Every year's slate of films typically has its token, raunchy comedy released by a large studio and to no one's surprise, 2019's comes from the mind of executive producer Seth Rogen. Gene Stupnitsky's Good Boys continues this trend of childhood innocence gone wrong in a hysterical comedy that truly anyone regardless of generation can relate to. While it is plainly obvious as to why some people would not enjoy this genre of comedy due to its brash nature, there is so much pure charm and chemistry between this cast that makes this film such a joy. While the goofy and crude element of its humor is evident thanks to Rogen's trademark style, each cast member really brings something else to this story, making the way for a surprisingly sweet, relatable message towards its end. Despite a relatively primitive plot and its reliance on shock value, Good Boys is truly carried by this cast and how lovable each and every character is written.

Max (Jacob Tremblay), Lucas (Keith L. Williams), and Thor (Brady Noon) are inseparable best friends known as the Bean Bag Boys. Over the course of one day, the three of them accidentally steal drugs, get hunted by a pair of teenage girls, and get mixed up in loads of unpredictable shenanigans. However, the three boys have to try and sort all of this out before the day ends so that they can make it to their first-ever "kissing party" where Max is trying to impress the love of his life. I am so thankful that Tremblay, Williams, and Noon were all cast in the parts that they were because their chemistry as best friends is the greatest part of this whole film. The high-pitched screaming, careless playfulness, and naiveté of them all is exactly what Hollywood does not want you to think of these kids. But frankly, it's a universal reality for everyone the kinds of things that these kids do and the way that they interact. The truthful representation of these kids, although at times exaggerated, is what makes their characters so lovable, even though they might be a bit more foul-mouthed than many of us were. The performances from them all were great and showed how trained these young kids already are. And the fact that these three have worked on such a high-budget and well-marketed film with a big name like Rogen this early in their careers only promises much more potential for advancement and success in their futures. Stupnitksy and Lee Eisenberg's script for this film gave way for an endless amount of enjoyment as well: not only was it hilarious and had me keeled over at times, but there is a fantastic amount of heart in it as well. I adored the message throughout this film of growing apart and growing up and as basic as it may be, it was executed in such a smooth way thanks to Stupnitksy's debut direction in his first feature film.

Good Boys does a lot of things right with its comedy but does even more so with its portrayal of being a 12-year old. Most of this film's humor stems from the gleeful innocence of childhood and how these characters react to adult situations that they otherwise would not have been put in. This theme made for some of the funniest lines uttered by some of the most clueless, young tweens. The way that Max, Lucas, and Thor wholeheartedly believe in things that they themselves are not even sure about is such a 12-year old thing to do that was painfully hilarious to me. My gripe with this kind of shocking humor, however, is that the novelty quickly begins to grow old. Rogen accomplished so much unexpected and unforgettable humor in Sausage Party that was fantastic, but I think that shock value can only go so far. Good Boys relied on that wave of "I can't believe a young kid just said that" for a bit too long for its own good. Despite this, I have been excited about this movie since I saw its first trailer. No matter how goofy or crude he may be, I will always support Seth Rogen in his comedic endeavors as he has already proven to audiences how fantastic and well-rounded of an artist he can actually be. Given that, I never have high expectations for a comedy film of this variety, but that is the best way to approach them. I knew exactly what I was in for when I bought my ticket for this film and despite its incredibly short run time, I can not say that I was disappointed in the slightest.

If one was not familiar with the work of Jacob Tremblay before seeing Good Boys, you might get a wrong first impression that his parents are batshit crazy. That's what I love about him and this cast, though. Whether or not any of these kids were in an Oscar-winning film, their talents spread so far that they are able to have fun in this more mature setting. This film was honestly exactly what I expected and just because of that, I had an absolute blast.

My Rating: ★★★½

Some Like It Hot (1959) directed by Billy Wilder

AFI Top 100: #22

Great comedies are very hard to come by nowadays, with only a few notable ones of the past few years being truly worth my time. While the humorous genre was much more prevalent in the earlier ages of film, there are also few back then that have stayed as culturally relevant as others. Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot is definitely one of those, as it still to this day remains a hysterical if not baseline comedy. Wilder has proven himself throughout various different films how adaptable he is when it comes to genre and the way that he is able to infuse many different elements into this film is astounding. This might be one of the only older comedies I know of that has progressively changed meaning due to its age, but different audiences can take so much different enjoyment from this film. Some Like It Hot is the epitome of a great, well-rounded comedy and one that can still be very much enjoyed to this day.

After their secret speakeasy is infiltrated by the police, tenor sax player Joe (Tony Curtis) and bassist Jerry (Jack Lemmon) accidentally witness a mob hit executed by ringleader Spats Colombo (George Raft). They decide to take a risky job in Florida to escape: the only catch is that they have to disguise themselves as women in a female jazz band. This proves much harder for them, however, as they both begin to fall for the band's lead singer Sugar Kane (Marilyn Monroe) while simultaneously trying not to blow their cover. Billy Wilder's script that he co-wrote with I.A.L. Diamond is arguably the greatest aspect of this entire film. Wilder, throughout the two films of his that I have seen, has proven himself as a master filmmaker. Every film that he writes and directs brings a certain panache to it, whether it is humorous or a more tragic tale, such as in Sunset Boulevard. This script contains much more detail and plot thoroughness than any other comedy of this previous day and age. While some audiences get most of their laughs from slapstick or poorly-delivered punchlines, Wilder knows how to write a much more advanced form of comedy. The way that he twists the situations these characters are in to make their predicaments much funnier is unmatched. And while Some Like It Hot also had multiple subplots going on, the intricacy of his script brings everything together for a very clean and hysterical ending. What I loved most about this script is that it really paved the way for these types of comedies: not ones that rely on the actors' improvisation skills, but rather creating an overall enjoyment out of the craft of the film itself too. Writing fantastic humor is certainly no easy feat, but Wilder has excelled in setting the bar for what a well-rounded comedy can do.

The chemistry between these three leads is undeniable as well. Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, and Marilyn Monroe are all stupendous performers in their own right, but what surprised me the most was the amount of sheer passion that radiates from the three. Older comedies such as this tend to derive most of their humor from the spoken lines of the cast, meaning that the actors and actresses usually remain stale while delivering their lines (either that or they are used to doing drama and have no sense of humor). These three leads, however, showed that a comedy can be much more than that. Their performances were so full of energy and physical humor that honestly reminded me more of something that would be released today. The way that these three interacted with each other, whether Joe was "Josephine" or Jerry was "Daphne" made for absolute hilarious madness and it was obvious that each actor truly put their all into it.

Along with Wilder's script, I think what really makes this film as progressive as it appears is its treatment of women and the LGBTQ+ community. While Joe and Jerry were cross-dressing as women, they were also given the same treatment that women received back during the Prohibition Era. Believe it or not, women were not treated very well and when Joe and Jerry experienced it for themselves, it was very eye-opening to them. Despite a few expected stereotypes of the time, they were never blatantly misogynistic, but getting treated that way provided for some amazing character development. Not only did they learn to respect and appreciate the plight of women back then, but they developed an understanding for gay culture (re: the last scene of the film). Even though a good majority of it was played for basic laughs, it has aged surprisingly well without being rudely disrespectful or harmful towards people who identify as such. As always though, it is important to remember the cultural reality of the time and how it affected cinema such as this.

Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon absolutely shine in Some Like It Hot, with the very former paving the way for every perfectly-timed, comedic scene. Not only does Wilder's direction make this comedy unforgettable, but his script makes for one of the best and most thought-out stories of his time. I can honestly say that I was expecting a much more misogynistic and ill-hearted comedy, but I am surprised at how phenomenal this film was throughout its entirety, utilizing progressive writing and themes to tell a solid and comedic story.

My Rating: ★★★★½

West Side Story (1961) directed by Jerome Robbins, Robert Wise

AFI Top 100: #51

After years of being friends with theatre kids in high school and even playing a compilation of its songs in my concert band, I can't believe it has taken me this long to finally see West Side Story. Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise's beloved 1961 adaptation of this ever-popular musical is a fantastic love story with such great performances and unforgettable musical numbers. Adapted from the likes of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, this movie has become known as one of the most pivotal love stories in the popular culture of today, crossing lines and exploring themes that had never been explored before. Despite this movie being a bit awkwardly directed at times and having a lack of focus around some of its most critical characters, I still very much enjoyed my first viewing of this renowned, theatrical film.

In the slums of New York City lie the Jets and the Sharks - two rival gangs who have been fighting for dominance over the streets. When Tony (Richard Beymer), ex-leader of the Jets, falls in love with Maria (Natalie Wood), sister of the Sharks' Bernardo (George Chakiris), they must try to hide their love to preserve order. Once they realize how difficult that will be, they instead decide to try and use this love to unite the two vicious, battling groups of friends. This script, written by Ernest Lehman, is a simple one, yet is effective enough to maintain a following for generations. Since this movie is based on the classic tale of Romeo and Juliet, there was a lot of chance to potentially take too much from that story without making an original enough story on their own. However, I am so glad that this film takes the basic premise to begin with while providing an entire slew of plot details and themes that were not prevalent in the 16th-century classic. The generic idea of having two people fall in love quickly and intensely while their story ends in tragedy is one of West Side Story's biggest topics, but the way that Lehman incorporates the themes of race and class into this film is amazing as well. It was so interesting to not just view but also compare the plight of the two different groups throughout this film and how their battles can be easily compared to those of today. The Sharks and their fight with being considered actual Americans and not just immigrated Puerto-Ricans is something that is, of course, very prevalent today, along with the Jets' refusal to accept the introduction of another culture. This dynamic was the most engaging part of this whole film and to be able to see the two different sides' opinions in such great detail was very important, especially for the divisive time in which this movie was released. I adored the balance between the love story and the larger-scale race war and how they tied into each other definitely set the standard for how to tell a sweeping, entertaining story.

The actual production of this film and the elements that go into making it such a classic are also something to marvel over. Beymer and Wood's performances are incredible and bring the much-needed charisma to this film. Without the amazing, on-screen chemistry between the two, there would not be much optimistic hope for this film to thrive on, which is ironic given that Beymer and Wood apparently despised each other during filming. Leonard Bernstein's soundtrack and subsequent dance numbers throughout this film are phenomenal. Jerome Robbins also handled the choreography throughout this movie, which was entrancing in every scene. It is very hard to keep an audience interested for a ten-minute opening number without any dialogue, but he pulled it off with absolute grace. The only issues I have with West Side Story, despite its exciting and colorful aesthetic, are elements of its writing and direction. Many of the songs' lyrics and a lot of character treatment are gleamingly outdated and I wish that certain characters would have been given more screentime to develop. Natalie Wood, a white woman, also plays the part of a Puerto-Rican, which would obviously not be acceptable today, but is understandable due to this film's era in which it was released. Robbins and Wise's direction in this film is also a bit choppy at times; a lot of scenes could have easily been trimmed down or even entirely cut in order to make this story a bit more concise. Despite these minor, personal issues, there is much to love about this legendary musical which has paved the way for generations of theatre-goers to enjoy.

It will be undoubtedly interesting to see how Steven Spielberg handles this film's remake, planned to come out at the end of 2020 with Ansel Elgort and relative newcomer Rachel Zegler attached. 1961's West Side Story, however, is definitely the defining version of this story, as it gave audiences such an inspiring look at how two people from incredibly different backgrounds can fall for each other. This lively film proves the cliché that love knows no boundaries and the heartbreaking story that comes with it is as poetic as it is melancholic.

My Rating: ★★★★

Under the Silver Lake (2019) directed by David Robert Mitchell

Not every filmmaker should be considered the "next Alfred Hitchcock" or the "next Quentin Tarantino," even if they make one movie that slightly resembles those cinematic styles. This is especially true in the case of David Robert Mitchell, writer and director of the neo-noir, stoner thriller Under the Silver Lake. Following a messy marketing plan and release from A24, the actual content of this film has followed suit as well. This movie is an absurdly confusing and muddled mystery tale that never manages to find its footing, despite so many different clichéd ideas. I was genuinely excited about this film, particularly because of the stylish trailers and my fondness for the ambiguous style Mitchell nailed in his previous outing It Follows. However, I was very disappointed to waste two and a half hours with this meaningless and poorly-constructed idea board of a film. Even though the cinematography and production design was barely this story's saving grace, it is difficult for me to join the arthouse crowd in saying that I enjoyed this movie.

Sam (Andrew Garfield) is a jobless, purposeless, young man who spends the majority of his time in his apartment in Los Angeles smoking pot, playing video games, and mindlessly hooking up with girls that are clearly out of his league. When he meets Sarah (Riley Keough), a new neighbor of his that initially seems interested in him, Sam becomes obsessed but learns that she has moved out in the middle of the night and disappeared. Attempting to track her down, he becomes entangled in the strange and dark underbelly of southern California and its riddling secrets. This script, written by Mitchell himself, is where this entire film goes wrong. The entirety of this film was spent as Sam wandered around from one unexplained place to the next trying to find Sarah after her disappearance. None of the events throughout this movie made sense and the endless amount of introduced subplots were nonsense. There was so much clear potential in this film to create an intriguing and concise story, but the sheer amount of directions that this movie took were completely unnecessary. Mitchell's love for film and the homage to many classic films were evident as well, but that did not change how meandering the plot was. The character of Sam was also a huge problem because I did not have any emotion towards him. Garfield's performance was passable, but his character was a grossly unmotivated loser that seemed so blasé. Thankfully there was a central plot but many of Sam's choices were never explained as Mitchell simply dances around what he's trying to say with this film.

The most prevalent problem with Under the Silver Lake is the lack of message or reason. Not every film has to have a moral to its story or even try to get its audience to think critically, but there should at least be some amount of satisfaction involved. Mitchell does not even try to build towards anything throughout this movie, as his now-trademark, ambiguous style simply did not work. It served an excellent purpose in It Follows, but all this film really needed was a better balance of directorial style with a plot that is not puzzling to follow along with. Perhaps this movie might have been executed better had it been written by someone else, but I believe that this film missed its mark with what it was trying to convey to its audience. The script itself is a homage to classic thrillers from the minds of Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick among others (there's even a very obvious Hitchcock reference on a gravestone as if Mitchell was trying to say "get it?!"), but at least their films had something relatively relatable to say. Whether it be voyeurism or the dangers of obsession, Hitchcock had a purpose with the films that he made; Mitchell did not seem to quite reach that point. This lack of coherence will certainly be popular amongst the arthouse crowd who can frankly twist any message to suit their own desires, but I could not escape the meaninglessness of Sam's journey.

Mitchell's direction has stayed practically the same since his previous directorial piece, but I just think he had too many ideas and attempted to cram them all in one epic adventure film. He undeniably knows how to create a great atmosphere, however, because I felt uneasy throughout each scene that Garfield inhabited. Despite his pacing being lazy and the story not really taking off until its third act, I loved the way that Mitchell at least tried to bring the plot together. Mike Gioulakis' cinematography is definitely the best part of this film, however. His ridiculous use of different kinds of camera work for the various scenes kept me on my toes the whole time. As cliché as it may be, I can only compare it to that of Tarantino's style, with his wild use of sudden movements and trippy characterization. There's also not any connection between the humor and references scattered across this bleak film, but there is something meta and simultaneously hilarious about Andrew Garfield waking up and getting his fingers stuck on a Spider-Man comic book.

Although I don't exactly know the reasons as to why A24 screwed over the marketing for this film, after watching this for the first time, I can begin to see why they did not believe it would do too hot. Under the Silver Lake may have some neat camera tricks and a catchy rhythm for these streets of Los Angeles to fall victim to, but a mediocre performance from Andrew Garfield and an utterly garbled script make this film a hard miss for me.

My Rating: ★★½

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) directed by André Øvredal

Boy am I glad that Guillermo del Toro did not direct this (although that might have been for the better). André Øvredal's cinematic adaptation of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is a film that I have actually been looking forward to for quite some time. One of my fondest memories of elementary school was being able to check out this collection of short stories from my school's library, which for a third-grader, was probably not the smartest idea. These stories absolutely haunted me as a kid and are a big influence in shaping my love for horror. This film, unfortunately, is a classic example of the book being much more effective than the movie. Tied together with a cliché story and horribly lazy writing, this film attempts to bring these terrifying tales to life but fails in providing anything but a few laughs. Thankfully del Toro was still slightly involved, as his legendary monster work might be the only aspect holding this mess of a film together.

It's Halloween in the year 1968 and the residents of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania accept the fact that there might be something spooky going on. The infamous house down the lane is supposedly haunted by the spirit of Sarah Bellows (Kathleen Pollard), who is known for reading her scary stories to unsuspecting children as they pass. When local kids Stella (Zoe Margaret Colletti), Ramón (Michael Garza), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur) uncover an old book full of her writing, they unknowingly unleash pages full of ghouls that are set on wreaking havoc. Adapted from a collection of short stories by Alvin Schwartz, this film seems to be set on telling as many of these stories as possible within the framing of a larger narrative. Picking and choosing these modern classic monster tales to incorporate within the plot might have been this film's biggest issue. What made these original stories so horrifying as a kid was their ambiguity. Each story has no context at all and this lack of explanation only made their atmospheres creepier. This film, on the other hand, tries to put all of these stories together, which only takes away from the initial impact that they are supposed to have. Not to mention that the script, written by Dan and Kevin Hageman with supervision from Guillermo himself, is incredibly lackluster and cheesy. The dialogue, humor, and attempted character development throughout this movie are all atrocious. I could not stand these main characters at all, let alone feel for their conflict. They were such typically-written, annoying children making horrible decisions, which is what frustrated me the most.

This film tries desperately hard to be either Stranger Things or The Losers Club from It, but the child characters from Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark do not have an ounce of the charisma or likability that the ones from the latter two do. I believe that this was because there was much more reliance on Guillermo del Toro as a producer rather than Øvredal's direction or the script. The ending of this movie is absolutely ridiculous because of the weak script. There is an attempted message of "never give up" and "follow your dreams" that was actually laughable and the way that the screenwriters try to set up a sequel is ridiculous. Luckily, del Toro is this film's one saving grace. His experience with this subgenre of horror brought the much-needed life to this film that was definitely needed. His iconic work and use of practical effects for the designs of the monsters was great and brought so many of these horrendous characters from my childhood to life. The design of the smiling woman in the hospital was particularly terrifying, as well as when a certain character transforms into a scarecrow towards the beginning. I am surprised that moments like these existed in this film with its PG-13 rating, as they were genuinely creepy. Paired with some cheap but solid jump scares from Øvredal's direction, this movie proves itself as a weak introduction to horror, but a relatively efficient one for younger audiences overall. I also just might be biased because I wish that "The Hook" story was included, as that tale left me never wanting to be in a car by myself ever again.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark had so much potential to be far greater but is squandered with a horrible script and ineffective storytelling. Perhaps this collection of stories is better suited in a different medium, but I suppose audiences will have to wait a few years for the reboot to see what they can do differently. I would still recommend this film as a tame introduction for young viewers who are freshly into the genre of horror, but there is certainly nothing groundbreaking within the streets of Mill Valley.

My Rating: ★★

Gone Girl (2014) directed by David Fincher

Whosever side you are on at the end of this film really shows who you are as a person, especially regarding your values in a relationship. David Fincher's Gone Girl is an absolutely astounding thriller that not only pushes on that theme but takes it to the extreme. Based on the novel of the same name and screenplay from Gillian Flynn, this film is an excellent examination of how far is too far when it comes to dealing with toxic relationships. With all of the same style and wit of Fincher injected into every tense scene, this movie will undoubtedly keep you on your toes with every twist and turn that the story may take. Along with a powerful performance from Rosamund Pike and a great but unfortunately fitting performance from Ben Affleck, this movie is one of the greatest thrillers of the modern-day. This is also my favorite Fincher film, as his directorial vision shines through in the most obvious ways, making for quite an exhilarating experience.

Gone Girl follows the relationship and love between Nick (Ben Affleck) and Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike). After five years of marriage, however, the two strong-witted scholars realize that falling for each other might have been a mistake. As Amy disappears one day and Nick half-heartedly tries to get her back, the true motivations behind both of them begin to surface as they engage in a thrilling battle of wits, truly testing the bounds of their relationship. Gillian Flynn's script adapted from her novel is what provides for this film's incredibly well-written and engaging story. Flynn has written two extremely complex characters to inherently face off against each other and while it can often be easier for someone to sympathize with one character over another, it is made plainly clear as to who the audience should be viewing as in the right. Nick's introduction as Amy disappears initially makes him look like the victim in the scenario, but his gradual transition into antagonist is fantastic screenwriting. Hearing from both sides of this relationship was obviously the point of the film and to see what Nick had done to Amy throughout the course of their marriage was infuriating. The treatment of Nick in this film is deserved, as he frankly gets what he has coming for him. It is also such a complex and interesting dynamic that both Amy and Nick are intelligent, clever-minded people. This made for such an exciting game of cat-and-mouse that never lets up or gives the audience time to breathe.

I have honestly never been a huge fan of David Fincher's direction but after a film like this, I can definitely see why his work is so renowned. I love his examination of toxic masculinity in Fight Club and his deconstruction of character in The Social Network, but others like Se7en have never particularly grabbed my interest. I suppose I just haven't been watching the right films because Gone Girl's style paired with its powerful, feminist message is exactly what drew me in from the beginning. Fincher's direction in this film remains astounding while surprising the audience with things that they could have easily figured out for themselves. What I loved most about this element of the movie is that Fincher never tries to throw any massive twists to shock the audience. Every "turn" that this story partakes in is something that the audience could have expected. But with a thriller such as this one, they would typically expect something of that nature to happen. Fincher flawlessly subverts these expectations by revealing this movie as more of a character study rather than building up to a climax. Developing these two lead characters is the most critical part of getting the audience to feel for one or the other and Fincher has done such a concise job of just that.

Fincher's direction has also definitely contributed to the discussion as to whether this film is blatantly misogynistic or rightfully feminist. It can truly be either, whichever way the audience decides to look at it. Depending on your upbringing and how you sympathize with certain gender roles put on either one of them, there could really be two vastly different messages to the story. I do believe that Fincher and Flynn were clearly showing how wrong Nick was in the situation, but this is what I believe makes the story so brilliant: there are two clear sides to the story and even though Amy was proven to be much more meticulously clever than Nick, there is so much background with each to make them so complex. Flynn wrote Amy as the very strong woman that she knew she was and what I love about the script is the fact that she embraces this potentially intimidating characteristic. Not many men are used to seeing strong, female characters in film and this film in particular forces them to re-evaluate those beliefs. Not all women in movies can be the "cool girl" and Fincher/Flynn are here to destroy that notion. Rosamund Pike's performance in this movie is consistently superb and her monologue halfway through paves out her character arc in the most perfect way imaginable. Along with Ben Affleck's solid but revealing performance of Nick, these two leads provide some incredible detail and very characteristic emotions in their unforgettable performances.

From what I have read and experienced on the internet, Gone Girl is quite the divisive film, but Fincher clearly did not mean it to be that way. Nick's transformation from protagonist to antagonist not only paves the way for much discussion about marital issues but makes it obvious who is in the right. Carried also by a wildly talented cast and impactful direction, this movie remains such an important piece of filmmaking. And if I haven't made it clear enough by now, let me reiterate that if you are on Nick's side, you are on the wrong side buddy.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989) directed by Stephen Herek

Guilty pleasures can be a very dangerous thing to filmmakers, potentially blinding them to other, better, cinematic works. While some films, television shows or pieces of music may evoke a certain emotion or amount of nostalgia, it is safe to say that you shouldn't rely on just one piece of art to bring you comfort. Unless, of course, that piece of art includes Keanu Reeves playing the air guitar and having the time of his life. So forget everything I just said. Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure truly provides everything that a nostalgic, guilty pleasure should be. A young Keanu, an absolutely goofy plot, and fantastic music: everything that makes an 80's comedy of this caliber so special. This film is not one of my favorites or even a well-written story, but there is no denying that it is an extremely fun watch to take your mind off of whatever totally not excellent topic you may be groveling over.

Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are two best friends and bandmates living in San Dimas, California trying to get their music career started with their band Wyld Stallyns. The two realize that they can't do that, however, without passing their history class and graduating high school, or else Ted will be shipped off to a military academy. When Rufus (George Carlin), a traveler from the future arrives, he offers them hope with a time machine that they must use in order to pass their dreaded class. The script of this film, written by Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon, is an example of such a simple idea that a screenwriter can come up with while still having their work be idolized for generations. The premise of Bill and Ted's adventure is a goofy time-travel romp as they attempt to gather up a multitude of historical figures throughout history to help them with their report. Writing this movie in the 1980s was probably not the most difficult thing, as there are plenty of other films that attempt to explain or dramatize time travel in the most serious of ways. This story did not require that at all, however, and I'm glad that these storytellers took the most playful route possible. It's very rare to see a film like this nowadays, as audiences all over constantly look for the deeper meaning or how a certain story ties into the modern climate. What I love most about Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure is that it never tries to be anything more than a silly buddy comedy that was an apparent blast to make. Sometimes a film is needed just to take people's minds off of everything and this movie is the perfect one to do so. Even though the late 1980s were a much different time than now, I wish more movies like this were made today. The script from Matheson and Solomon might not have the most laugh-out-loud humor or most devastating drama, but the unbridled joy that comes from this story is undeniable.

The characters of Bill and Ted themselves are some of the most memorable characters ever written and for so many reasons. The sheer carelessness that they exhibit in every scene is hilarious and their interactions with the various historical figures are amazing. Despite the screenwriters reducing many of these critical people like Abraham Lincoln and Joan of Arc down to certain stereotypes regarding their legacies, they were written to fit this story so well. Perhaps it is because of the film's PG rating, but it was also honestly refreshing not to see these two become the typical, stereotypical "potheads" that you would expect in a comedy such as this. Even though some of their actions and mannerisms may lead you to believe so, it's nice to see two, blissfully idiotic friends bounce jokes off of each other. The chemistry between Reeves and Winter has to be fantastic for this film to work, of course, and they definitely do not let their audience down. These two best friends could not have been cast any better and without their spunk, this movie might have been more of a cultural flop. For a film that also does not even take its own message very seriously, there are actually some impressive technical elements throughout. The special effects, even with an estimated budget of $10 million, looked fairly decent and even though they might not be anywhere near where special effects are today, still provided for an unforgettable aesthetic. What surprised me the most, however, was Jill M. Ohanneson's costuming and Roy Forge Smith's production design. To be able to navigate all of these different time periods and make such beautiful, engaging set pieces was incredible. The clash of cultures throughout this movie not only made for some of the most humorous scenes, but they all still kept their distinct looks throughout.

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure is not only one of the most quotable and lighthearted films of all time but makes for a perfect watch when you need something to pick you up. There is endless, naive fun to be had with this exuberant tale of Bill S. Preston, Esquire, and Ted "Theodore" Logan, as it is impossible not to enjoy. And anyone who tells you different is a liar who is incapable of letting loose and being excellent.

My Rating: ★★★★

Serenity (2019) directed by Steven Knight

It's not very often that I see a film in which I am initially at a loss for words. I can usually deem most movies either relatively good or bad based on my first impressions, but Steven Knight's January-released Serenity sure is... a movie. I never got the chance to see this film in theaters, even after hearing both rave and horrible reviews, but I wish more than anything that I could have been in one to experience this with more people. This film, with its endless potential and boundless talent surrounding its story, could have been much more fluently executed but is weighed down by an immeasurable amount of technical flaws. It's very difficult to describe this movie without talking about spoilers, but I will say that the only comparison that even comes to mind is Tommy Wiseau's cult classic The Room. However, even that film has evolved into something completely new; Serenity is just simply atrocious.

Off the small coasts of Plymouth Island lives Baker Dill (Matthew McConaughey), a career fisherman who takes tourists out fishing to fund his obsession with catching a legendary tuna. When his ex-wife Karen (Anne Hathaway) arrives in town unexpectedly, Baker finds his entire world thrown into a spiral - discovering that his simplistic life may not be as it seems. The premise of Serenity seems straightforward and simple enough to fuel a family-oriented drama such as this. This easily could have been a much more engaging and dramatic thriller if the cinematic elements surrounding this production were not so ungodly. That's not to say, however, that this film was not interesting because I quite literally could not stop watching it: truly the epitome of "so bad that it's good." One would expect a lot more quality from a film with a cast and crew such as this, but every aspect of this movie was such a let-down. The main issue comes from Knight's script, which was incredibly lazy. Watching this film, you could tell that Knight had the ending of the film in his head and the main plot as a starting point but could not figure out how to write characters or story around that. Many subplots throughout Serenity were not explained in both their introduction and conclusion; small details about many of the characters came out of nowhere and then promptly went nowhere at all. This also has to do with the dialogue and how plastic it was. This entire film was packed full of generic dialogue that did nothing for having me feel for what these characters were going through.

Another element that comes into play, however, is the revealed twist. This is one of the absolute wackiest films I have ever seen and the amount of insanity that stems from the plot is overwhelming. The entire plot of this movie revolves around Baker deciding whether or not to kill Karen's husband Frank (Jason Clarke) and dealing with the grief about missing his son. When it is revealed to the audience that Baker's life on the island and all the people on it were all part of a video game programmed by his son, the motivations for these characters became very unclear. This is not one of those films in which the plot twist connects all of the film's details for a satisfying ending; rather, this is a film that only confuses the audience even more. I was sitting in shock at the end of this movie wondering what the fuck I had just watched, as the fantasy elements came out of nowhere to make the dramatic parts of the story so unbearable. This twist also raises a possible explanation as to why the performances in this movie were horrendous: if it was Dill's son writing the story of this video game the whole time, then he might not have a clue about how to program emotions into characters. That all does not matter, however, as it all came down to Knight's writing being lackluster regardless. And for a film with as much gorgeous landscape and potential for a sweet message like this one, that was all squandered so badly on his endlessly frustrating script.

The absolute worst and most excruciating part of this film to even sit through was the editing from Laura Jennings and the performances from the whole cast. Whether it be purposeful due to the twist at the end or not, I could not get past how difficult to watch this movie was. It's hard to believe that this is a real movie that exists in 2019 in the first place, but the fact that this film is made so sloppily is painful. Serenity feels like an unfinished movie or a first pass at what was supposed to be finished later in post. Jennings use of jump cuts and frantic editing made me feel like I was on drugs because there were so many unnecessary edits utilized that did not let the film breathe at all. It reminded me of the quick and attention-grabbing style of Edgar Wright, except there was no detail at all and no reason for the scenes to be cut so fast. To some (me included), Serenity may be an awfully paced and unforgivable mistake of a film, but to others, the twist may make this movie an absolute masterpiece. I could frankly not see past the horrible technical elements throughout, even if they were attempted to be redeemed by an explanation provided by the film's conclusion.

Serenity will undoubtedly be one of the most talked-about films of this year, but definitely not for any of its redeeming elements, of which there are none. With an absolutely stacked amount of talent and so much potential for a more interesting story, there could have been so much to love about this. But when a film looks and feels as unfinished and amateur as this, it is hard to do anything but laugh out loud.

My Rating: ★½