The Bling Ring (2013) directed by Sofia Coppola

Eating the rich is a cinematic trope that I can always get behind, as it has actually become one of the leading themes in films of the past few years. Sofia Coppola's The Bling Ring was a bit ahead of its time, as it attempts to bring this message to the upscale lives of teenagers living in Los Angeles. While I do not think it did a very good job of that, I did enjoy the performances and some of the topics that this film tried to cover. As almost universally loved as this film was, I expected to like it a lot more but given the unlikability of the characters, unrealisticness of their actions, and the inescapably awkward direction, I just could not bring myself to like this movie very much. There are a lot of things to admire about Coppola's true story adapted from an article but not enough to have any impact on me. I really, desperately, wanted to like this film because of its cast and the fact that I have not seen any of Sofia Coppola's films yet but this movie was an unfortunate start to that.

After being transferred schools yet another time, misfit Marc (Israel Broussard) becomes friends with a girl named Rebecca (Katie Chang). Marc finds out that she is prone to breaking in and stealing things from small-time celebrities in Hollywood and plans to work her way up to robbing Lindsay Lohan. Marc joins her as they indulge in this crime spree with their friends Nicki (Emma Watson), Chloe (Claire Julien), and Sam (Taissa Farmiga), but the group soon realizes that there is a price to pay when it comes to burglary in one of the richest cities in the world. The Bling Ring tries to tackle a handful of various subjects in a very short amount of time and with a script that clearly did not have that capacity. While I do not feel like most of them succeeded, one thing did and that was the focus on looking up to celebrities. I really enjoyed how this movie touched on celebrity status and just how important achieving that level of social wealth was to these characters. It is ridiculous how important having the most expensive clothes and jewelry was and this theme was clearly at the forefront of the film, shown through every one of these kids. The performances from the whole cast were solid and they each definitely made their characters stand out. Despite the lack of much remarkability in the script and a seemingly absent sense of moving the story along, this cast did a good job of holding the story together. Broussard and Watson are particularly good, as they embodied their criminal characters very well. I also really enjoyed the cinematography from Christopher Blauvelt and Harris Savides. Even though most of this film was handheld, there was one scene that really stood out. While Marc and Rebecca rob a home in one, long take, Blauvelt and Savides utilized shadows and composition from outside the house in such exquisite ways that definitely made the scene pop.

My main problem that infested this movie from the very beginning is that I enjoyed what it was trying to say but not at all how it said it. I have no prior experience with Sofia Coppola as a director and so The Bling Ring was definitely a hit or miss for me. I lean more on the side of miss, however, as I just could not get myself to like the execution. I completely agree with this film's message of destabilizing the class system and the dramatic means of doing so in this film are obviously just there to move the story along. However, this meant that the group of teenagers was incredibly unlikeable. In order to make someone feel for a protagonist's struggle, there has to be some amount of relatability and this movie just could not accomplish that. By the time these kids were sentenced to prison in the end, I just frankly did not even care. These teens, throughout the entire film, were just snobby, bratty, LA kids with no real reason to commit these crimes other than for the thrill and it made me loathe them. I would have been much more engaged if I got to know these kids' backstories beforehand or even just their reasons for robbing the houses but I never got that satisfaction. Too much time was just spent rummaging through clothes and moving on from house to house and it became painfully dull to me. For a film that has of-the-time pop music running through its veins and focusing on these fashionable criminals, this film was very bleak. I did not enjoy how spacey and lackluster the entire story felt and the mess was never cleaned up, either. I also did not fully understand some of the plot choices in this film. These characters are supposed to be teenagers in high school yet they are seen dancing and drinking at the club with high-profile celebrities and no consequences. I understand that they are criminals after all, but those choices seem to only be there to make the characters even more frustrating and unrealistic.

The Bling Ring is just about as exciting as one would expect an adaptation of a Variety article to be. There is a lot of potential throughout this film as it feels like it is constantly trying to build up to something. I appreciate what Coppola was trying to do with this story and while I did enjoy the soundtrack, the upbeat pop atmosphere was not nearly enough to make up for the horribly dull story and lack of interest in the fates of these characters.

My Rating: ★★★

The Gentlemen (2020) directed by Guy Ritchie

I am not personally familiar with any of Guy Ritchie's work, but if this film is any indication of his directorial style, as many suggest that it is, then I already know I'm not going to be the biggest fan from here on out. Ritchie's The Gentlemen is a decently exciting and mildly amusing crime thriller that, for better or worse, is exactly what I expected. Going into this film blind of the knowledge of Ritchie or even what this story was supposed to be about was probably my best decision, but one that did not pay off in the end. The enormous cast of this film was fantastic and they are each so talented in their own right but when given a lackluster, racist, and unsettlingly homophobic script, I just could not back whatever Ritchie was trying to sell. Thankfully, I did enjoy a lot of the chemistry between these actors and some of the humor was executed well but many creative choices that were made to tell this story fell right into the trap of screenwriting clichés, which includes some of my biggest pet peeves about filmmaking.

Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey), an incredibly powerful American drug lord, is planning on retiring from the business to settle down with his wife Rosalind (Michelle Dockery). When up-and-coming crime bosses Dry Eye (Henry Golding) and Matthew (Jeremy Strong) hear about Pearson's plans, they decide to make him offers that he can't refuse in order to buy him out. Through blackmailing, a bit of gratuitous violence, and a massive cast of character actors, the estate of Pearson is sought after in the most unnecessarily chaotic crime thriller of the year. This script, written by Ritchie himself, Ivan Atkinson, and Marn Davies, is only part of the problem into why I did not enjoy this movie as much as I would have liked to. This script relies way too heavily on Ritchie's quick direction and ends up being frankly dull. It took me a hot second to really figure out what was even happening in this film because Ritchie dives right into the action without nearly any exposition. While the opening scene did its job by having me hooked, there were so many subplots and intertwining stories that were very difficult to follow. Once the film got in the swing of things, it was a bit easier to understand the complicated crime plot but the intensity of this film is what hits hard and never exactly stops. The Gentlemen teeters on the edge of incomprehensible plot, akin to what the Coens did with Burn After Reading. But unlike the latter, Ritchie's film had no reason as to why it seemed to have no satisfactory conclusion.

The script also makes a lot of choices for some characters that I did not really agree with and therefore I had a really hard time even feeling for any of them. The over-exaggeration and borderline predatory representation of gay men in the character of Fletcher (Hugh Grant) became quite irritating and while it is just a small detail of this larger film, it was quite inappropriately pronounced. I also did not enjoy how many of these characters slung racial slurs back and forth to each other without any consequence. It would have made sense if this was a period piece set a while ago but the fact that so many of these unfortunate terms were used was a bit too much. This is very prevalent throughout the entire movie and there is even a scene in which the character Coach (Colin Farrell) attempts to explain why a specific instance is not, in fact, racist. This entire exchange was very ironic; not only because Ritchie inadvertently outs himself as holding those racial stereotypes, but also because it reveals his surprising weakness as a writer in anything other than dialogue. The conversations and interactions between these characters are undeniably witty, as they each carry their own personality very well, but this entire film felt extremely flat, regardless.

As I mentioned before, a lot of my issues from this film come from the idea of style over substance. I do not doubt that Ritchie has found such success as a filmmaker because of his directorial style but most of this film was very empty and fell back on its character actors too much. My biggest complaint, however, is Ritchie's direction and the choices he made on how to tell this story. Told through a framing narrative with Fletcher and Ray (Charlie Hunnam), this was a very generic choice. And then to subsequently have Ray, at the conclusion of this film, pitch the exact story to Miramax (with a poster of Ritchie's other film The Man from U.N.C.L.E. hanging in the background) is just lazy screenwriting disguised as ingenuity. I really do not like it when directors break the fourth wall with on-the-nose gags like these and this one was no different. I also did not enjoy how many unnecessary twists were present in this film's ending. I felt like this movie went on for at least a half-hour longer than it should have and there were so many points that it felt like it could actually end and *decently* make sense. However much I did not enjoy Ritchie's direction or many of his choices, I can not help myself but love this cast and their sheer chemistry. They are all very hilarious and a lot of their humor is genuinely funny. There are some great action sequences and plenty of adrenaline to keep the audience interested, which at the end of the day, is what this kind of film is really about.

The Gentlemen is anything but gentle and the way that Ritchie handles this chaotic story did not exactly work for me. While I love the cast and appreciate their efforts, it was a bit disheartening to see them put so much work into a wildly mediocre crime film only to have it become a muddled mess. However, this film is definitely the perfect January release to come from a major studio, so make of that what you will.

My Rating: ★★½

The Apartment (1960) directed by Billy Wilder

AFI Top 100: #80

The romantic-comedy genre has been done to death in every possible way. Everything from stretching its storytelling into sci-fi or just pushing boundaries on its humor or romance, at this point, the genre seems to be tried but true. However, one film that has truly set the standard for how a rom-com should be tastefully done is Billy Wilder's The Apartment. While this film is not exactly outright about focusing on its romance, the satirical comedy aspects sure do shine through and there is an undeniable love that pulses through every character. The characters are incredibly lovable and exhibit personalities not typically seen in this time period, which makes this story overall so compelling. Along with the incredibly quick, witty direction from Wilder and the fantastic performances from the entire cast, this film has become one of my new classic favorites and one that has raised the bar for how to make a film in the neverendingly popular genre.

In order to climb the corporate ladder, C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) lends out his apartment for his bosses and company executives to use on certain nights and spend with their mistresses. He finds himself in trouble, however, when he begins to fall for the elevator girl Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine) and gets caught up in a web of relationships, lies, and mistrust that will test Baxter's loyalty to the extreme. Billy Wilder's script that he co-wrote with I.A.L. Diamond is absolutely fantastic and brings so much more than just the typical type of dialogue and plot that can be found in many rom-coms. The Apartment is perfectly comedic and genuinely romantic and proves itself as a contender for one of the best films of all time in either of those genres. Wilder's insanely fast and clever direction takes his script and brings it to the next level. What could have easily been a much more spaced-out comedy waiting for its audience to laugh instead becomes a no holds barred riot with physical gags and punchlines coming at gunshot speed. I adore the comedy throughout this movie and how it all plays together. Not one detail about the relationship between Baxter and Fran is missed and everything comes together in the most satisfying way. The humor shared between the two is fantastic and their individual wants and personalities shine through very easily to make their chemistry all the better. What stood out to me most, however, was Wilder's use of satirizing that era's marital normalities. Even back then, Wilder knew that sneakily meeting up with a mistress against the wishes of one's wife was morally wrong and he is not afraid to make fun of that entire concept. That theme is what fuels this film's humor and the irony that comes out of some of the characters' mouths is just too rich. Wilder is a master at writing comedy and the way that he pokes fun at something that is taboo and he doesn't agree with is impressively progressive.

Along with how hilarious and heartfelt this movie was, the performances from Lemmon and MacLaine and their developed relationship really top this entire film off. Both of these artists are incredibly talented in their own right and also incredibly funny in their own ways as well. Lemmon might be one of my favorite comedic actors of all time as every role I have seen him in fits his goofy and often happy-go-lucky persona so well. His character is the perfect embodiment of that and with his sometimes naivety that surrounds Baxter comes genuine care for the people around him. This film was not at all exploitative when it had every chance to be and I am so pleased that Wilder was able to write a male protagonist that was actually decent to the women and other characters around him. MacLaine plays the biggest part in their relationship, however, as Fran who is deciding where in her life she should be looking for love. Even though she is initially written to be torn between men and lovestruck in all the wrong places, her development and epiphanies that she has throughout this film are amazing. She may come off now as a stereotypical, manic, depressive girl looking for love but this kind of archetype was definitely not seen back in 1960. Fran personified this characteristic and this gave MacLaine a lot of room to play with her character in comedic and abruptly dark ways. And once she realizes that she deserves so much better than what had become routine for her, The Apartment becomes immensely filled with love. MacLaine embodies Fran in such an iconic way that I will not soon forget as she makes up half of the relationship in this film that is actually authentic in its conclusion. Wilder may not have given his audience all that they wanted from a generic romantic-comedy but as I have mentioned, this is far from a generic romantic-comedy.

I never once thought that a film of this time period could be so raucously hilarious and sharply satirical at the same time. I hate this phrase more than anything but Wilder's The Apartment was truly ahead of his time in terms of how it handled its characters and the authentic outcome of its story. I absolutely adore this movie and did not expect it to be so hilarious but yet again, I am taken aback by the wondrous writing and directorial talents that Wilder possessed.

My Rating: ★★★★★

Ex Machina (2014) directed by Alex Garland

No matter where people go nowadays, it is almost impossible to not encounter some form of artificial intelligence. Whether it's simply Siri on an iPhone or a humanoid representation in pop culture, AI will continue to populate our current world: which baffles me as to how such a simple script and premise of a film could encapsulate this expansive idea of AI so incredibly well. Alex Garland's Ex Machina is a stupendous science-fiction film that not only inspires but warns about the presence of artificial intelligence in our everyday lives. While there are so many questions surrounding this film and possible themes or messages to take from it, what I absolutely adored the most was how simplistic its story was. The excellent performances and unsettling atmosphere helped to elevate this film to become as impactful as it was, but it all comes down to the execution and I do not think any other filmmaker of today has tackled this subject with as much elegance as Garland.

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), a professional coder and employee at one of the world's largest software companies, wins a contest to spend a week with the company's CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Soon upon his arrival, Caleb finds out that he has been chosen to participate in Nathan's newest project, a Turing test of the newest and most lifelike artificial intelligence named Ava (Alicia Vikander). After Caleb starts to fall for Ava and learns more about Nathan's true incentives, he finds out that he might be a part of a more deceptive plan. The only thing I knew of this film for a few years now was the speculation that it was an absolute game-changer in the genre of science-fiction storytelling. I thought that this movie would be an incredibly deep or introspective story to challenge my mind or even just mess with it, but I was taken aback by how simple the plot actually was. This film follows the main character as he falls for Ava and then eventually the tables are turned and she was the one playing them the entire time. I found this plot to be very basic but actually effective more than anything. This film really did not need to be anything more than simple, as Garland is able to get his point across with his graceful, stunning direction. This film is undeniably solid and Garland takes his script to the next level by balancing it with its other elements very well. There is plenty of great humor throughout this movie that I was surprised by and the authentic chemistry between Gleeson and Isaac is palpable. Garland utilizes their friendship and the relationship between Caleb and Ava to set his audience up for a fantastic third act that, while a tad predictable, is executed perfectly. I also loved the message behind this film and how there are a number of different things that people could get from this story. Garland really knows how to make an engaging sci-fi film that still manages to make people question what they might know.

While Garland's script for Ex Machina is a thing of beauty, the performances from the entire cast and visual effects make for one hell of a futuristic experience. Gleeson and Isaac are both great and play some characters typically out of the realm of their usual type of casting. The obvious star of this film, however, is Vikander as Ava. Her portrayal of this conflicted artificial woman was superb and the way that she embodies this character is extraordinary. Vikander utilizes the perfect amount of human acting and entirely robotic mannerisms to really bring Ava to life (pun intended). Her extremely lifelike yet still noticeable mechanicality is mesmerizing and she somehow convinced even me that she could be a robot. Everything from minute facial movements to just the way that she interacts with new things to learn how to be more human is incredible. I can not rave enough at how much her performance really makes this movie and her story arc is just as incredible. The plot twist that she was basically the one running the tests to manipulate Caleb and Nathan made for such an interesting ending and I strangely could not help but to root for her. Seeing her grow and having wants and needs like a human makes the conclusion so satisfying. This entire film felt like a long episode of Black Mirror with much better production value and the way that Garland handles everything is masterful. Along with his storytelling, the Oscar-winning visual effects are spectacular and look gorgeous. Ava's AI body and her transformation throughout the film looked very real and was exhibited in such a way that is not unlike some stuff we have already seen in our real world. This is what made the film work for me so well because while sci-fi is mostly seen as otherworldly and unrealistic, this movie did not seem too far off from advancements that we have been witness to, ultimately making Ava's fate and introduction into our world even more terrifying.

Ex Machina is a film that I will not soon forget and one that will definitely have me questioning the often robotic people present in my life. Vikander turns in one of the absolute best performances of her career as Ava and the terrifying wonder that surrounds the entirety of Nathan's compound makes this entire story unforgettable. Garland proves that with futuristic simplicity comes some of the most haunting stories imaginable and the idea that some artificial intelligence has reached the level of being indistinguishable from humans is a horrifying thought in itself.

My Rating: ★★★★½

Interstellar (2014) directed by Christopher Nolan

Masterpiece is a word much too often thrown around when discussing certain filmmakers' filmographies, however, Christopher Nolan's Interstellar is not only his best movie to date, but his masterpiece. I have rated so many films five stars that I adore and can rewatch for ages but there are only a select few that I think are able to fully reach the depth and vast wonder that this film does. From the outstanding performances to the gorgeous cinematography to the phenomenal script written by the Nolan brothers themselves, this movie is utterly perfect. I have not watched this movie in a few years and thankfully it still holds up since I have not been this emotionally punched by it until now. While there is so much about this film to gush about, there is really nothing I can say that hasn't been said before. I do not have any issues surrounding this extraordinary film and I, along with many others I assume, believe that this is undoubtedly the greatest space movie since 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a former pilot for NASA, is living in the distant future with his son Tom (Timothée Chalamet) and daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy), where all the crops are slowly perishing and the future of humanity seems uncertain. After stumbling upon coordinates and discovering a secret NASA base, he is tasked with going out and finding a habitable planet for the human race, a mission that will take decades and test the love and generational strength of his family. This script, written by Christopher and Jonathon Nolan, is the absolute strongest part of this entire film. Most space films that I have seen focus on one particular aspect of its plot, whether it be personal issues with a father or a simple spaceship malfunction. Interstellar, on the other hand, has various subplots going on that could be seen as distracting but are brought together flawlessly by Nolan's direction. While Cooper's mission is the main plot of this film, the side stories with the older versions of Murph (Jessica Chastain) and Tom (Casey Affleck) prove to be just as interesting. The way Nolan combines these stories and juxtaposes them together to reflect how all of his characters are feeling is masterful. The theme of familial love is what brings this entire movie together and the sheer complexity of emotions that Nolan is able to get out of these stories is phenomenal. The loving bonds that parents share with their children span generations, lightyears, and even dimensions, and the representation of this through Cooper's relationship and influence on his children is what gives this story so much heart. I also really enjoyed how Nolan touches on the future of agriculture, as it almost feels like our current world with Murph and Tom's generation being our own.

This family of characters would not have been as believable, however, without the help of the stunning performances. McConaughey gives his best performance of his career in this movie and I was so involved in his devastating journey, feeling every bit of regret and doubt that Cooper did. The supporting performances from Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, and Casey Affleck were also fantastic and they stole their characters right off the page. The young performances from Chalamet and Foy were the standouts, however, and they carried every scene that they populated. The chemistry shared between this whole cast and the others I did not mention is incredibly believable and makes this family's story surprisingly personal. I was so invested by the end of this film that I never wanted to leave and even found myself getting infuriated that Cooper couldn't get his past self to stay. I have seen this film a few times back when it was released and know of its impact on today's culture but I have not been this personally affected by it until now. The sheer magnitude of emotion and spectacular adventure that is conveyed is unmatched by any other movie I have ever seen and while I am definitely not the first to give this movie a perfect score, I know that I will not be the last. What also makes this film so memorable, along with the wonderful script and emotion, is the plot twist at the end. Plot twists can be very hard to pull off and usually end up being incredibly cheesy but the realization that Nolan incorporates into this movie is one of the most deserved and respectable story points of any science-fiction film. Once again proving that love is the most powerful thing in the universe, this twist helps to wrap up this story into such a satisfying and poignant ending. I also adore how Nolan avoids relying on aliens for this film. That would have massively cheapened its message and the way that he utilizes Cooper's presence as the ghost is pure genius.

Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography throughout Interstellar is god-tier and he is able to capture space like no one else. The way that he frames these different planets and Cooper's loneliness traveling through the wormhole is beyond gorgeous. This will forever be one of the most beautiful sci-fi films of all time and the subtle nods to Kubrick's 1968 classic are great. One of the most memorable parts of this film, however, is the sound design and absolutely transcendent score from Hans Zimmer. The legendary composer once again works his magic in what might be my favorite score of his to date. It is amazing what a score can do for a film and while Zimmer's is laid over this entire movie, it helps to pick up every little beat of the story and make it even more impactful. All of Interstellar's technical elements are handled expertly and work together so fluidly to make this movie hit you like a punch in the gut. I would strongly recommend watching this film in the highest quality possible with the loudest surround sound experience that you can garner to really feel the otherworldly emotions that Nolan creates. Every beat is perfect, every performance is unforgettable, and every frame of this film contributes to making one of the most extraordinary stories ever.

Interstellar is the quintessential space film for our modern age and one that will undeniably stand the test of time. The interweaving stories of generational families and the bold adventure that Cooper and his crew go on make for such a compelling narrative and the direction from Nolan only enhances that. Along with war films, space films have the tendency to put all of their energy into the sound design and visuals but the fact that this movie delivers on all of its fronts only helps, even more, to make it one of the best films of the 2010s.

My Rating: ★★★★★

The Rain People (1969) directed by Francis Ford Coppola

Going back into a director's early filmography can either be really exciting or really nerve-wracking. It is so interesting to me to see where many of today's legendary directors came from and this film from the Renaissance Era provides a great look into the early mind of Francis Ford Coppola. While the only film of his that I have seen is Apocalypse Now, I am looking forward to expanding my knowledge on him but unfortunately, I do not feel like The Rain People was the smartest start. This film works decently well on paper and there is nothing particularly wrong with it but I could not get myself invested in the plot at all. The direction from Coppola is very standard and I could really not tell at all that this film was by him based on the style. Many of this film's characters were very generic and made strange choices that I do not feel furthered the story at all and while I could see what Coppola was going for, it all just felt too lackluster. Thankfully this film is still watchable and there are some elements to enjoy or else I feel like this would be a rather forgettable entry into Coppola's slate of auteur movies.

Upon finding out that she is pregnant, Natalie (Shirley Knight), leaves her home and her manipulative husband to embark across the country and discover herself. She is never quite sure what she wants and she is never quite sure where she is going, but as she travels across the country, she runs into a few different characters who will teach her that sometimes helping lost souls is not always the path to finding your true self. This script, written by Coppola himself, is where I take the most issue with this film. I found this entire movie to be so frustratingly dull and Coppola makes it very difficult for me to get attached to any of these characters. I did enjoy how he chose to focus on one woman's struggles with love and discovering herself but it was too weak for my taste and moved at a painfully slow pace. I really wanted this film to be a stronger vehicle for Natalie's story but so many opportunities were wasted trying to develop her as a character. As a female main character, I was expecting a much more feminist take on the main protagonist's story but I did not get that at all. All of Natalie's story was centered around men and the way that they shaped her path was a choice I just could not get behind. There are a few moments throughout this film, such as Natalie playing Simon Says with Kilgannon in the hotel room, that I could see what Coppola was trying to go for but they did not last. Natalie is really just trying to prove that she can be her own woman and be the superior at times but the way that she kept falling under the influence and persuasion of the male characters was incredibly frustrating. I understand that getting upset over a film not being feminist when its point wasn't necessarily to be so is silly but the focus on how Natalie is consistently influenced by people around her instead of becoming her own person was irritating.

Regardless of how slow this film felt and how much I did not care for these characters, the performances from the main cast and the cinematography were fantastic. Shirley Knight is fantastic as Natalie and she embodies the subtleties of this woman very well. Her story begins with not much reasoning behind her leaving her husband but as her story plays out, she is revealed and unraveled as a character more and more as much as Coppola possibly could (which was still not nearly enough). I also enjoyed how the performances from Caan and Duvall complimented each other very nicely and they helped to progress this plot decently. I do not agree with the means that were used, but as characters, they were very pivotal in telling this full story. I also really enjoyed how Coppola decided to end this film on a low note of reflection. Not many films have the audacity to have such a degrading and frankly depressing ending but the reality and authenticity that radiates from this movie, especially in this oddly cathartic final scene, is amazing. Even though I could not decipher Coppola's style from this story very much or what he was trying to say through his characters, Bill Butler's cinematography was beautiful. From the opening montage and its long takes to simple car rides in which Natalie was driving, I was entranced by the various shot angles and close-ups that Butler uses to establish this world. A lot of these kinds of shots could be considered standard for today's camerawork but the way that he is able to make this movie visually appealing in the face of a mediocre story is extremely commendable. More than anything, I got a sense of the different genres that Coppola has tackled through his career as The Rain People has definitely proven to be one of the more interesting road trip films I have ever seen.

The Rain People is a decent but mostly unmemorable Coppola film that did not provide me any information about his directorial style at all. The solid drama premise was enough to keep me interested but this film never took any chances to go above or beyond. I did appreciate the focus on a woman's conflicts in the world of men as the central plot but I feel like so many different routes could have been taken to make this movie a much more compelling narrative.

My Rating: ★★★

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) directed by Steven Spielberg

AFI Top 100: #24

One film that has been conspicuously missing from my entire childhood growing up is Steven Spielberg's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. While the director is and always has been one of my personal favorites, I just suppose I never got around to seeing this film at all, despite it being one of his most revered works. Now that I have, I can quite clearly see why this movie has become so legendary in the past few decades, as it absolutely radiates Spielberg's energy. Everything about this film is so trademark of his directorial style, from the adventurous atmospheres to John Williams' stupendous score. There is a lot throughout this film that I feel was lacking in the story and I never felt massively involved in these characters, but the fact that Spielberg can infuse his style into childlike stories such as this one is miraculous. The best way that I can sum up my experience watching this landmark 80s film is that, for better or worse, it is exactly what I was expecting.

After getting accidentally left behind by his fellow aliens while collecting samples from Earth, a lone extra-terrestrial is forced to find refuge in the backyard of a young boy named Elliott (Henry Thomas). When they stumble upon each other, they form a heartwarming friendship and with the help of Elliott's brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton) and sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore), they must work to protect E.T. from the local authorities and send him home. On paper, this film sounds like a perfect, family film that will appeal to audiences of all ages. While it succeeds in being just that, it does not do as well in regards to the dialogue or actual plot. I really wanted to love every aspect of this story but the script, written by Melissa Mathison, is where I find most of my problems. None of the dialogue spoken throughout this movie is very authentic and while that might just be due to it falling into the nearly cheesy 80s category, I believe that more work could have been put into making these characters believable. I also found much of the plot to be a bit thin. I do not think this movie had any right to be almost two hours long, especially with the amount of time that was spent with the characters simply messing around with E.T. and dressing him up in funny costumes or teaching him about the eccentricities of our planet. It almost feels like Mathison was writing this story as a short film but needed to stretch it out for the sake of a feature and this did not help in getting me to connect with the story at first. However, despite the frankly disappointing script, Spielberg is able to completely revitalize this story into something of his own and breathe life into it in the best possible ways. With the help of John Williams' tremendous score, they are able to make an excellent film out of an otherwise overdone type of story.

The premise of this film is so simple and yet the execution so elegant. Spielberg, if anyone had any doubts, definitely knows how to direct a film. His style is so brilliantly individual in how he handles his characters and their adventures. Even though this film was only set in a few, small locations with limited plot points, it felt like a universe of a journey. I love how Spielberg is able to really make the audience care for this plot, despite how bare the dialogue itself might have been. This, thankfully, also leaves a lot of the visual storytelling up to Spielberg and cinematographer Allen Daviau, which they expertly handle. Elliott's connection to E.T. provides the film with practically all of its emotion and the way that they go about this story together being connected makes for such a loving relationship. Spielberg makes sure that his audience is emotionally wrecked by the time the last scene comes and getting people to feel for a strange, unattractive, little alien is a feat in itself. The puppetry and special effects utilized throughout this film were very impressive, especially in the character design of E.T. himself, and seeing his naive character run amuck makes for some hilariously charming moments. I also do not think that these child actors, including a very young Barrymore, were particularly good at acting but that really does not matter when a story like this is being helmed by a director as talented and diverse as Spielberg. He takes everything great about his directorial choices and really boils it down to fit this adorable story. The thrilling adventure that can be found in the Indiana Jones franchise still courses through the veins of this film while the achingly emotional beats of something like Saving Private Ryan can be seen as well. There are so many reasons why he is one of my favorite storytellers and even though this film was not part of my original adoration for him, it only enhances my appreciation of his body of work.

Spielberg's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is an incredibly heartwarming and special film that introduced the cinematic world to a new breed of alien: the friendly one. There is so much passion and heart that is told in this story that I do not think anyone else could have portrayed other than Spielberg. While I still take issue with how the script was barely able to hold on to itself, it is obvious to me why this movie has become such a timeless classic.

My Rating: ★★★★

Just Mercy (2019) directed by Destin Daniel Cretton

It is very strange to me as to why this film has been shut out of the Oscar conversation for weeks now. Destin Daniel Cretton's Just Mercy is a solid legal drama that attempts to tackle a lot of different moral issues. Even though I found a lot of this film's elements regarding storytelling to be mediocre at best, this really seems like one that Academy voters would absolutely eat up. Some excellent performances and an expectedly cathartic conclusion tie up this film with a nice, emotional bow but I simply wish that some more innovative choices could have been made in the script to distinguish this film as a much stronger, standalone story. However, I did find this movie to be efficient in all of the best ways and it is impossible to deny that Cretton knows how to impact an audience, doing just that throughout this film. The fact that Warner Bros. is instilling their entire energy in the eleven nominations for Joker is a bit disheartening, especially when there is a passionate film like this one sitting right there.

A recent Harvard Law graduate named Bryan Stevenson (Michael B. Jordan) moves out to Alabama in order to defend death row inmates along with the help of his business partner Eva Ansley (Brie Larson). When he is assigned the case of the accused Walter McMillian (Jamie Foxx), Stevenson realizes that his client might be the victim of framing all along and decides to take on the Alabama justice system in order to prove McMillian's innocence. This true story is adapted from the novel of the same name by Bryan Stevenson himself and the script helmed by Destin Daniel Cretton and Andrew Lanham does this story incredible justice. This script, while a bit dull at times and paced strangely, provides a lot of characterization for these people and the struggles that they had to fight through. These screenwriters do a fantastic job of making these people intensely relatable and the way that they relate many of these characters' conflicts with topics still relevant today is applaudable. The direction from Cretton is also an element of this film that I feel was not the greatest choice, unfortunately. One of my favorite and most important films is Cretton's Short Term 12, as that indie feature is nothing short of an extraordinary act of heartfelt, human storytelling. This would make it seem that Cretton's incredible directorial style would be perfect to tell this kind of story about injustice but I do not think that he thrives as well in a bigger budget, studio setting. What makes Short Term 12 so special is how delicately the story is told and how it flawlessly tackles some sensitive subjects. However, I feel like that direction works best with a smaller, indie budget and Just Mercy's studio system-level demand is a bit too overwhelming. This movie tries very hard to address a plethora of topics, including racial issues in the South, police brutality, and the often unfair legal system. Audiences have no shortage of these kinds of stories and I sadly do not think that this film had much more to say or add to the conversation. The story itself is very heartbreaking and Cretton does a fantastic job bringing out the expected emotions, but my main issue is just how generic it all felt. This film also utilizes real-life footage and pictures towards the end and while that creative choice was a bit typical, I am glad that Cretton was able to at least make this film a touch more like his own style.

Cretton's style can be very clearly seen in the cinematography from Brett Pawlak as well. The slight, shaky movements of the camera during the sequences in the prison and the wide use of the lens to establish the setting of Alabama that envelops this entire story is something that Cretton is definitely known for. His stylistic choices are great and his work with Pawlak really helps to define them from the rest. In a film like this that tackles these racial themes and uses a very limited range of audio other than the human power of the spoken voice to convey its tone, performances are pivotal. Cretton has collaborated with Brie Larson on most of his filmography so her inclusion was not a surprise to me, just like how strong her performance was. She is undoubtedly one of the best dramatic actresses and it was great to see her back in a role such as this one. The standouts, however, were Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx in their leading roles. These two provided such emotional standout performances that, all other movies aside, would have definitely earned them at least a nomination. While they might be working with a limited amount of genuine screenwriting, they pull off such believable portrayals of these two men. The tension based on the conflicting reasoning that these two characters often had also made their chemistry so authentic. They completely embodied the multi-dimensionality of Stevenson and McMillian and the bond that they form throughout this story is amazing. There are also some great supporting performances from Rafe Spall as the film's antagonistic Southern lawyer and Tim Blake Nelson as a supposed witness during McMillian's alleged crime. Even with a stale script, Cretton does the best he can with the heart of this film and its vulnerable emotions, but the solid performances are what truly carry it up to the next level.

Just Mercy might not be the strongest or most memorable legal drama regarding race ever made but it does everything right to keep my attention. Jordan, Foxx, and Larson all turn in incredible performances to hold this story together and while audiences have heard about this kind of injustice for years, it thankfully does not make this story any less impactful. I would definitely recommend this film for fans of the genre and hopefully, it can garner a bit more appreciation once the awards season madness dies down.

My Rating: ★★★½

Underwater (2020) directed by William Eubank

The entirety of this film is what I imagine the trench sequence during Aquaman should have felt more like. William Eubank's delightful creature feature Underwater is the first official 2020 release I have seen this year and while it might be an underwhelming one to start out with, it is nothing short of an entertaining ride. Shot all the way back in 2017 and delayed due to the Disney/Fox merger, this film has been unfortunately dumped into the abyss of January releases but on the positive side, it will most likely become the most memorable. This film is chock full of everything one could expect from a standalone monster movie: cheesy dialogue, static characters, and a frustratingly ambiguous ending, yet these elements somehow never manage to completely disappoint. Despite the wildly predictable and textbook storytelling, there are some fantastic directorial choices and solid performances from this cast that make this film a tense and undeniably entertaining waste of time.

Miles below the surface of the planet lies the largest ocean drill on Earth, populated with some of the most hardworking aquatic researchers, including Norah (Kristen Stewart), Rodrigo (Mamoudou Athie), Emily (Jessica Henwick), Liam (John Gallagher Jr.) and Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel). When this crew is struck by a supposed earthquake that devastates the rig and leaves them as the only ones left alive, they must work together to survive the strange attack and make it back to the surface. This script, written by Brian Duffield and Adam Cozad, is where this film's main weaknesses arise. The plot, characters, and dialogue choices made throughout this entire movie are extremely weak and there was, quite frankly, never a point where I could genuinely believe anything coming out of the actors' mouths. Every single character fit a generic stereotype (leading lady, hardass captain, comic relief, etc.) and there were really no standout characteristics of any of them that could make me latch on at all. There were also some elements regarding the tone of this film and its attempted political message that never really worked for me. This story almost felt like it could belong in the Cloverfield universe and even though I am glad it was rather a standalone movie, I could never get that eerie monster tone out of my head. Underwater also tries to apply a message of corporate and capitalist cover-up at the end through newspaper flashes and headlines but I was never fully sold on its idea in the first place. However, I can not actually say anything outright negative about this film; there is nothing that is particularly wrong with it or any choices that do not work, there are just simply so many things that have been seen countless times before and creative suggestions that should have been made. What is most important, though, is how well this film works as a monster movie and if nothing else, it provides some incredibly intense action sequences and some horrifying special effects that were utilized brilliantly.

While the story itself was incredibly predictable and a bit dull at times, William Eubank's strong direction definitely fills in these creative gaps. While most monster films of this genre start off introducing their characters in a peaceful environment before unleashing hell, Underwater does not even have the manners to do that. We get maybe five solid minutes of exposition before being plunged into the neverending depths of terror that drown this entire story. It is not a usual choice to start the action before anyone is even properly introduced but this film has no shame in getting straight to the point. I absolutely have to applaud this film and Eubank for taking this bold route in storytelling and it even made way for some interesting ways of fleshing out these characters. As more of the team is found alive and they join the ranks of the rest, their individual personalities and backstories are revealed. As I had mentioned before, not all of them were quite interesting enough to make me feel bad about their deaths but the choice to not tell what kind of people they were until they were under distress was fantastic and definitely enough to sustain its entertainment factor. For a movie with a runtime of only 95 minutes, a filmmaker is almost forced to dive right into their story and this urgency actually helps this become something much more. Sometimes an audience just really needs a good popcorn movie to start off the new year and thankfully, Eubank has given us all just that. Regardless of how mediocre this entire story was, it is hard not to get invested within this terrifying world. And on top of that, we get to see Stewart fighting water monsters and kicking ass, so I suppose we are all winners.

Underwater might not stick with me for very much longer but the fact that these filmmakers took some creative risks I was not expecting genuinely surprised me. As long as one goes into this film with little to no expectations other than a few fantastic scares, there is no disappointment to be found. And whether she's texting a ghost in an indie film or shooting a flare gun down a sea monster's throat, I will forever support Kristen Stewart in her endeavors.

My Rating: ★★½

1917 (2019) directed by Sam Mendes

At the risk of going against my own personal brand, I genuinely loved a war film. I can not deny the sheer greatness and magnificent storytelling that Sam Mendes' 1917 exhibits and I can confidently say that I would not be opposed to this film winning Best Picture. There is so much to adore about this movie, including the solid direction from Mendes and most evidently, the cinematography from the revered Roger Deakins that makes this film stand out more than anything else. The "one-take" trick that is used throughout this entire film is a creative choice that was done excellently and surprisingly enhanced my overall experience. Lots of technical prowess is definitely needed nowadays to keep audiences from forgetting about the typical, dull, war story but I am overjoyed that this film provides plenty of said prowess that fully kept me engaged. While the performances and entirety of the script could have used a bit more emotion, the true power of 1917 is absolutely transporting its audience into the hellish landscape of World War I.

Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) are two British soldiers during WWI that are assigned a very important duty with only hours to spare. Tasked with delivering a cease-fire message to another faction of their army, the two must cross the infamous "No Man's Land" and survive the trip to the other faction in order to stop the possible slaughter of their soldiers after the Germans have planted a trap. I have never and still am not a huge fan of the war genre, as I find it becomes dull very quickly. There are only certain movies that stand out to me as memorable and there are also only a certain number of stories that filmmakers can respectfully tell. While many directors take creative liberties to tell a story from a different perspective, akin to Taika Waititi's Jojo Rabbit, the slew of these kinds of movies typically does not differ from the expected, emotionally gut-punching stories that we as an audience are fed. Sam Mendes, thankfully, is able to utilize some incredibly creative technical choices to help tell this story, even with the lack of focus on the script or character development. Mendes is able to masterfully utilize genuine moments of love and tenderness in this film and even in a setting where there seems to be no hope for peace, these particular scenes are sprinkled in so well to add a much-needed touch of humanity to this otherwise relentlessly violent story. The performances throughout this film helped to tell its story as well. Chapman and MacKay were both amazingly solid in their roles and did a fantastic job of embodying the raw emotion that plagues these soldiers. The supporting roles were fantastic as well, including the likes of Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, and Richard Madden. None of these performances particularly stood out more than another but they are all incredible at nailing drama, which is what they do best.

The obvious standout element of this film, however, is the cinematography from Roger Deakins paired with Lee Smith's editing. War films have to be technically stunning and what Dunkirk does with sound, 1917 does with cinematography. Deakins is unexpectedly the best part of this entire film and the use of "single-take" cinematography proves to be an excellent creative choice for the movie. Upon first hearing about this style of storytelling, I was wary that the film would feel very cheaply done or gimmicky but thankfully, I did not feel that at all. The "single-take" style makes this movie entirely environmental and leaves so much room for these characters to breathe while creating such a vast and often terrifying world. As for the editing, Smith did a wonderful job hiding all of the cuts throughout this film. Whether it's my careful eye as an editor or not, a lot of the cuts were fairly obvious but regardless, Smith still did a flawless job of smoothing out the shots. The script and actual dialogue throughout this film were pretty lacking, but that frankly does not matter when a movie like this is able to draw you in with its production value. Because of Deakins and Smith's work on the film, they also almost force their audience into thinking in terms of physical location and distance rather than runtime. This gave me such a completely new perspective on how to watch a film and I definitely adore the technical wonders that these filmmakers accomplished.

As previously mentioned, war films nowadays basically have to do something innovative with their technicals in order to keep their audience interested, which made way for 1917's incredible visual storytelling. Sam Mendes' direction, unfortunately, is where I found some of my slight issues with this story. Mendes is an incredible director but my main problem is that I do not feel like his style is individually strong enough to distinguish himself from others. Anyone could have told me that some other drama-driven director made this film and I would have easily believed them. There is nothing particularly wrong with how Mendes handles this story, but the direction is not too remarkable and I wish that its creative power did not have to entirely rely on Deakins. I also did not feel like this film had much to say in regards to war, which is one of history's most prominent topics. Besides the usual story of endurance and survival through the horrors of war, there was not much to this film. It was still unbelievably strong but I wished that there was more time devoted to putting emotion in these characters. Despite my minor wishes for further development, Mendes is a master of pacing and 1917 will undoubtedly keep its audience frustratingly entertained, as it even provides one of the most stunningly gorgeous escape sequences I have ever laid eyes upon.

1917 has done a better job of fully immersing me in a warzone environment better than any film of the genre has done before. With some bare yet still impressive storytelling and cinematography that I had no doubt would blow me away, this film is undeniably my favorite of this tired genre. I went into 1917 not entirely knowing what to expect but the fact that Sam Mendes could get me to be invested in a story about war is enough to win me way over.

My Rating: ★★★★

The French Connection (1971) directed by William Friedkin

AFI Top 100: #93

Many films of the Hollywood Renaissance era can be boiled down to two things: how perfect they are in fitting a strict genre and how painfully mediocre they go about exploring that genre. William Friedkin's The French Connection is the perfect example of this. I had not even heard of this film before making it a goal to watch all of the AFI's Top 100 films and frankly, I find it very difficult to see why this one made it on that list at all. There is nothing particularly wrong with this story or the way that it's made other than it is so clearly a product of its time. I could easily guess every plot point of this film and while there are some fantastic performances and a stellar chase sequence, the plot never strays from what any audience member could expect. This film is perfect for when you need a solid crime thriller to satisfy your adrenaline cravings but for its characters and actual development of the plot, it does next to nothing for me.

Detectives Jimmy Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider) are two cops in New York who are notorious for doing things outside of the law in order to get the justice they believe the city deserves. When a wanted drug lord named Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey) arrives in town looking to smuggle heroin, the two detectives must go to any lengths in order to track him down and stop him. I really enjoyed this story and I find it difficult to not at least be entertained by a crime story to this degree but I was greatly underwhelmed by how typical this script was. Written by Ernest Tidyman and adapted from the novel by Robin Moore, this movie feels more like an episode of a police procedural show stretched into a feature-length film. Tidyman did not do a fantastic job with introducing these characters or ever really building upon them and because of that, I felt like I was missing a lot of the world's context. I did not ever feel for these characters or their struggle and I feel like much more time was actually put into building the life of the antagonist Charnier. It is very hard for me to get invested in a film that does not make me feel anything towards its supposed leads, let alone one that is already of a genre that does not particularly catch my attention. The French Connection is also clearly a movie of its time and I feel like many of the directorial choices that were made caused me to not care about Doyle or Russo. Friedkin's direction is very dull and predictable and the choices he made, especially for the character of Doyle, made me lose even more interest. Although it was relevant to how a large number of people were at the time, the excessive use of violence by Hackman's character and his beratement of people of color is a strange characteristic for him to have, especially as a police officer. Because of this, I tried to sympathize with Scheider's character Russo more than Doyle but even he did not have much of a personality. In addition to these choices, I suppose my main gripe with everything is how by-the-book the story felt; I am very disappointed with how bored I was during this entire film and I kept wondering when and if it would ever possibly end.

Despite the mediocrity that pulses throughout this movie, there are a lot of scenes that kept me decently entertained and some other elements that make this movie stand out more than most. I was not too engaged with the dialogue or the telling of the story but thank god the action-filled scenes carried this film into memorability. Hackman, Scheider, and Rey all turned in solid performances and I enjoyed seeing them get recognition for these roles. Detective Doyle might be an asshole who pushes the boundaries at times, but Hackman embodied that perfectly. I did not exactly resonate with how Friedkin tried to get his audience to be on one side over the other but Hackman was definitely able to take what he was given and run with it. His dedication to this role is amazing and I got lost in his portrayal. Scheider was also very good in his role regardless of how little characterization he was given. The element of this film that I enjoyed the absolute most, however, was how well it personified New York and the thrilling chase sequence on the train. If nothing else, The French Connection gives its city such a distinct voice unlike many location-less thrillers of this time. New York very much exists to give these characters their attempted personalities and it also helps to set up how frustrating it must have been to be a cop chasing down someone on the train above you. That entire sequence was riveting and I really enjoyed the action of it all. Even though this production felt like an extended television episode, this action scene gave it a much more "Hollywood" style. The build-up to the confrontation between the main characters was done excellently and the wit that was shown between them as Doyle hunted down Charnier is intensely clever.

The French Connection is a wildly unremarkable thriller that, unlike what some will tell you, did not have me on the edge of my seat. I was quite bored during the majority of this film and while I can appreciate the impact it has had on this ever-popular genre, I could not get myself to like this very much. Thankfully the solid performances from Hackman and Scheider make up for the lack of interest I had in their respective characters' stories.

My Rating: ★★★

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) directed by Mel Stuart

I have yet to meet a single person who does not at least enjoy watching this movie for any number of reasons. Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, the adaptation of Roald Dahl's 1964 children's book, was a massive part of my childhood, as well as the painfully criticized 2005 version with Johnny Depp. Thankfully, this original film still holds up to this day and provides some amazing storytelling and magical settings for these children to, well, perish in. The passive-aggressive uncertainty of every creative choice made in this film might scare some people off from enjoying this masterpiece, and rightfully so, but it is frankly what I enjoy most about this story. This film is a fantastic example of how to properly capture the original, chaotic energy of a children's book written by an arguably deranged author and the fantastic, late Gene Wilder was cast perfectly to lead this all. Yet, as eerily cheerful and mysteriously entrancing as this film may be, there is no doubt in my mind that it has cemented itself as a classic for generations.

Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder), an extremely famous chocolatier and founder of the largest candy factory on the planet, sends out five golden tickets in his famous Wonka bars to be found by a handful of children. When Charlie Bucket (Peter Ostrum) ends up buying one of the lucky bars, he goes with his grandpa Joe (Jack Albertson) to the factory for a day full of tumultuous fun with the other children in a secret test to see who is the truest of heart. This absolutely manic story could not have come from the mind of anyone other than Roald Dahl and the fact that he wrote the script for this film makes it all the better. Dahl's story and its true insanity might have been lost if someone else had tried to adapt his book and even though Dahl is not usually one to write for the screen, he did a fantastic job tying everything together in a short, neat, package. Dahl writing the screenplay also makes much more sense as to why this initial cinematic version of the story is much more faithful to the original novel. In my opinion, it is always best suited for movies adapted from books for the author themselves to be involved so as to translate their vision to the screen. Dahl's script does an amazing job of this and he also makes plenty of distinctions between his book and this film to make them stand apart just the right amount. This movie, while childlike in nature, has a surprisingly mature tone to it and this is what brings me the most enjoyment. The characters are written so well and the chemistry that they all have as a group touring the factory makes for some unforgettable moments and quotable scenes. I also love the ambiguity regarding the character of Wonka himself and lots of the story's choices. Where Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory went wrong was explaining itself far too often. The audience does not necessarily always need to know about Wonka's backstory or about where he found the Oompa Loompas, which takes away from the magic of this candyman who runs the largest chocolate factory in the world. Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, however, avoids these problems by relying on Wilder to carry these questionable yet humorous qualities within him. There is no need to know the deeper reasoning behind Wonka as a character when you have his mystical aura making the audience comfortable.

Mel Stuart's direction throughout this film is incredible. I have not watched this film entirely through for quite a number of years now and I just now remember how late into the film the audience is actually thrown into the chocolate factory. That is not bad, however, because the first 45 minutes or so chronicling the world's pandemonium over getting a golden ticket is amazing. It was so fascinating to see how Stuart handled all of the comedic and subtly frightening scenes from all around the world and the insane lengths that people would go to just to find one of the five chocolate bars. These sequences not only make for some of the greatest laughs throughout this movie but help to reflect much of these filmmakers' concern for extreme consumerism. Inescapable consumerism and the greediness of human nature are major themes riddling this film but the way that Stuart humanizes this story into the lovely little character of Charlie says so much about his talents as a director. This is also due in part to the unforgettably iconic performance by Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. He was cast absolutely perfectly in this movie and his slightly cynical attitude towards the most arrogant of the children was hilarious. Not only is Wilder the best portrayal of Wonka that we have ever gotten but the other performances from the children in this film were great as well. All of these performers are also very musically talented and that was obviously an important part of this film. There are some songs that are a bit less memorable than others but the musical scenes flow so smoothly in and out of this story and do not feel out of place at all. The set and costume design of this film is also vastly impressive: the fact that every different set had to be made with a wildly different color palette and style of production design is completely crazy to me. The set pieces being equal parts wonderful and terrifying help to make this film the legendary tale that it has become.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory is a sugar-crazed film that will never die and regardless of how many iterations of this story studios produce, nothing can capture the magic of this original. Gene Wilder is practically synonymous with this role and the fact that this story rings in the minds of people even today is phenomenal. Every kid's dream is to spend a lifetime living in a candy factory but Stuart, Dahl, and Wilder embody its dark side just as well, if not better.

My Rating: ★★★★★

A Serious Man (2009) directed by Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Starting the new year off right with yet another film from my favorite pair of directorial siblings, A Serious Man might be one of my most personally divisive films from the Coens. I have heard nothing but praise about this movie and upon finding out that it is currently available on Netflix, I was very excited to finally catch up to it. However, while I adore and appreciate the signature, existential style that the Coens infuse into their entire body of work, I could not connect with this one too much. This is most likely because much of the biblical meaning was lost on me due to not being Jewish. I had to look up many explanations for this film afterward and while I do not typically enjoy doing that, I really could not get myself to understand what this was supposed to be about without a bit of closure. Thankfully that did not hurt my viewing experience, however, and despite the biblical references and metaphorical aspects completely flying over my head, I was still able to greatly enjoy this movie knowing that the Coens were in charge.

Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), an amicable and passive man living in the suburbs with his wife Judith (Sari Lennick) and two children, finds his entire life thrown upside down when Judith files for a divorce because of her love for a new man, Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). As Larry's family life begins to unravel, so does his career and personal life and in the matter of a few days, he tries to seek answers but only finds himself getting deeper into trouble. If nothing else, the one thing that Ethan and Joel Coen are known for has to be their deeply metaphorical use of bleak humor and existentialism. This has always been what I enjoy so much about their films: despite how ambiguous an audience member might think a movie they just watched by them is, it probably isn't. A Serious Man definitely continues this trend but its message got vastly lost in my head. I am not Jewish and so a good majority of this film's meaning and references completely went over my head. It is not until after the film that I found out it is based upon the Book of Job and upon further Googling, I was able to make some much-needed connections. Even without knowledge of this Jewish connection, though, I really enjoyed the story of one man's crumbling life and the questioning of his own faith. Luckily, I was also still able to adore this movie and the directorial style that I have come to expect from the Coens. The dark humor throughout this movie and the recurring gags that litter the dialogue are something that Ethan and Joel specialize in and I will forever love this about their screenwriting. The brothers' direction in this movie is just like every other addition to their filmography and I love how quietly anxious everything about this movie was. The audience can tell from the very start that this nearly perfect, Jewish suburbia was going to be disrupted and the buildup to that climax was worth all the wait. This film does wonders with its quirky tone, like if the Safdie brothers had a creatively Wes Anderson mindset. And even though I might not have understood everything about what they were saying with lots of the biblical subtext, it made me do some research and actually expand my knowledge about a different religion and culture: something that not many films can actually cause me to do.

The technical elements making up this movie were beautiful, as to be expected, but the cinematography from Roger Deakins made it that much more special. The use of Dutch angles not only helped to make me feel uneasy about many of Larry's dream sequences but made this film much more interesting as a composition. All of the performances in this film are also fantastic, from the condescending nature of Sy Ableman to the authentic teenage-ness of Larry's son Danny, but the complete standout is Michael Stuhlbarg's Larry Gopnik. The way that Stuhlbarg embodies this serious man's descent is fascinating and through a series of bad days, he is broken down so much that I feel like only he could personify. Through just the stubble that is seen on his face or the lighting making the bags under his eyes even worse, the downfall of Larry is absolutely personified in Stuhlbarg in the best ways possible. It is also so fascinating to see a mild-mannered man like Larry begin to question his faith and question the environment around him when his world is falling in on itself. This was what I enjoyed most about the film and the way that it plays with Jewish eccentricities without making anything appear stereotypical was fantastic. While I personally enjoy the theme of questioning reality and *almost* breaking the fourth wall much better in Burn After Reading and I enjoy the more mature aspects of their direction much more in Inside Llewyn Davis, the fact that the Coens are still able to translate this classic, biblical tale into their own style is undeniably impressive. They can really turn anything into a metaphor. This film might not be my favorite of the brothers but their metaphorical form of storytelling is certainly one of the most impactful I have ever seen from a pair of filmmakers.

A Serious Man is one that I might need to revisit sometime soon. After having to research exactly what was being conveyed in this film, I feel like I need more time to fully appreciate this biblical adaptation. Even though I was a bit lost in what message these filmmakers were attempting to express, there are still so many elements of this film to love, including the performances, motifs, and unexpectedly flawless direction from the Coens.

My Rating: ★★★½