Villains (2019) directed by Dan Berk, Robert Olsen

It's always a pleasant surprise going into a film you know little to nothing about and having it become an instant favorite. Dan Berk and Robert Olsen's fantastic film Villains is the newest indie of this variety to leave me beyond satisfied. The only thing I knew about Villains going in was that it starred Bill Skarsgård and was a dark comedy but what I ended up getting was so much more. Not only does this film provide an effective and wildly thrilling plot, but the direction from the two elevate it to a whole other, exciting level. Even though a vast majority of the script and dialogue seemed to be an exquisite corpse of ideas from many other, more focused thrillers, this film is an undoubtedly fun ride with some excellent performances and a very impressive use of small-scale filmmaking. For better or worse, this movie proves that there doesn't always need to be an underlying message to make a movie engaging, but rather just a simple premise executed villainously well.

After robbing a convenience store, amateur criminals Mickey (Bill Skarsgård) and Jules (Maika Monroe) plan to make their way to Florida, until their car breaks down on the side of an interstate. They find a local home where they plan to steal a car but as the homeowners George (Jeffrey Donovan) and Gloria (Kyra Sedgwick) arrive, the two outlaws realize that the house they are stuck in harbors a much darker secret than they ever could have expected. While this movie can absolutely and rightfully be seen as forgettable or mediocre, there is something about its production that is incredibly charming: Dan Berk and Robert Olsen's direction. Their storytelling abilities are showcased front and center in this film, as its simple premise leaves it up to them to shine. Thankfully, the two are more than capable of carrying a story like this and bring an always enjoyable aspect of dark comedy to their writing. This story of two criminals getting a taste of their own medicine per se is not too innovative of an idea but the character developments and connections between them all are what makes this story so interesting. While Skarsgård and Monroe have fantastic chemistry, so do Donovan and Sedgwick, which in turn make them all such a fantastic and talented cast. The dynamic between the two couples and how the film explored how they really were not that different was amazing and made the audience care for these two "protagonists" immensely. In fact, what drew me in the most about this film is how small-scale everything was. Nearly the entire film takes place throughout the nooks and crannies of one deranged couple's house and the fact that Berk and Olsen were able to keep me engaged for an hour and a half is unbelievable.

Unfortunately, what holds Villains back from becoming a much more impactful film is its lack of depth and inability to get past surface-level storytelling. I found a good majority of this script, particularly its dialogue, to be very shallow. There did not ever seem to be an attempt at making the audience reflect upon themselves or be affected by any kind of deeper meaning. There was also so much potential to really delve deep into how dark and boundary-pushing this movie could be as I was expecting a much bigger twist or reveal at the end, but it failed to do that. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as this film's resolution was rightfully deserved and cute, but for a dark comedy, it leaned too much on the comedy. Most of this script was fairly generic as well and I wish that the older couple would have been explored a bit more. Even though there were some basic motivations for why they held such a dark secret in their basement, I did not ever really feel like Mickey and Jules' predicament was too threatening. I absolutely recommend seeing this film to support indie filmmakers and a small studio such as this, but I was honestly expecting to be blown away a bit more. Luckily, the performances and indie tone of this whole production makes it such pure fun. The comedy did its job well, the thrilling drama does its job well, and the audience is left with a wonderful, if a bit expected, ending. Skarsgård and Monroe are especially fantastic, as their careless and lighthearted interactions even in the direst of circumstances gives this movie light in its darkest crevices. At its core, Villains is just an exercise in incredibly simple but unforgettably lively storytelling that I aspire to be a part of one day.

I absolutely adore the stylish and tense filmmaking present throughout Villains and admire this pair of writers/directors for making such a purely entertaining film. Despite me wishing that the story could have been a bit deeper than just the surface level it was presented on, there is no doubt in my mind that Villains has made its way into my new favorites. And it was also just nice to see Skarsgård's talent shine in something other than his goofy, murderous clown persona.

My Rating: ★★★½

Spring Breakers (2012) directed by Harmony Korine

Style over substance is not typically a phrase that I enjoy using, as sometimes even the most interesting narratives can come from stylistic choices alone. Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers, however, is solely an exercise in style over substance and proves itself as one of the most frustrating films ever made about a simple college tradition. This grossly-shot and puzzling film relies far too heavily on Korine's hazy and entrancing direction, leaving absolutely no room for any emotional investment in his script. While this movie could be (and has been) translated as a dark and capitalist look into the criminal underbelly of Florida, I frankly could not see past how borderline exploitative its storytelling was. Since I thoroughly enjoyed the direction that Korine took with Matthew McConaughey in this year's The Beach Bum, I wanted to be able to appreciate his twisted take on spring break but, unfortunately, I spectacularly failed to do so.

Faith (Selena Gomez), Candy (Vanessa Hudgens), Brit (Ashley Benson), and Cotty (Rachel Korine) are four college friends who have grown up with each other their entire lives. When they realize that they don't have enough money to go to Florida for spring break, they decide to rob a local restaurant to fund their stereotypical trip. After getting busted for drugs in Florida, they get bailed out by a local rapper/crime lord named Alien (James Franco), who has many other dangerous plans for them. I can truly see why people would think that this is a dark and unrelenting look at the crime world in Florida, but the lack of context in this script was so extreme that it became frustratingly dull. Korine's script is atrocious and it feels like he actually wrote it on the fly while filming. It completely lacked any interesting ideas or themes to present to its audience, or better yet, ones that made any sense. As this slowly becomes an almost dark satire on the typical party genre of film, Korine begins to rely way too heavily on his direction to push along the story. The hallucinogenic and hazy feel that plagued this entire film was something that is a strong, stylistic choice but one that would have proven better with a more tangible plot. All Korine does is bathe in this ambiguous atmosphere, carelessly guiding his characters through their adventure. I despise this type of filmmaking, as it comes off incredibly lazy, despite it possibly being the point.

This is all coming from someone who actually really enjoyed The Beach Bum. While many could have the same gripes with that film because of its laid-back direction, at least the audience knew what its characters were trying to accomplish. All of the characters in Moondog's world knew the kind of person he was and they all relatively played along to create such an entrancing story. The biggest issue with why Spring Breakers absolutely does not work is that it completely leaves it up to the audience to decipher its characters and who they should be caring about (which was honestly no one). Again, no context is given to any of these girls, with the exception of Faith. I do appreciate the fact that Selena Gomez's character was at least attempted to give some kind of framing in the story. She is the only character that I actually found to have some amount of personal power, by not being naively swayed by Alien and the influence of his criminal activities. Her backstory was mildly explored through the voiceover phone calls with her grandmother and the fact that she was more religious than her friends. Which is not ever to say that women require religion to be a good character, but at least she was given some amount of personality and motivation other than wanting to party and wreck their lives like the other, disposable, weakly-written characters.

I might be missing something, however, because I am in the apparent small minority of people that could not appreciate this film for its attempted dark satire. This is also because of Korine's direction and borderline fetishization of the cinematography from Benoît Debie. Korine and Debie try to use the camera throughout this movie to get the audience to realize how much male gaze is a problem. I can tell that this is what they were trying to do, but shooting a film like that in and of itself contributes to the issue of the male gaze. This backfires in the worst ways possible and more than anything, shows the audience that there are no consequences for what you might do when you see these nearly naked women for an hour and a half. While I applaud Debie for his cinematography being very characteristic of the kind of film Korine was creating, I just can not tolerate when it is used in that way. But hey, at least there are plenty of pretty lights and an abundance of neon to distract us, right?

Spring Breakers is nothing more than a pubescent boy's wet dream thinly disguised as an adult-level crime thriller. Korine's direction made it almost impossible for me to see past the disgusting utilization of these former Disney stars and into any kind of tangible plot. While I enjoyed the peculiar performances for the most part and how passionate this entire crew seemed to be about telling this story, it was hard for me to take Korine seriously when he spends the majority of his time softly relishing in the bikini-clad bodies of these characters.

My Rating: ★½

Frances Ha (2012) directed by Noah Baumbach

There is no force in this world greater or more inseparable than the friendship and bond between two women. This kind of friendship has proven time and time again to be a critical element in women as they mature into their adulthood, as well as the basis for an extraordinarily gorgeous film. Frances Ha is the defining movie to really exemplify this friendship and who better to embody its story than Greta Gerwig. What I adore most about this film is the titular performance from Gerwig and the direction from her now-boyfriend Noah Baumbach. Gerwig absolutely stole this film, so much to the point that it began to feel almost autobiographical. This is only assisted by Baumbach's surprisingly sensitive and careful direction, which makes this story as truly beautiful as it is. After having this film recommended by a multitude of people, I am so glad to say that it definitely lives up to its praise as a heartwarming and stunning story of a woman's simple yet utterly complicated life.

Frances (Greta Gerwig) is a young dancer living in New York City with her best friend Sophie (Mickey Sumner), a writer for a publishing house. When both of their relationships take different turns, they find themselves split up in various apartments across the city. Looking to land on her feet, Frances takes up residence with a few friends and tries to sort out her life in the most coming-of-age ways possible. While this film could fit into infinitely different genres, it is truly just the epitome of slice-of-life cinema. Following the life of Frances over the course of a year or so, this movie puts all of its focus on telling the story of Frances and the multiple places that she's lived. The use of locations and their respective title cards to show where Frances was throughout her life was such a clever idea and provided some very interesting narrative framing. This technique almost makes the audience feel as if they are inside the world of Frances with her experiencing her life rather than watching along as an outsider. Baumbach's extremely personal direction suited this film extremely well, as it plays out as more of a scene-by-scene stage play than a typical, plot-driven movie. The relaxing and playful nature of this entire film was also what makes it stand out so well from many other films about women in New York City "finding themselves." Frances had already really found herself, which made this movie such an interesting case study for her as she just went with the flow of wherever life took her. It's not that Frances as a character was necessarily careless, but her easygoing yet self-assured mannerisms made her such a lovable lead to follow along with.

Frances Ha also solidifies the notion that people who complain about black and white films are complete babies. I absolutely adore the simplistic style that Baumbach chose for this movie, as it really makes the audience focus on the writing and immersing themselves in this New York environment. Not that Sam Levy's cinematography wasn't beautiful, but it didn't really need to be, as Baumbach and Gerwig's script gave this film its real beauty. The central theme of friendship between women was so captivating and done so genuinely as well. Clearly establishing itself as the most prevalent theme, Frances and Sophie's relationship is handed to the audience right off the bat as they should rightfully be. The way that these two develop, grow apart, and eventually come back together is so symbolic of not just reality but their respective characters too. They knew throughout their entire lives that they would always have each other's back, regardless of who they might be with or where they might be living. Seeing how this affected Frances was where I found this film most interesting, as she stumbles in trying to find her place in the city without Sophie. Frances was so much more than just a temporarily homeless dancer trying to get her life back on track, but a complex and multi-dimensional character that brought out nothing but authenticity from Gerwig's stunning performance.

As simply executed as it is mesmerizing to watch, Frances Ha is the peak of authentic, supportive friendships between women. Although it gives more time to its lead protagonist rather than the characters around her, this is a sincere story that anyone who has ever grown up and grown apart from their best friend can relate to. What Frances Ha succeeds as the most, however, is telling its story so elegantly that its audience will feel so engrossed in this world, often to the point that one could forget that they're watching a movie and not their own lives.

My Rating: ★★★★

Ad Astra (2019) directed by James Gray

I've never wanted to give emotionally-repressed Brad Pitt a hug more so than in this film. James Gray's magnificent Ad Astra is an absolute crowning achievement in science-fiction filmmaking. Taking inspiration from just about every iconic movie of this genre, this film is a very passionately-written ode to sons, their fathers, and the often rocky relationships that many of them have. While the stakes may have been a bit higher in this film than what families are used to dealing with, the level of personal touch that Gray infused into every scene was astounding. I have not seen a movie of this genre touch on such emotional and sensitive material like this one did and I believe that the combination of Gray's writing/directing talent and his fantastic cast only adds to that. Seeing this in IMAX was also a huge plus, as the sheer amount of power the cinematography and sound design held made this an incredibly sensory experience. Along with an arguably career-best performance from Pitt, Ad Astra has instantly become one of the best sci-fi films for years to come, not to mention one of the best of this entire year.

Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is a seasoned astronaut who has a long, cosmic tie with space travel. His father H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) had left almost 30 years prior for a mission to Jupiter, leaving Roy's mother alone to raise their son herself. As his father's project begins to cause power surges that threaten humanity in the near future, Roy is tasked with finding and putting a stop to him. While this film accomplishes so many impressive feats, the thing that it succeeds best in is making its story unbelievably human. Set in the near future, this film has every right to be a fun, throwaway film with some big stars but Gray's direction paired with him and Ethan Gross' script proves it to be about much more. While Ad Astra takes its story in a more emotional direction compared to others of this genre, it still did wonders for building this mildly futuristic world. The environment that Gray builds to establish this setting as a world just barely out of reach of our own was so pleasant and shockingly familiar at times. Even though these characters travel to the moon, Mars, and even Jupiter, I never felt like I had left the comfort of what was usual for me. We even see places like Applebee's and Subway on a lunar colony but nothing ever feels out of place. Whether that says something about me or something about the technological progress of our culture is up for debate, but this environment was entrancing. I also really enjoyed the borderline goofy elements of the script. Ad Astra knows what kind of film it is and is not afraid to tease the audience with what might be stereotypical of a film like it.

Above every other typical space drama trope that Gray could have dipped his toes into, this film at its core is about how dangerous repressing your emotions can be. Roy's relationship with his father is obviously this film's main theme and the way that it explored emotional connections and idolatry was fantastic. Roy had spent his entire life trying not to act out or show too much emotion, so much to the point that he had become famous for his resting heart rate and easy success on psychological evaluations. He had always tried his absolute hardest not to become his father, while still maintaining some hope that Clifford was a good man at heart. As Roy eventually finds out that his father is not exactly who he expected to be, the film shifts focus to show how important it is to step out of your shell and rise above what your idols often fail to be. Ad Astra does so much for showing how dangerous withholding yourself from other people can be and is displayed through the beautiful character study of Roy. Pitt's performance was a large part of this as well, as his melancholic portrayal was very suiting. Even in simple close-ups of his eyes, the sheer pain that he can embody was extraordinary. Brad Pitt has been declared king of destroying toxic masculinity and I could not be more grateful.

Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography was absolutely gorgeous as well. The many crisp and unsettling shots were such amazing choices for many of this film's scenes and provided for a positively amazing first viewing. Ad Astra takes its cues from so many different futuristic films of its kind as well, as their influences can be clearly seen. Everything from the ambiguous anxiety of 2001: A Space Odyssey to the roaring action of Mad Max: Fury Road can be seen in different elements of this film. Awe-inspiring sound design is also basically a requirement for a space film these days and this movie was no exception. The creeping silence of space will forever be used by filmmakers to convey how lonely it truly is up there amongst the stars and this theme was used once again in such an effective way. This is one of the best sci-fi films of recent years by far, but my only issue was the cliché voiceover that plagued this narrative. I found it to be very distracting and frankly lazy but if it hadn't been utilized, the film would have had to rely too much on visual imagery.

Ad Astra is an incredible powerhouse of a film and an emotional, necessary addition to the science-fiction genre. Brad Pitt has never been better than his role of Roy McBride, as he brings so many various, nuanced layers that otherwise would not have made this protagonist very interesting. With Ad Astra, James Gray has truly delivered an intense arthouse space film that I will undoubtedly be revisiting countless times in the near future.

My Rating: ★★★★½

In the Heat of the Night (1967) directed by Norman Jewison

AFI Top 100: #75

The tense relationship-often-turned-friendship between a white man and a black man in the deep South of the 1960s is no new plot for a drama of this kind. Movies like Green Book (it was the first off the top of my head) are an unfortunate contribution to this tired genre and at this point, I believe they do absolutely nothing to sway the opinions of stubborn political minds from both sides of the debate. What makes Norman Jewison's In the Heat of the Night so different, however, is the fact that it was actually released in the time period that it was set in. The performances in this movie are incredible, as is the whodunit feel, but what stood out the most to me was how bold these filmmakers were to tell a story like this at that time in America. Despite an obvious lack of production continuity, this film truly sets the standard for how to expertly blend an entertaining story with political and racial themes.

After being wrongfully accused of a wealthy businessman's murder, police detective Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) is assigned to stay in the rural town of Sparta, Mississippi to help solve it. Dealing with the initially prejudiced Chief Gillespie (Rod Steiger) and his police force proves to be a challenge, however, as the two must work together to solve the case. The script of this film, written by Stirling Silliphant and adapted from the novel by John Ball, makes for some of the most interesting scenes. Silliphant was able to very effectively write an engaging whodunit-type film with undertones and clear overtones of how to treat each other as humans. If anything, the treatment of the racial themes throughout this movie was very surface-level. Through dialogue and many tense scenes, this movie comes right off the bat with "hey, racism and prejudice are bad!" While this was the basic, overarching theme, I did really love the subtle interactions that these characters had to really solidify their behavior towards each other. The fact that the police force would much rather defend a white, convicted prisoner than a black, esteemed detective says so much about them, despite being too on-the-nose. Like I had mentioned though, this aspect was still incredibly groundbreaking for the time, providing the audience with something that they never could have expected. In the Heat of the Night very blatantly holds up a mirror to its audience and forces them to re-evaluate their own personal biases and outdated opinions. This seems like it would be frankly basic and lazy writing nowadays, but I can only imagine the impact that this movie had back then.

If not for Poitier and Steiger's performances, this film might not have been as effective as it was. They are both incredibly talented performers and the way that their relationship developed from hostile to comfortably accepting was riveting to see. Again, the development might be a bit cliché at this point, but it was refreshing to see characters such as this eventually get along with each other. Particularly in Poitier's character of Detective Tibbs, as his often withholding and nuanced performance felt so genuine. Even in things that I see today, this unfortunate fear shared between many African-Americans at this time was expressed beautifully by Poitier. His performance also almost invokes a twinge of comedy in his interactions with Gillespie, as he knows that he is clearly able to outsmart this entire town. The aspect of this film that took me out of its environment the most, though, was the tone and Haskell Wexler's cinematography. This entire movie was shot like it was a television cop drama of the time, which is ironic given that this was adapted into a TV show for an entire 8 seasons in 1988. Many of the shots felt too close or had too much zoom and was not really able to translate what the scene was trying to convey. Feeling like an episode of television really brought me out of the story, along with how mismatched many of the scenes were. This film could not quite decide whether it was a more stoic drama or a lighthearted look into the two protagonists' relationship and Jewison's direction fails to distinguish between the two. Despite the way this movie was made, however, as it ended up as a bit of a tonal mess, Jewison is able to tell such an efficient and interesting story.

In the Heat of the Night is an incredible story that almost comes off as dangerous for these filmmakers to tell in this era. While I did not necessarily enjoy how this movie was shot or even presented, thankfully the writing and performances bring enough to the table to make this film very enjoyable. Paired with its titular theme song from Ray Charles and this movie proves itself to be a very engaging classic.

My Rating: ★★★½

Urban Cowboy (1980) directed by James Bridges

There's nothing more down-home American than working a minimum wage job to survive, riding mechanical bulls every night, and slapping your wife when she doesn't listen to you. Yeehaw! James Bridges' Urban Cowboy is a decent slice-of-life film that really embodies everything that the Texas way of life had to offer. Starring a young John Travolta in his prime and breakout star Debra Winger, this movie has a lot to say about this culture, for better or worse depending on the perspective of the viewer. While so much of this film's substance has aged horribly and the script does not do a very good job of making the audience root for this supposed protagonist at all, there is something about its cultural placement that makes it stand out amongst many other '80s films. Perhaps because a big name like John Travolta was able to revitalize country music and that way of life, but regardless of this movie's script deficiencies, it is still a dramatic and gorgeously-made film.

Finally moving out of his childhood home, Bud (John Travolta) decides to move to Texas to begin his own rootin', tootin' life. He finds a job from his Uncle Bob (Barry Corbin) and as he is settling in, meets a beautiful young woman at a bar named Sissy (Debra Winger). The two eventually realize that their relationship is a lot more complicated than initially expected, as they both experience the ups and downs of life and love in their shared Houston bar. I have never really thought of John Travolta as a great actor. While he was an undeniable heartthrob in this era and is effective nonetheless, none of his performances ever really come to mind when I think of solid acting. Perhaps that is because of the way that his characters are written. This script had much potential to be a truer story of realizing faults in your upbringing but fails to give that pleasant closure to its audience. I had a very difficult time sympathizing with the character of Bud, mostly because he really did not change at all throughout this film. His marriage to Sissy begins the same night that he assaulted her in a restaurant and wrestled with her in the parking lot, without seeing any fault. I will always understand that "times were different" and not many people took issue with this when the film was released, but it is very hard not to, especially nowadays. I did not ever root for Travolta's character, which I was hoping would change if he had learned what an antagonistic person he had become. I did really enjoy the fact that James Bridges and Aaron Latham gave enough screentime for Sissy to develop as her own person as much as Bud, but the way that they handled these women characters, in the end, was still unacceptable. I was hoping that Bud would have learned his lesson and changed for the better, but the constant abuse towards Sissy continued as she went right back to him (leaving one abusive partner for another). Other than my issues with the undeserved resolutions of these characters, Urban Cowboy does a decent job, for better or worse, of telling a slice-of-life story of how Texan life influenced this young buck.

If any genre of music was in desperate need of being revived in the late 20th century, filmmakers knew that John Travolta was the man to save it. Starting with disco in Saturday Night Fever, Travolta must have held some kind of secret that he used to make these cultures relevant again. With Urban Cowboy, country music was not entirely gone but was beginning to fade from popular culture and the film did a fantastic job of bringing it back. If there is truly anything that one can take away from this film, it's that it holds such a critical place in the zeitgeist of country music in the 1980s. It's very interesting to look back now and see how this film has left its huge impact. However, while I did not have any grade of expectations for this movie, I was pleasantly surprised at how stupendous its production was. The cinematography from Reynaldo Villalobos was incredible and provided a whole other layer of storytelling through his use of objects and locations that were otherwise absent in the script. I was consistently taken aback by how well he was able to make the same environment constantly interesting. David Rawlins' editing worked very well too, letting the story breathe and despite feeling a bit long, was able to really capture the tone of the most important scenes.

Urban Cowboy, despite its often distasteful script and disregard of marital faithfulness, is exactly what the title suggests: a more modern version of the traditional cowboy archetype. While country music and culture were on a great decline in the '70s, James Bridges and John Travolta practically resuscitated it and brought it back to its feet with this film alone. This movie's legacy and soundtrack are solid and it is definitely worth a watch just because of that.

My Rating: ★★★

The Goldfinch (2019) directed by John Crowley

I really, really should have known better. Endless negative reviews from TIFF and from screenings earlier this week warned me and yet, I did not listen. I had very high hopes for this film and truly wished that it was one of the rare cases of a trailer being unintentionally misleading. John Crowley's The Goldfinch is a frustratingly convoluted and directionally challenged film that makes its audience really wonder how much longer they can tolerate such unfair treatment. This movie lacks any semblance of coherence in what should make a piece of cinema generally understandable and does so in such a way that made me wonder where the creatives' minds were during its production. While the script itself is not horrible and the story had so much potential to be a beautiful tale of processing grief and emerging anew, The Goldfinch completely abandons that to tell an even more confusing story of a young boy's multiple tragedies. The biggest tragedy being, however, that this will most likely win Best Editing come February.

Theo Decker (Oakes Fegley) is a young boy living with his mother in New York and as she dies in an unfortunate bombing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, he finds himself temporarily living with a new family under the care of Mrs. Barbour (Nicole Kidman). Harboring a stolen painting and the grief of all of his past mistakes, Theo in his older age (Ansel Elgort) struggles to come to terms with the things that shaped his childhood and how his secrets could ultimately lead to his downfall. Writing this synopsis of the film might have been the most difficult thing I have done in a while. The ambiguity of describing what this film is about is truly harrowing because even after trying to decode this film for two and a half hours, I still fail to even see what its significance could possibly be. This film tried its hardest to be an exploration of processing grief after a tragedy, which I assume is what Donna Tartt's original novel did much better. What John Crowley is unable to do, however, is translate that message to an interesting narrative on screen. The Goldfinch had every bit of potential to be a beautiful and uplifting story about how one boy can overcome his past while keeping its memories intact but throws in so many different tonal elements that only muster what it was trying to say. A little bit of coming-of-age story here and a little bit of uncharacteristic writing there makes this protagonist a confusing and misleading character to root for. Not to mention that it completely disregards what makes the story important to tell in favor of misguided subplots.

Adapted from the novel of the same name, the script by Peter Straughan only adds to the muffled nothingness of Crowley's direction. His script is utterly horrible, filled with cliché dialogue and unmotivated character development which made no sense whatsoever. This lack of rational storytelling is what hurts the film so much. Upon seeing its trailer, I was so confused as to what this film revolved around. Was it a boy involved in an art heist or was it a boy trying to emotionally process the death of his mother? I was hoping that these questions would be resolved throughout the film but Crowley and Straughan only managed to confuse me more. So many scenes and character motivations throughout this movie only happened due to pure coincidence or no explanation at all. As young Theo was escaping the bombing (in which his mother was meeting his principal for some unexplained reason?), he is given a ring by a man and told to steal the painting The Goldfinch. This only begins the trail of unexplained arcs as Theo halfheartedly holds on to this painting for his entire life. Being the damn title of the film, one would expect a reason as to why this particular piece of art held so much value and meant so much to people, but these emotional connections were never even attempted to be explored. So many various subplots existed in this film, such as Theo's antique, woodworking career adopted from his mentor Hobie (Jeffrey Wright) and Theo's unfaithful engagement to his fiancé Kitsey (Willa Fitzgerald), that existed only to shaft him even more. These aspects of Theo's story felt like they were only written for the sake of telling a more widely-developed world, but failed miserably. The Goldfinch truly takes such an important story and grossly exploits it to make room for incredibly shitty screenwriting.

Filmmakers should never have to assume that their audiences have read a novel that their film is based on. Faithfulness to a film's source material is a whole other argument but regardless, a film should be able to tell a clear story and provide some amount of narrative satisfaction. Perhaps Crowley assumed that everyone has read this book before, but he must have left out certain scenes that make this movie even tangible. Kelley Dixon's editing also destroyed any hope for letting me breathe during this film. The choppy and uncomfortable use of cutting in this movie is painfully apparent and reminded me, very unfortunately, of the stylistically ugly cuts in Bohemian Rhapsody. Luckily, the performances, for the most part, were decent and the cinematography from Roger Deakins was expectedly sharp and beautiful. Ansel Elgort and Oakes Fegley were the definite standouts from this movie, as they thankfully embodied what was even available for their shared character. Nicole Kidman was mildly good as Theo's temporary guardian but was really only there to deliver a lot of piercing stares. And then comes Finn Wolfhard and Aneurin Barnard's shared character of Boris. While Barnard was passable, Wolfhard was such a letdown. It's a shame to see an amazingly talented young actor like him cast in a role like this and his annoyingly hyperbolic Ukrainian accent did not do him any good, either.

To any dedicated fans of Donna Tartt's acclaimed novel: I'm so deeply sorry. While I have not read the book myself, I can only assume how much better and more moving this story must have been on the page rather than on screen. The Goldfinch is an atrocious slap in the face to the touching story from Tartt and a perfect example of a novel that is best left without a movie adaptation. This film tries its absolute hardest to be Oscar bait, but executes almost every aspect horribly wrong, unfortunately becoming one of the worst films I have seen this year.

My Rating: ★★

The African Queen (1951) directed by John Huston

AFI Top 100: #65

John Huston's The African Queen might be the best war film that I have ever seen. Despite its almost entire lack of typical war-related content, this film, at its core, is just a human tale of doing the right thing during a country's time of need. While I was expecting a much darker or dull tale of a boat captain fighting against the Germans, what I ended up with was a beautiful if not simplistic story of love in the time of war. There might not be too much enthralling substance or cutthroat action in much of the script, but there is just enough to distinguish this as a much more well-developed and purposeful film of this era about the Great War. With two incredible leading performances and surprisingly thrilling cinematography and editing as well, this movie is the perfect combination of adventure, comedy, and romance.

In the midst of WWI, Charlie Allnutt (Humphrey Bogart) is a mildly alcoholic fishing captain that commandeers the African Queen, an older but intensely reliable riverboat. As the Germans invade Africa taking many of their people as soldiers and the brother of a pair of missionaries dies, Charlie rescues the sister Rose (Katharine Hepburn) and together they set out on the ocean to attack an incoming German ship, falling in love along the way. My favorite aspect of this film is how incredibly simplistic the script is. Adapted from the novel by C.S. Forester and written by Huston and James Agee, The African Queen takes what could be a much more divisive and arguable political premise and boils it down to a simple tale of adventure and romance. This tale of war could have easily been told as a much more exciting and explosion-fueled action film, but instead was given its entire focus on the relationship and dialogue between these two leads. This different perspective on the war and how it affected everyone differently, no matter where you were from, was such an interesting idea that I'm glad Huston was able to effectively explore. This is assisted greatly by Bogart and Hepburn's amazing performances and moving, authentic chemistry together. Each of their characters were fantastic and were given just enough of the spotlight to each become loved by the audience. These two truly are an unmatched couple that developed so much throughout this movie limited to just their time spent together on the boat. I adore how the script had them learn from each other and eventually meet a common ground on their motivations where they could work together and survive so effectively. This, of course, led to them also falling in love, which was a nice romantic addition to the story as well. 

What also surprised me very much about this film was its stupendous production value. For a film released in 1951, I was pleasantly taken aback by how flawless this movie's technical elements come together to make an engaging visual narrative. Jack Cardiff's cinematography and Ralph Kemplen's editing worked together absolutely beautifully. Cardiff utilized such a wide range of shots, including lots of beautiful establishing ones that really helped to set the environment for these two main characters. Perhaps it is because this film was actually shot in Africa, but the heightened focus on making this movie look, as well as sound, good was incredible. Kemplen's editing was phenomenal as well, as the cuts were very quick in the beginning and end during the more exciting sequences but really slowed down and let the story of the relationship between the two breathe in the middle. My only issues with this film were some of Huston's pacing problems and many of the conversational scenes. His direction is a bit wonky at times, as there was not much to build up to until the last 15 minutes of the film. The entire second act was practically devoted to building the relationship between Charlie and Rose, but Huston made it feel as if there was an attack incoming or they were in a rush for some reason. I wish he would have slowed down the tone to ease the audience's nerves, as I feel like they would have much better resonated with the two. Despite some unevenness with the direction, there is no doubt that the message of love in the time of war is still very successfully accomplished. This was such a beautiful theme for this story to revolve around and one that was much better suited for its audience rather than the hostility and gruesomeness of WWI.

The African Queen has been regarded as one of the most influential war films of all time and for that, I find no objection. Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn all do such an excellent job of keeping their audience engaged while providing an original story to set itself apart from other war films of the time. I adore the shifted focus throughout this movie and Huston's flawless direction between adventure and romance, paving the way for one of the most classic and watchable movies of this time period.

My Rating: ★★★★

10 Things I Hate About You (1999) directed by Gil Junger

Who in their right mind would assume that the night before is the proper time to get ready for prom? Doesn't anyone know how long planning that shit takes? Anyways, I have a weird relationship with this film but there is no doubt that Gil Junger's 10 Things I Hate About You is a solid piece of romantic comedy. Adapted from Shakespeare's classic The Taming of the Shrew, this movie is a teenage remastering of this ages-old tale. Set in a modern-day high school full of grungy 90's music and characters that look much older than they are supposed to be, everything about this movie truly plays into the time period that it was released more than anything. I love the relationships between the characters and how they all develop together, as it is undoubtedly adorable, but I just wish the gap between Shakespearean references and modern dialogue could have been bridged a bit better. Nevertheless, there are some great performances in this movie and a soundtrack that will keep you on your feet which, for a 90's film, is all that really matters anyway.

Cameron (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is the new kid in town and as he falls head over heels for the adorable Bianca (Larisa Oleynik), he discovers that she is not allowed to date until her older sister Kat (Julia Stiles) does. Hatching a scheme with his friend Michael (David Krumholtz) and the school sleaze-bag Joey (Andrew Keegan), they plan to set Kat up with the rebellious and bad-boy type Patrick (Heath Ledger) in order for him to get a date. What I enjoy most about this film is the adaptation of Shakespeare's original work into this newer, more modern environment. Even though looking back at this film now it still might seem a bit dated, the feminist and more progressive elements that were written bring this movie up a whole other level. Especially seen in Julia Stiles' character Kat, there is so much characterization in her that is simply not seen in Shakespeare's source material. While the original Katherine from The Taming of the Shrew is only seen as a foul-mouthed and unsuitable woman, Stiles' Kat brings along a more complex character, as she actually has deeper motivations and reasons for not liking or trusting men. Even though there is an endless multitude of reasons not to trust men, it was great to see how multi-dimensional Kat was. However, the male characters, with the late Ledger's Patrick being the only exception, were a bit more troublesome. One of the main issues I have with this film is how it paints the men like Cameron, Michael, and Joey in almost positive lights regarding their views towards how to attract girls. It was very male gaze-oriented and even though the audience is supposed to root for Cameron, there was frankly nothing about his personality that I found remarkable. Luckily, this puts more emphasis on Patrick and Kat, who were the true saving graces of this film.

Ledger and Stiles' performances were absolutely wonderful as they have unbelievable chemistry with each other. Whether they were exchanging some playfully mean banter or both changing as they fell in love, their portrayals of their characters actually felt genuine. Whereas many of the other high school students seemed to be outright archetypes on their own, Kat and Patrick were so much more well-written and developed. Unfortunately, much of this film is held back by Junger's meaningless direction and the script's mismatched dialogue. This movie, just like the play it is based on, is a bit of a tonal mess. While the romantic comedy element is executed well for the most part, there are just so many different characters and subplots happening that the web of motivations and desires became very blurry. The dialogue in this movie is also a bit wack, as every now and then, a character would speak a line in fluent Shakespeare without missing a beat. This could have boded well if the entire film revolved around that aesthetic, but since it was only occasionally, the cheesy outbursts did not exactly fit in. Where this movie failed me the most, however, was its depiction of falling in love. This film does not do much for me in terms of feeling lovey or romantic due to its purely circumstantial depiction of finding "the one." The best relationship throughout this movie is created off of monetary intent and even though Patrick might not have felt that way about Kat in the end, the basis of their relationship still felt a bit coincidental. Thankfully, 10 Things I Hate About You has enough iconic scenes and hilarious lines for it to be remembered by hopeless romantics for years to come. While this film is cute and worth a watch or two, there are not too many spectacular aspects that make me want to instantly go back and revisit.

10 Things I Hate About You is a great romantic comedy that really shows its audience how to make an adaptation of Shakespeare that isn't animated or entirely reliable on period-piece production design. There are a lot of nostalgic pieces of this movie to love and while Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger's performances absolutely steal this film, it is hard not to forget about the charming, if also a bit dated, aspects of the rest of this movie.

My Rating: ★★★

It: Chapter Two (2019) directed by Andy Muschietti

Clowns absolutely suck, man. Whether they are slaughtering the children of a small, beaver-trapping town or taking home the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, 2019 is apparently a great year to be a clown. Not all of them can come off ultimately terrifying, however, and It: Chapter Two proves that in the most mediocre ways possible. Andy Muschietti's follow-up to his smash horror adaptation of It from 2017 is underwhelming to say the least and satisfyingly entertaining to say the most. This film provides so much closure and detail in regards to these kids' stories that was fantastic to see - given that it's hard not to love these characters - but at the cost of telling a story whose sole purpose is to amuse rather than scare. Fortunately, there is still so much to like about this movie (yes, I speak mostly of Bill Hader) and as long as you were a fan of its predecessor, then there is no doubt that you will enjoy the conclusion of this psychologically eerie series.

Twenty-seven long years after the Losers Club disbanded, the kids, now functioning adults, get an ominous call from Mike (Isaiah Mustafa) about the return of Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård) and his murderous behavior in the town of Derry, Maine. As the friends travel back home and reunite, they decide to make good on their oath and agree to do anything it takes to stop It from hurting anyone else. Gary Dauberman's script for this movie was often hit or miss. Where it hit, it hit very hard: the introductions of these characters as adults were stupendous as he was able to capture their personalities extremely well with their careers and where their lives had led them. I also thought it was incredibly clever to have the adult versions of these characters basically end up with someone who was very representative of what their worst fears were as kids. This small detail was fantastic to catch and added that extra layer of connectedness that the audience needed, especially if you watched both films back to back. While many people I know have criticized this movie as being far too long or having many unnecessary scenes, I do not entirely agree with that. While an almost three-hour runtime can be a bit much for audiences, I think Muschietti handled it extremely well because of his focus on familial themes. It definitely did not feel like that long of time spent in a theater, but there were some issues that I had with the writing. I do not think that the flashbacks took up too much time, but I believe less time should have been devoted to tying up loose ends and filling in the details of the story. A good majority of this runtime was spent recapping a lot from the first film; enough to the point that one might not even need to see the first to understand what happens in this sequel.

One aspect of It: Chapter Two that I'm certain we can all agree on is the god-tier casting. Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader, Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, James Ransone, and Andy Bean as the adult versions of Beverly (Sophia Lillis), Bill (Jaeden Martell), Ritchie (Finn Wolfhard), Mike (Chosen Jacobs), Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer), and Stanley (Wyatt Oleff), respectively, were all phenomenal choices. It would seem like with a cast this stacked, there would be room for slack in terms of only seeking out A-list stars, but the casting directors did an outstanding job. Especially with the latter two, Eddie and Stanley; Ransone and Bean look like they were quite literally aged from Grazer and Oleff themselves and it is simply unbelievable how similar they look. All of the performances throughout this movie were great as well and showed how much these artists are on top of their game. They all embodied so many little characteristics and personality traits from the younger versions of themselves that were captivating to see. As expected, Bill Hader completely steals this movie and brings a whole other level of depth to Ritchie that was practically absent with just Wolfhard in the first film. His personal arc was also written to be more emotional than anyone could have expected, which brought out the pure talent from Hader. My only issue with the usage of the child actors this time around was their CGI faces. They had been de-aged just enough to make them seem out of place during the flashbacks and it was so distracting that it almost felt unnatural.

Andy Muschietti still nails this film's tone and continues the perfect balance of comedy and horror that was present in the first, but stylistically, this film lacked much more. The cinematography from Checco Varese felt much flatter than that of Chung-hoon Chung in this movie's predecessor. Chung brought such flawless style and depth that I just could not feel in this addition. The CGI in It: Chapter Two was also a bit wacky. Not only with the faces of the children, but some monsters and disturbingly horrific shots looked very cheesy and obviously computer-generated. While the first film relied on a lot of practical effects and makeup, the use of CGI in this movie made it feel more like a typical, blockbuster film. I also felt as if this movie was straying away from the horror genre too much; I was not scared throughout this movie as much as I was rooting for these characters, which made it feel like more of a sci-fi film in all honesty. Thank Muschietti that his direction was still compelling or this might have been a much bigger, tonal mess.

It: Chapter Two had the potential to be a much more well-crafted film, but at least it gave us one of the most emotional performances of the year. This movie is an incredibly solid conclusion to the terrifying tale of these children and a perfect ending that even Stephen King himself is proud of. Even though this film gives us story in places that no one really asked for and leaves out story where it's most desired, it is undeniable that Muschietti has made another excellent entry into the modern horror genre.

My Rating: ★★★½

Toy Story 2 (1999) directed by John Lasseter

Pixar was truly on the top of their game in the late 90's/early 00's. No matter what anyone says, I will always believe that this era of storytelling in animation is one of the most crucial in developing many kinds of animated narratives that we have today. Which brings me to arguably one of the greatest films they have ever made: Toy Story 2. This sequel is my personal favorite of the entire series and improves vastly upon the world that the original one built while adding some unforgettable characters and stories. With a great leap in their power of animation as well, this film holds up surprisingly well compared to other films that had been released around this time. The script for this film is incredible as well, throwing in some new dynamics and world-building for our favorite toys to experience. While the fantastic storytelling abilities of John Lasseter once again shine, I really only have good things to say about this nostalgic and magnificent film.

Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), and the rest of the gang are living peacefully with each other in Andy's room, giving him the best childhood they possibly can. When Woody becomes lost in a yard sale, a collector steals him and inadvertently introduces him to Jessie (Joan Cusack), Bullseye, and Stinky Pete (Kelsey Grammer). As Buzz and the rest of the toys set out on a rescue mission, Woody experiences a different side of the life of a toy and grapples with what it means to be part of a family. While this addition to the franchise may be my absolute favorite, I haven't actually rewatched it for quite some time now. And upon this viewing, compared to the first Toy Story, I'm starting to realize how much of a dick Woody actually is. The script for this film provides for one of the most original ideas for a sequel ever and even furthers these character developments in such clever ways. As Woody meets Jessie and the rest of the crew from his old Woody's Roundup TV show, his motivations change so quickly. This film does a great job of telling its story to the audience about how limited perspectives can be so damaging. Woody sees how other toys just like him can care about and want different things, even though anything other than caring for Andy might seem foreign to him. This also leads the way for a fantastic antagonist reveal with Stinky Pete. The relationship between Woody, Jessie, Bullseye, and Pete was one of this film's best arcs; not just because it introduced us to the amazing yodeling cowgirl but because how they all developed together as a new sort of family. When Pete's true motivations were revealed, however, is when it became so interesting. Pete is one of my favorite villains in this series because of how his intentions are actually reasonable but just happen to contrast with that of the protagonists.

I really don't have that much actual criticism for this film and because of that I honestly feel bad. There is just so much childhood innocence and good memories packed into these 90 minutes that I will never cease to not connect with this movie and its message. Whether it's the prevalent nostalgia that runs through me just thinking about this film or it's the solid storytelling from John Lasseter, it is very difficult to not enjoy this film. In addition to Woody's arc throughout this movie, it was also fantastic seeing how Buzz developed from this film's predecessor to this one. Buzz used so much knowledge learned from the first movie to make him such a more multi-dimensional character this time around. Which also made his arc of being mixed up with the out-of-the-box Buzz Lightyear so hilarious. The dynamic between the two seems to derive a lot from typical, twin tropes of comedy but it still works so well. The development of the CGI animation in this movie is so apparent too. Whereas in the first film, the toys actually seemed to look like toys with their much more static and plastic expressions, much more emotion is able to be seen in this movie. These 4 years of technological advancements in animation suits this series so well. It's one of my favorite things seeing how the style of these toys evolves in a franchise that spans over two decades.

I used to watch this film so much as a child that I physically broke the VHS tape. Toy Story 2 will remain one of my favorite animated movies of all time and one that had such an original take on storytelling that is rarely seen nowadays. Whether it be because of lack of ideas or originality, no sequel could ever hold up to one like this and nothing else has really shaped my endurance for rewatching, either.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Her Smell (2019) directed by Alex Ross Perry

Elisabeth Moss has now easily become one of my favorite working actresses, particularly in thanks to Alex Ross Perry's astounding film Her Smell. I am unfortunately not too familiar with much of her previous work, but I sure will be in the future because if this performance has anything to say about her talents as an actress, then she is only destined for greatness. This film is a tour de force of a performance in a story that only sets this main character up for failure; a blaring and spontaneously obnoxious role that Moss completely embodies. Her Smell is a glorious work of punk rock storytelling, emphasized by its mix of almost documentary-style with Perry's careful yet powerful direction. The way that this film is made can often overshadow its actual substance, but in a movie about a disgruntled rocker trying to maintain her sobriety without utterly destroying everyone around her, style is the absolute key. And one that Perry and Moss are able to perfectly encapsulate.

Smack in the middle of her already downward career spiral, Becky Something (Elisabeth Moss) is a punk rocker and lead singer for the band Something She. As her self-destructive and drug-induced tendencies begin to take control of her life, her band decides it would be better to break up. Struggling with her sobriety and taking care of her daughter, Becky realizes that she may need some help to get her life back in order. A destructive rocker who has troubles with keeping themselves together is definitely nothing original in terms of plot. We have all seen the same, trope-filled music narratives that hit every note the same way. What makes Her Smell so magnificent in the face of this tired genre is Perry's risk-taking direction and intriguing script. His script is unafraid to completely launch the audience into the story without any kind of context. This technique is rarely used in film, as it can be a bit too jarring but it worked incredibly well for this story. The script itself might contain a lot of generic dialogue and some predictable tropes, but the way that Perry directs this film is what really makes the experience so engrossing. What stood out to me most and what I absolutely adored was how his direction fit each individual scene for the tone that it was trying to achieve. In fact, this entire film is practically five or six, long scenes played out in real-time and the way that Perry narrows down what style he is aiming for to make each scene so distinctive was extraordinary. This is also aided by the cinematography from Sean Price Williams. His camerawork made these scenes stand out so much because of his use of intensely personal shots and long takes. This not only really helps the audience to face the music but also to feel anxious when Becky was destroying her life and feel tranquil when she was rebuilding it.

A music film about a punk singer can't be that way without its lead rocker and Elisabeth Moss does just that: rocks. Moss was cast excellently in this movie and her range of emotions depending on where Becky was in her life was captivating to watch. The few comparisons to films such as A Star is Born can be obviously noted, but in Becky's case, this was really just A Star is Dying. The care that Moss puts into her character is unmatched, as she was able to bring such a wild dynamic to Becky, whether she be inebriated and wrecking the stage or sober and caring for her daughter. There is a scene later in the film, during the beginning of the third act or so in which Moss sings a rendition of Bryan Adams' "Heaven" to her daughter five or six years after the introduction of the film. This scene alone, with its still use of one shot, was enough to show me how talented and careful Moss was with this performance. It was unforgettably moving and definitely got me feeling some type of way. The supporting cast in this film was fantastic too, including Dan Stevens as Becky's ex-boyfriend Danny and Cara Delevingne, Ashley Benson, and Dylan Gelula as the small-time band that Becky practically mentors. The relationship between Becky and these three, young girls was fantastic to see, as it begins to really embody the idea of never meeting your idols. What the three girls initially see in their hero, they eventually find out in her true nature and it was quite the shock for them to see Becky humanized. This was one of the most interesting pieces of the script and the development between these characters and how Becky subtly mentored them was an incredible added element.

Her Smell is an absolute necessity in the genre of music filmmaking and one that should be much more popular. Moss shines immensely bright in this movie and I can not wait to see what she will do for her next leading role, as I only hope it is as impactful and telling like this was. Along with Perry's masterful direction and a cast of supporting performances that hold their own so well, I will definitely not be soon forgetting about this one.

My Rating: ★★★★

Climax (2019) directed by Gaspar Noé

I might have to go bleach my eyes and splash my face with water really quick before I even attempt to comprehend how this film made me feel. Gaspar Noé's Climax is an unbelievably hallucinogenic and utterly nauseating trip through one long, drug-fueled night. Settled in the confines of a disturbing, abandoned school, this film might as well be the 4-D simulator for what taking LSD actually feels like. There is so much to be impressed about with this film, especially the cinematography and Noé's direction, but I couldn't help but feel that it was almost entirely shock value. Noé does an incredible job of transporting the audience to this nightmare realm but him writhing in the discomfort of it all seemed to be ostentatious. One thing for certain, though, is that I strangely enjoyed this movie just as much as I despised it.

Based on an apparently true story, Climax revolves around a group of young, French dancers in the 1990s who find themselves stuck in a school for rehearsal during a snowstorm. As they finish rehearsal on the last night and decide to throw one last party, they find out much too late that someone has spiked their sangria. While the dancing continues and the trippy events unfold, this movie devolves from an easygoing celebration to an almost unwatchable, hellish nightmare, all to the tune of electronic dance from the era. The way that Noé directs this film to take his audience on an unavoidable downward spiral is what intrigued me the absolute most. Beginning with over 5 minutes of recorded testimonials from the dancers involved, the way that he fleshes out these characters pretty much mainly happens during this beginning sequence. The audience gets a strong feel for who all these people are and the talents they bring to this dance crew, leading the way to their interactions during their descent into sheer madness. Some of the most peculiar things about this film, though, are the way it is set up. What would usually be a traditional opening credits, narrative, and then closing credits seem to be all scrambled up for Noé's sake. While I did not necessarily understand the point of mixing up the narrative linearity with the credits, it is undeniable that I won't ever forget the strange techniques that were used. What I found so impactful about Noé's direction, however, is how long he relishes in each one of the shots. He does not conform to telling a cohesive story and he does not even conform to establishing to the audience what might happen next. Absolutely no context clues are given throughout this movie, which pours each scene into the next with no hesitation. This not only gave me intense anxiety but made me feel as if I were just in the building with them all on a trip of my own. The environment building that Noé accomplishes in Climax is unlike anything I have ever seen.

The elements of this film that really made it, however, were the cinematography from Benoît Debie and the dance choreography from Nina McNeely. The opening dance number and the consistent planning of the individual dances throughout this movie were entrancing. Partly due in fact that this film was meant to make the audience feel as if they were on drugs, but the mesmerizing effects these dancers had on me was unforgettable. Debie's camerawork was absolutely superb as well. Utilizing this style that Noé obviously wanted to portray this wild trip, Debie was able to sweep and swoon around this one building so well. The constant long takes and smooth movement, along with its turns and use of an upside-down scene for a solid 15 minutes made me quite sick to my stomach. Which I can only assume was Noé's intended purpose and in that regard, he succeeded wildly. What this film lacked, however, was a compelling script. I understand that this movie was purely made to send its viewers down a rabbit hole into hell through its terrifying visuals, but I was just a bit bugged that the script itself was very lackluster. Climax had a strong enough, bottle-film premise that much more effort could have been put into making the characters a bit more interesting and the combined subplots more connected. What irked me the most was that I felt like this film went nowhere. I was stuck in this abandoned school with these dancers and simply watched their minds unwind for an hour and a half, but I wish I could have been exploring their stories a bit more. I got honestly bored with many of these scenes and felt that it moved incredibly slow. Despite all of that, this is one of the most sickly cinematic experiences I have ever had and one that will be difficult to top in terms of shock value.

Climax is something that really only A24 could ever release. I give astounding props to this studio for being one of the only ones willing to put out something as bold and unrelenting as this. As cliché as that praise for them may be at this point, I truly believe that sentiment; because if nothing else, this film was certainly a huge, artistic step in the opposite direction of what would be considered mainstream. I definitely would never show this to anyone who isn't a dedicated fan of cinema and I definitely will never watch this again.

My Rating: ★★★

Falling Inn Love (2019) directed by Roger Kumble

If the pun in this film's title isn't enough to tell you everything you need to know about its quality, then maybe the fact that it's a Netflix original will help too. Roger Kumble's romantic comedy Falling Inn Love is not even a movie to me. It may sound disheartening to hear that an addition to this tired genre is (shockingly!) not great, but it's difficult for me to even see where a filmmaker's passion would lie when creating a story like this. This is not a movie; this is a cheaply put-together attempt at fun storytelling that Netflix probably funded with whatever they had left from the new season of Stranger Things. However generic this film may have been, though, there is no denying that it does its job. Put together plot point X with basic character model Y and any studio can squeeze out some romantic emotion from their audiences. Falling Inn Love is not inherently bad by any means, in fact it's quite harmless, but I only see this as yet another meager plea for viewership from Netflix.

Gabriela (Christina Milian) is your typical city girl living in San Francisco and has big plans in the nameless company that she works for. When the business suddenly goes under and she breaks up with her longtime boyfriend, she consoles herself by entering a contest to win a free bed-and-breakfast in New Zealand (your typical grieving process). When she finds out that she won, she moves there in hopes of making some quick cash but ends up falling in love with the country itself and a handsome contractor named Jake (Adam Demos). Looking back at how this film was written, I honestly think that Netflix worked backward in terms of their pre-production. I actually believe that they stumbled upon a raggedy-looking building in the heart of Kiwi country and decided to write a film around that; encapsulating every possible cliché that they could, instead of doing the location scouting once the film was actually written, as the normal process would go. The unnatural amount of shots showing off this location that they secured seems to vastly overshadow any achievement in the script, which might have been the point. Despite the locale of this film looking beautiful, the writing is (hot take) not good at all: in fact, very, very bad. Every plot point of this film, every line of dialogue, and every attemped character trait that was given are just uninspired, recycled pieces of writing that audiences have seen God knows how many times. Throw in the comedy relief best friend characters, the archetypal gay couple running a coffee shop, and a goofy goat named Gilbert, and you've got a recipe for mediocrity.

The one element that managed to stand out to me and mildly impress me was that this film was written by two women, Elizabeth Hackett and Hilary Galanoy, which makes sense given the equality of characters regardless of gender and sexuality. I'm not surprised that this film was written by these two, however, as it has become rightfully commonplace for a studio to hire people who actually understand what it is like being a woman. This was pleasant, but does not change the fact that every trope available was brought into this script like they were being forced to write it by the original content overlords (Gabriela's boss was literally named Chad). Nothing irritates me more in a film than when I can't even feel a sense of passion. Regardless of whether or not I agree with what message the director is trying to say, at least some movies have a touch of dedication. Roger Kumble's direction was bland, as was every other element of this film from the performances to the production value. Dave Garbett's cinematography was especially nauseous, as the borders of every shot were so unnecessarily out-of-focus. This same quality is seen in the likes of Lifetime original movies and as strange as it may sound, I was actually expecting more from Netflix. I don't know how much more I can emphasize this, but in one word, this film is exactly what Jake calls Gabriela in the "turning point": soulless.

I know that filmmakers have to get their start somewhere and perhaps Netflix is a good starting point for that career, especially today. But when a movie like this is released from a previously-established director, it's interesting to wonder where everything went wrong. Was it when Kumble signed on to half-heartedly attempt to direct this or was it when I, the fool, chose to watch this over everything else? Who's to say? Honestly, there is nothing exceptionally wrong about Falling Inn Love, it's just that there are a million other ways I could have much better spent my time.

My Rating: ★